Public Attitudes Toward Social Spending in the United States: The Differences Between Direct Spending and Tax Expenditures
- 1k Downloads
This paper uses a survey experiment to examine differences in public attitudes toward ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ government spending. Federal social welfare spending in the USA has two components: the federal government spends money to directly provide social benefits to citizens, and also indirectly subsidizes the private provision of social benefits through tax expenditures. Though benefits provided through tax expenditures are considered spending for budgetary purposes, they differ from direct spending in several ways: in the mechanisms through which benefits are delivered to citizens, in how they distribute wealth across the income spectrum, and in the visibility of their policy consequences to the mass public. We develop and test a model explaining how these differences will affect public attitudes toward spending conducted through direct and indirect means. We find that support for otherwise identical social programs is generally higher when such programs are portrayed as being delivered through tax expenditures than when they are portrayed as being delivered by direct spending. In addition, support for tax expenditure programs which redistribute wealth upward drops when citizens are provided information about the redistributive effects. Both of these results are conditioned by partisanship, with the opinions of Republicans more sensitive to the mechanism through which benefits are delivered, and the opinions of Democrats more sensitive to information about their redistributive effects.
KeywordsGovernment spending Social policy Social welfare Public opinion
The authors wish to thank Bill Jacoby and Matthew Dabros for helpful comments on this project.
- Bartels, L. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Cantril, A., & Cantril, S. D. (1999). Reading mixed signals: Ambivalence in public opinion about government. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Press.Google Scholar
- Cook, F. L., & Barrett, E. J. (1992). Support for the American welfare state: The views of Congress and the public. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Employee Benefits Research Institute. (2009). EBRI Issue Brief #336: Employment-based retirement plan participation: Geographic differences and trends, 2008. Retrieved January 5, 2013 from http://www.ebri.org/publications/ib/index.cfm?fa=ibDisp&content_id=4402.
- Free, L. A., & Cantril, H. (1969). The political beliefs of Americans: A study of public opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
- Goren, P. (2001). Core principles and policy reasoning in mass publics: A test of two theories. British Journal of Political Science, 31(1), 159–177.Google Scholar
- Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2006). Off center: The Republican Revolution and the erosion of American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-take-all politics. New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
- Haselswerdt, J., & Bartels, B. L. (2011). Comparing attitudes toward tax breaks and spending programs: Evidence from a survey experiment. Working Paper.Google Scholar
- Howard, C. (1997). The hidden welfare state: Tax expenditures and social policy in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Howard, C. (1999). The hidden welfare state: Tax expenditures and social policy in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Howard, C. (2007). The welfare state nobody knows. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12(1), 19–40.Google Scholar
- Iyengar, S. (1994). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Kellstedt, P. M. (2000). Media framing and the dynamics of racial policy preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 239–255.Google Scholar
- Mettler, S. (2008). The transformed welfare state and the redistribution of political voice. In P. Pierson & T. Skocpol (Eds.), The transformation of American politics: Activist government and the rise of conservatism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Obama, B. (2011). Speech on deficit cutting. Washington, DC: George Washington University. Retrieved April 13, 2011 from http://www.npr.org/2011/04/13/135383045/.
- Schneider, S., & Jacoby, W. (2005). Elite discourse and American public opinion: The case of welfare spending. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 367–379.Google Scholar
- Sears, D. O., & Citrin, J. (1981). Tax revolt: Something for nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Soroka, S., & Wlezien, C. (2010). Degrees of democracy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Surrey, S. S. (1974). Pathways to tax reform: The concept of tax expenditures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Wlezien, C. (2004). Patterns of representation: Dynamics of public preferences and policy. Journal of Politics, 66(1), 1–24.Google Scholar