It is commonly assumed that Americans do not oppose increasing inequality. After all, a consensus among social scientists exists that most Americans favor equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, and the public has supported welfare state retrenchment and regressive tax cuts, both of which increase inequality. However, this belief may be a misinterpretation of American values and policy preferences.Recent research on public attitudes regarding inequality has shown that Americans have strong concerns that income differences are too large, and these views are mainly dependent on perceptions of the "deservingness" of different income groups. In addition, policy preferences may be a poor indicator of how the public sees inequality.

What the Public Believes about Inequality
While most Americans believe equality of opportunity is more important than equality of outcome, survey data shows a significant portion of the public is aware of and unnerved by rising inequality of outcome. In a paper soon to be published, Professor Leslie McCall of Northwestern University examined survey data from 1987 to 2000 on public attitudes toward inequality and found significant opposition to it:

Even at their lowest points during the period under study, 58, 49, and 38 percent of Americans strongly agreed or agreed that income differences are too large, that inequality continues to exist because it benefits the rich and powerful, and that inequality is unnecessary for prosperity, respectively. At their peaks in 1992 and 1996, these shares rose to 77, 63, and 58 percent. These are significant increases that remain so after extensive controls for compositional and behavioral shifts.

McCall concluded that the public may see outcomes as a measurement of the availability of economic opportunity. Attitudes about inequality depended on the state of the economy and how broadly prosperity was shared. If only the rich are getting richer, Americans may believe that opportunities are not being made available to enough people. In short, inequality may be tolerated only if it is a sufficient condition of upward mobility in the nation as a whole.

An alternative theory, articulated by Professor Christina Wong at Carnegie Mellon University, is the public's preference for redistribution depends on whether incomes are perceived as fairly acquired. Americans tend to judge the fairness of market outcomes by effort, talent and societal contribution. Opposition to inequality may grow if the public becomes skeptical that the market rewards these traits and behaviors, or if the wealthy are primarily perceived as the beneficiaries of luck or family background.

Both researchers seem to have found that the public's attitude towards different aspects of inequality is most influenced by how people view social groups. Much opposition to redistribution is rooted in the racially-tinged belief that poor people do not work hard enough to deserve assistance, and that they are unwilling to take advantage of readily available opportunities. Yet support for redistribution could arise from beliefs that the rich may not work hard enough to justify a large income, or may be taking unfair advantage of opportunities unavailable to others.

According to McCall and Wong, perceptions of the poor, the middle class and the rich also appear to be malleable, being highly dependent on the type and quantity of media coverage, while loosely tracking trends of rising inequality. And minorities, who may be more aware of discrimination in market outcomes, and college-educated respondents tended to express stronger support for redistribution.

Inequality, Policy and the Market
Policy preferences may not only be affected by beliefs regarding "who deserves what," but of the state and the market.

A limited set of policies that address inequality seem to attract public support. McCall found that significant support exists for reducing inequality, but not through policies that are connected to poverty reduction or progressive taxation (though in 1992, concern about inequality probably led to greater support for taxing the rich). Increased educational funding, for example, consistently resonated as a solution for inequality.

The public also fails to recognize — or be concerned — that policies they favor are not in line with their views on inequality. The public may have supported the regressive tax cuts of 2001-2006 out of dislike for taxation, connected in part to their perception of whether they pay too much in taxes. Professor Larry Bartels of Princeton University analyzed a survey of public opinion regarding these tax cut packages and found significant support for tax cuts regardless of who they actually benefited. Even people who disliked rising inequality still supported the tax cuts.

Many people also look toward the market, rather than the government, to address inequality. Pollster Stan Greenberg observed, in focus groups held in 1996, that people who aspire to a better-than-average lifestyle see government as offering limited help — even as being an obstacle to advancement:

This struggle to rise above the average is highly personal. It depends on people's qualities and attitudes, on their personal determination to improve themselves and get an education. It depends on the support and work of family members. Without those things, one would struggle like the rest of America, not getting anywhere. But the resources and strategies are private; as one of the men bluntly put it, "Unless you're willing to watch out for yourself or do something for yourself, nobody else is really going to help you."

When asked who is on their side, about a third of the participants look to family, about 10 percent look to friends, and about a quarter look to the church. People have little expectation that civic organizations will rise to their defense or advance their interests. Barely anybody thinks of unions. Barely one in ten of the participants mention political leaders as a force on their side.

In addition, McCall argued the public tendency to rely on the market and a limited set of policies may be a product of history and institutional configurations.

One way to partially reconcile these opposing perspectives — though, admittedly, it gives more credence to the former "persistence" perspective — is to suggest that existing levels of welfare state generosity will condition the response to similar rises in inequality across countries. Support for redistributive policies will increase where generosity is taken for granted (i.e., in social democratic societies), while it will be unaffected where generosity is more limited (i.e., in liberal market societies), reinforcing existing regimes.

Views about government, however, may not always be static and self-reinforcing. Greenberg found a significant change in attitudes once respondents were exposed to pro-government statements. Indeed, the persistence of rising inequality and the destabilizing affects of globalization, technological change and policy retrenchment may provide an opening for a progressive message that generates support for selective government intervention, if it taps and shapes public beliefs in equality of opportunity and market fairness.