手法を比較

	Redistribution Preference Analysis	Welfare Regime Analysis
分野	Political Economy	Political Economy
系統	Regression model	Process / pipeline
提唱年	1981	1990
提唱者	Allan Meltzer & Scott Richard (self-interest); Roland Benabou & Efe Ok (mobility/POUM)	Gosta Esping-Andersen
種類	Individual-level survey regression of redistribution attitudes	Comparative typological framework
原典	Meltzer, A. H., & Richard, S. F. (1981). A Rational Theory of the Size of Government. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 914-927.	Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691028576
別名	Demand for Redistribution Analysis, Redistribution Attitudes Regression, Preferences for Redistribution Model, Support for Redistribution Analysis	Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Welfare State Regime Typology, Esping-Andersen Welfare Typology, Decommodification Analysis
関連	3	3
概要	Redistribution preference analysis examines why individuals support or oppose government efforts to reduce inequality. The self-interest baseline comes from Meltzer and Richard's 1981 model, in which the demand for redistribution falls with one's own income because the rich pay more and receive less from transfers. Benabou and Ok's 2001 POUM (prospect of upward mobility) hypothesis adds a forward-looking twist: people who expect to climb the income ladder may oppose redistribution even when currently poor, because they anticipate being net payers tomorrow. A third strand emphasizes beliefs about fairness — whether success reflects effort or luck. The empirical method is an individual-level survey regression, typically ordered logit or multilevel, of redistribution attitudes on income, mobility expectations, beliefs, and contextual factors.	Welfare regime analysis classifies welfare states not by how much they spend but by the qualitative logic of how they distribute welfare, following Gosta Esping-Andersen's 1990 The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Its two organizing concepts are decommodification — the degree to which people can sustain a livelihood independent of the market — and stratification — the patterns of social inequality that welfare arrangements reproduce or alter. On these dimensions Esping-Andersen identified three clustered regime types: the liberal, the conservative-corporatist, and the social-democratic. His 1999 sequel extended the framework to the family and the postindustrial service economy, and a large critical literature has since debated additional types.