“Spatial Distance” and Preferences for redistribution in cities
The redistributive politics literature examines how the level of income inequality determines preferences for redistribution. In this paper, I show that inequality no longer predicts preferences in population-dense settings. I show that especially in cities, class-based segregation –"spatial" instead of "social distance"– is a stronger predictor of redistributive preferences. I clarify the concept of "spatial distance," and illustrate two core mechanisms through which it affects redistributive attitudes: 1) negative spatial externalities (e.g., crime) for the rich, and 2) perceptions of relative deprivation among the poor. I argue that because exposure to crime breeds a level of aversion towards the poor, spatially integrated (de-segregated) cities have reduced support for redistribution among the rich. Using a proposed shift-share instrumental variable for estimating the effects of segregation ("spatial distance"), I find that proximity to the poor (i.e., reduced segregation) causally dampens middle- and upper-class preferences for redistribution. In contrast, proximity to the rich increases preferences for redistribution among the poor, because it enables them to perceive their relative deprivation. Thus, while "social distance" models predict that social proximity should generate empathy among the rich, actual physical proximity to the poor generates aversion through the spatial externalities of inequality. The analysis introduces "spatial distance" as a largely neglected dimension for understanding preferences for redistribution. It highlights how beyond the risk of becoming poor featured in insurance models of redistribution, there are more localized forms of risk from living proximate to the poor.
