Rising levels of income inequality have been directly linked to rising levels of spatial segregation. In this paper we explore whether rising segregation may in turn erode support for the redistributive policies of the welfare state, further increasing levels of inequality—a form of positive feedback. The role of the neighbourhood has been neglected in attitudes research but, building on both political geography and ‘neighbourhood effects’ literatures, we theorise that neighbourhood context may shape attitudes through the transmission of attitudes directly and through the accumulation of relevant knowledge. We test this through multilevel modelling of data from England on individual attitudes to redistribution in general and to welfare benefit recipients in particular. We show that the individual factors shaping these attitudes are quite different and that the influence of neighbourhood context also varies as a result. The findings support the idea that neighbourhood context shapes attitudes, with the knowledge accumulation mechanism likely to be the more important. Rising spatial segregation would appear to erode support for redistribution but to increase support for welfare recipients—at least in a context where the dominant media discourse presents such a stigmatising image of those on welfare benefits.
BaileyN, 2011, “The impacts of neighbourhood context on attitudes to poverty and inequality: Constructing the neighbourhood database”, working paper, University of Glasgow, http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_253716_en.pdf
2.
BamfieldLHortonT, 2009Understanding Attitudes to Tackling Inequality (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York)
3.
BellBAFerronJMKromreyJD, 2008, “Cluster size in multilevel models: The impact of sparse data structures on point and interval estimates in two-level models”Proceedings of the Joint Statistical Meetings1122–1129
4.
BowlesSGintisH, 2000“Reciprocity, self-interest and the welfare state”Nordic Journal of Political Economy2633–53
5.
CheshirePMonastiriotisVSheppardS, 2003, “Income inequality and residential segregation: Labour market sorting and the demand for positional goods”, in Geographies of Labour Market Inequality Eds MartinRMorrisonPS, (Routledge, London) pp 83–109
CoxKR, 1969, “The voting decision in a spatial context”, in Progress in Geography: Volume 1 Eds BoardCChorleyRJHaggettPStoddartyDR, (Edward Arnold, London) pp 81–117
8.
Crook ATDH, Whitehead CME, 2002, “Social housing and planning gain: Is this an appropriate way of providing affordable housing?”Environment and Planning A341259–1279
9.
DorlingDReesP, 2003, “A nation still dividing: The British census and social polarisation 1971–2001”Envionment and Planning A351287–1313
10.
DurlaufSN, 2004“Neighbourhood effects”, in Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics-Volume 4: Cities and Geography Eds HendersonJVThisseJ-F, (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 2173–2242
11.
DWP, 2012Households Below Average Incomes: An Analysis of the Income Distribution 1994/95–2010/11 (Department for Work and Pensions, London)
12.
GalsterG, 2007, “Should policy makers strive for neighbourhood social mix? An analysis of the Western European evidence base”Housing Studies22523–545
13.
GalsterG, 2012, “The mechanism(s) of neighbourhood effects: Theory, evidence and policy implications”, in Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives Eds van HamMManleyDBaileyNSimpsonLMaclennanD, (Springer, Dordrecht) pp 23–56
14.
GalsterGAnderssonRMusterdSKauppinenTM, 2008, “Does neighbourhood income mix affect earnings of adults? New evidence from Sweden”Journal of Urban Economics83858–870
15.
GoldingPMiddletonS, 1982Images of Welfare: Press and Public Attitudes to Welfare (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
16.
HasenfeldYRaffertyJA, 1989“The determinants of public attitudes toward the welfare state”Social Forces671027–1048
17.
HedgesA, 2005, “Perceptions of redistribution: Report on exploratory qualitative research” CASE Paper 96 (Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics)
18.
HopkinsDJ, 2011, “National debates, local responses: The origins of local concern about immigration in Britain and the United States”British Journal of Political Science41499–524
19.
HortonTGregoryJ, 2009The Solidarity Society: Why We Can Afford to End Poverty, and How to do it with Public Support (Fabian Society, London)
20.
JohnstonRJonesKSarkerRPropperCBurgessSBolsterA, 2004, “Party support and the neighbourhood effect: Spatial polarisation of the British electorate, 1991–2001”Political Geography23367–402
21.
JonesCMurieA, 2006The Right to Buy: Analysis and Evaluation of a Housing Policy (Blackwell, Oxford)
22.
LawlessPPearsonS, 2012“Outcomes from community engagement in urban regeneration: Evidence from England's New Deal for Communities Programme”Planning Theory and Practice13509–527
23.
LinosKWestM, 2003, “Self-interest, social beliefs, and attitudes to redistribution.”European Sociological Review19393–409
24.
MaasCJMHoxJJ, 2005, “Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling”Methodology186–92
25.
NatCen, 2011British Social Attitudes Survey 2009. Study Number SN6695 computer file, National Centre for Social Research, UK Data Archive, Colchester, Essex (distributor)
26.
OECD, 1998Integrating Distressed Urban Areas (OECD, Paris)
27.
OECD, 2011Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising (OECD, Paris)
28.
PapadakisEBeanC, 1993“Popular support for the welfare state: A comparison between institutional regimes”Journal of Public Policy13227–254
29.
ParkAPhillipsMRobinsonC, 2007Attitudes to Poverty: Findings from the British Social Attitudes Survey (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York)
PiersonP, 2000, “Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics”American Political Science Review94251–267
32.
PikettyT, 1995, “Social mobility and redistributive politics”Quarterly Journal of Economics110551–584
33.
RasbashJCharltonCBrowneWJHealyMCameronB, 2010MLwiN Version 2.16Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol
34.
RokeachM, 1968Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA)
35.
RuncimanWG, 1966Relative Deprivation and SocialJjustice (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London)
36.
SeftonT, 2005“Give and take: Attitudes to redistribution”, in British Social Attitudes 22nd Report Eds ParkACurticeJThomsonKBromleyCPhillipsMJohnsonM, (Sage, London) pp 1–32
37.
SeftonT, 2009, “Moving the right direction? Public attitudes to poverty, inequality and redistribution”, in Towards a More Equal Society? Poverty, Inequality and Policy Since 1997 Eds HillsJSeftonTStewartK, (Policy Press, Bristol) pp 223–244
38.
SternPCKalofLDietzTGuagnanoGA, 1995, “Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects”Journal of Applied Social Psychology251611–1636
39.
SvallforsS, 1997“Worlds of welfare and attitudes to redistribution: A comparison of eight Western nations”European Sociological Review13283–304
40.
Taylor-GoobyPMartinR, 2008, “Trends in sympathy for the poor”, in British Social Attitudes: The 24th Report Eds ParkACurticeJThomsonKPhillipsMJohnsonMCCleryE, (Sage, London) pp 229–258
41.
ThøgersenJGrunert-BeckmannSC, 1997, “Values and attitude formation towards emerging attitude objects: From recycling to general, waste minimizing behavior.”Advances in Consumer Research24182–189
42.
van HamMManleyDBaileyNSimpsonLMaclennanD, 2012Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives (Springer, Dordrecht)
43.
van OorschotW, 2000, “Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public”Policy and Politics2833–48
44.
van OorschotW, 2006, “Making the difference in social Europe: Deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states”Journal of European Social Policy1623–42
