1. Economic Inequality and Religiosity: A Look at Behavioral Differences
Between the Religious and the Non-Religious in Regards to Redistribution
Research Proposal
ResearchPuzzle:
How do the behaviors regarding distribution policies between people who are secular and people
who are religious differ and what are the implications of that on future economic equality if the
Nones continue to rise in the United States?
Description of Puzzle:
The United States stands out among the worlds’ nations as a country of great contrast. As
countries become more developed, they experience an increase in secularism and decreased
levels of religiosity. Countries with higher levels of religiosity also tend to be characterized by
higher levels of income inequality (Gurdal et al). The United States is the premier example of
this correlation. It appears that in the United States, those who are religious are significantly less
likely to support redistribution policies that would help to reduce wealth inequality. The research
of Putnam and Campbell is helpful in the case study of the behavior of the religious and the
nonreligious in America. In their research, they used personal data from people who were
surveyed about their friends and what type of volunteer work they do for the poor in order to
understand, in part, their belief in redistribution policies. Their research can help to build a better
understanding of the reasons that the United States faces such unequal distribution of wealth.
There are many possible reasons that individuals in the United States might not support
redistribution policies, but the role that religion plays may impact the development of these
beliefs.
When examining the behavioral tendencies of people in the United States who are
religious it is puzzling as to why high levels of religiosity are correlated with high levels of
inequality. People who are religious seem to be involved in more organizations and events that
promote helping the poor. Upper middle class individuals who are religious are more likely to be
friends with people on welfare and manual workers than someone of the same income level who
is not religious (Putnam and Campbell 253). Most people who attend church hear about poverty
and hunger in their church (Putnam and Campbell 432). These notions do influence behavior
among religious individuals that promotes a positive relationship between the religious and the
poor. Religious Americans are more generous than secular Americans; they volunteer for both
religious and non-religious organizations significantly more than secular Americans (Putnam and
Campbell 444-5). Religious Americans also donate more money to charitable organizations even
though they tend to be slightly poorer than secular Americans (Putnam and Campbell 448).
People in the middle of the income scale are about as religious as the very poor, both somewhat

2. religious, while the rich are somewhat secular (Putnam and Campbell 27). The combination of
knowledge and experience in dealing with problems associated with unequal distribution through
their religious organizaitons as well as the fact that they tend to be slightly poorer themselves
makes it seem likely that those who are religious would support redistribution policies.
The behavior of individuals in the United States seems counterintuitive in regards to
redistribution policies, since religious individuals donate significantly more time and money to
help the poor. While religious individuals have more cross class relationships, this does not result
in a greater support for redistribution (Putnam and Campbell 255). Those who support
antipoverty polices tend to be Democrats, the poorer and less educated, women, minorities, and
people in the North East (Putnam and Campbell 255). While many religious individuals fall
under these categories, religion seems to be a more important factor in determining whether or
not an individual will support redistribution policies. The clear exception is the Black Protestant
churches that score the highest on religiosity and support redistribution policies (Putnam and
Campbell 276). This could be explained by the importance that this church places on the social
gospel, and their hands on approach to social policies where other churches tend to preach on the
topic of poverty more than act on it. There appears to have been a change in the promotion of
policies by the Church. During the first great awakening the Church promoted equality and it
was during the industrial revolution that religious leaders were the most vocal about social
injustices (Putnam and Campbell 250). Today, many churches preach the ideals of the Gospel of
Wealth. Looking at the growth of the Mega Church and the increased preaching of the Gospel of
Wealth, it is very likely that the Church play a significant influence in how people view the
importance of money in their lives.
Some of the differences of inequality levels between the United States and Europe can be
explained through the unique behavior by religious Americans. Citizens of the United States tend
to support redistribution policies significantly less than in European nations. In Europe, we find
evidence that income inequality is viewed as a public bad, reducing the welfare of all
individuals. There is no evidence to support that this is true of Americans (Green and Yoon). We
also see that only thirty percent of American’s believe that peoples’ wealth is based on luck
rather than effort, while fifty four percent of Europeans feel that way (Benabou and Tirole 701).
These differences are likely to influence support for redistribution policies. The United States is
one of the eight countries where the proportion of poor who take right-wing attitudes on
inequality is actually greater than the proportion who takes left-wing attitudes (Huber and Stanig
6). However, the proportion of the rich and poor who support the right still differs by around
twenty percent (Huber and Stanig 7). It is unusual that people who would benefit from
redistribution policies should chose to vote for a party that does not support these policies.
The aversion to distribution policies by those who are religious has many negative
consequences on society. Religious people make up a large portion of the population and greatly
effect governmental policy. While most countries in the world see wealth positively associated
with longevity and negatively associated with religiosity, this is not true for the United States.

3. The United States is an example of wealth and high religiosity, but not the high levels of
longevity that are normally associated with such high levels of wealth (Becsi). By understanding
the reasons for aversion of redistribution policies by the religious we can better understand
whether this is due to the culture in the United States or the religion in the United States. This
information will be helpful in predicting the future levels of equality if the Nones continue to
rise.
Hypotheses:
1. Religion is used to maintain the status quo of society; the behaviors of religious
individuals hinder the welfare systemof the United States.
This hypothesis is derived from the Relative Power Theory which argues that religion serves
as a mechanism for social control of wealth, and only minimally provides comfort to the poor
(Solt et al 448). This hypothesis assumes religion to have malicious intent, which can be
supported by some behavior studies have tested for devious behavior by wealthier individuals.
Cheating, law breaking, and other unethical actions are more common among individuals of
higher socioeconomic status than the poor (Verschoor). Verschoor theorizes that this may be due
to the increased resources available to them that promote individualistic behavior, arguing
money may “give people greater feelings of entitlement”. American beliefs result from ideas
formed and controlled by the wealthier classes (Benabou and Tirole 703). This creates the
feeling of entitlement to spread throughout the country. As long as these wealthy individuals are
in control of society’s behavior, they will be able to enact policies that will allow them to
maintain their wealth and thus there will be no change in the distribution of wealth in society.
People also want to live in a “just” world, in part due to religious ideals of fairness, so they fail to
recognize what impacts that welfare policies are having.
The Church has a very large role in convincing people to enact certain policies that are
beneficial to the wealthy by providing those who are in need with incentives to follow Church
policy. When the Church has a powerful role in the social lives of the communities, such as jobs,
social programs, and networking, individuals who attend church feel greater cross-pressure to
support the party that the Church is associated with, usually the right (Huber and Stanig 10). This
could be a reason that so many poor individuals identify with the right-wing party that does not
support redistribution policies that would benefit them. While it is known that on average people
who are religious are poorer and that they tend to donate more than people who are secular, this
counter intuitive behavior can be explained by the Relative Power Theory. Donations to churches
come from a few wealthy members; slowly the church is then able to increase its membership
because it is more appealing (Solt et al 450). This also explains the growth of the Mega Church
in the United States. Money is a source of power which allows wealthy individuals to spread
their values (Solt et al 449). This also explains why the Gospel of Wealth has become such a
heavy component of religion in America.
There are very few groups in the United States who are gaining large amounts of wealth
through means other than inheritance. This lack of mobility magnifies the issues associated with

4. uneven distributions of wealth. One of the few organizations that are seeing upward mobility is
the Catholic Church. This can be explained through unique changes in their lifestyles that have
been instilled by their church. These include declining fertility, advantageous marriage patterns,
rising educational attainment, and good values regarding work and money (Keister 1196). These
values are all very individualistic and the tithing level in the Catholic Church is significantly
lower as compared to other churches (Keister 1200). This individualist behavior however is only
working towards improving the lives of individuals within the congregation and is not resulting
in political or social change outside of the church.
When individualist behavior is promoted in the church, it becomes very easy for those who
are religious to not support redistribution policies. The idea of the just world and the American
Dream keep people from seeing the severe inequity of the current distribution (Benabou and
Tirole 719). This allows for wealthy individuals to maintain enough support on policies that will
allow them to maintain their wealth. Due to the way the two party system works in America,
poor voters are forced to make tradeoffs. They must forgo interests in redistribution policies in
order to support their views in “second dimension” issues (Huber and Stanig 8). This means that
the “economic cost of religiosity is born by the poor, who must cross-over and support right-
wing parties if they wish to vote based on religion” (Huber and Stanig 8). If this hypothesis is
true, religion will continue to play a powerful role in society, continue to benefit the wealthy, and
it will not promote changes that benefit redistribution.
2. Religion is a source of comfort for people; those who are religious provide necessary
services for those in need, though the impact of charitable donation and
volunteering is not as substantial as the proposed redistribution policies that are
typically not supported by members.
Religion provides needed answers to questions of the unknown, which becomes increasingly
important during times of economic uncertainty. A more unequal society may cause citizens to
feel less secure, causing them to turn to religion as a source of comfort. Religiosity may reduce
the incentives to fight serious shortcomings such as income inequality (Gurdal et al). Religion
helps the problem at hand, but does not seek to change the system in order to prevent the
problem from occurring. Religious organizations serve as redistribution centers where private
redistribution mechanisms have become more vital (Karakoc and Baskan). High inequality
creates socioeconomic and political circumstances in which people are more likely to support the
role of religion in politics. This occurs because religious organizations play increasingly diverse
roles in people’s lives, by providing spiritual and physical support (Karakock and Baskan). The
role that religion plays is beneficial to those in need, but it cannot provide enough support to
replace political policies that could have a greater impact.
Religious individuals in America donate more time and money than secular Americans
and this behavior can be explained by the values instilled by churches. Religion plays a large role
in providing incentives for charitable giving and contributions (Gurdal et al). We see that
religions that offer less incentives for charitable giving, such as Protestants and Baptists, tent to
give much less and are more sensitive to exogenous economic incentives, making their behavior

5. more similar to secular households (Gurdal et al). However, most religious individuals are less
likely to favor redistribution policies. After running a regression, Benabou and Tirole found a
correlation between religious individual’s hard work and taxes. They found that the more
religious an individual is, the lower he wants his taxes to be and the less likely he is to support
redistribution policies (Benabou and Tirole 731). This can be explained by the individualistic
ideals encouraged by many religious organizations.
Although the intent of religious organizations is genuine, the behavioral outcomes do not
help to correct the distribution of wealth. While religiosity may increase people’s willingness to
donate, it is not enough to counter act the equality reducing effects that religious ideals support
(Gurdal et al). Similar to the previous hypothesis, the comfort provided by religion makes people
feel secure enough that they do not try to fix the redistribution problems more directly. People
who are religious feel more secure during times of uncertainty or a traumatic experience (Green
and Yoon). The greater the inequality, the more services the Church provides, which changes the
view that people have on religion, causing them to believe that it is more beneficial (Karakock
and Baskan). If they hypothesis is true, then although religion does provide necessary services
during time of need, the support that it provides is harmful to potential policy changes that could
help permanently correct the unequal distribution.. This hypothesis also demonstrates the ways in
which religion maintains the status quo of society.
3. Those who are not religious tend to support redistribution policies which help to
evenout the distribution of wealth within the United States, however, they are a
minority and do not have the power to make changes.
This hypothesis is mostly theoretical and requires additional research since the behavior of
the Nones has not been studied enough to fully analyze this hypothesis. The current evaluation of
this hypothesis requires understanding the reasons religious individuals do not support
redistribution, as described previously. Religion and state welfare spending are substitute
mechanisms for providing social insurance (Gurdal et al). The negative relationship that religion
has with overall size of government is what causes the lack of redistribution policies and thus
maintains the income inequality in the United States.
Religious ideals are promoted because a large proportion of people who live in the United
States are religious. Religious organizations socialize their members and affect their involvement
in political activities such as voting and protest participation (Karakoc and Baskan). Religion
also creates voters who are more likely to support politicians who utilize religious “clues”
(Karakoc and Baskan). This explains why religious individuals are more likely to vote. These
voters provide automatic support for candidates who are religious, and who tend not to support
redistribution policies. If religion is able to promote political activity, it is possible that without
religion the United States would see decreased political participation.
Unlike European nations, the United States has continued to see high levels of religiosity as
the country’s wealth has increased. Typically, wealth effects are positive for consumption and
longevity, and voluntary donations are a normal good. We tend to see that wealth has a
secularization effect because higher longevity raises the cost of donations relative to

6. consumption, causing donations to fall (Becsi). Becsi hypothesizes that the reason the United
States has not seen a decrease in religiosity is due to high levels of competition between
churches. The competition has resulted in an increase of consumer driven churches and mega
churches. If this hypothesis is true, then the rise of the Nones should result in redistribution
policy implementation. However, this could also result in a decrease in political activity.
Most Probable Explanation
There have been many studies done to test theories similar to the first hypothesis. While
there is a lot of data to support this theory, I do not believe it is the most probable answer. I
believe that the moderate response of hypothesis two is the most likely explanation of the
behavior of religious individuals and the reason the United States does not have strong
redistribution policies. This does not eliminate the possibility of hypothesis three being true as
well; that with the rise of fewer religious individuals we will see support for redistribution. The
third hypothesis is contingent on the behavior of those who are religious and their aversion to
redistribution policies. So long as there is unequal distribution of wealth, religion will continue to
provide comfort as described in hypothesis two, and will be viewed favorably in society. It is not
likely that the population of the Nones will rise quickly enough to change redistribution policies
in the near future.
Abstract:
This paper examines the possible reasons that the United States experiences high levels
of religiosity that are correlated with a very unequal distribution of wealth. This in part is due to
the aversion by politicians and citizens to support redistribution policies. One possible
explanation for this aversion is the ideals held by those who are religious. These individuals
make up a large proportion of the United States population and are very influential in the
outcome of elections. This paper looks at three possible explanations for the reason religious
individuals tend to not support redistribution policies. The first hypothesis is that religion is used
as a method for the rich to maintain their wealth. If this hypothesis is true, then the distribution of
wealth will continue to remain very unequal in the United States. The second hypothesis is that
while the charitable donations of the religious are genuine, they are not enough to correct
inequality as efficiently as government redistribution policies. If this hypothesis is true, then it is
also likely that the distribution of wealth will remain unequal. The final hypothesis is that those
who are not religious tend to favor redistribution policies, but as a smaller proportion of the
population, they do not have a large enough influence to enact these policies. If this hypothesis is
true, then as the population of the Nones continues to rise, it is likely that we will see increasing
support for redistribution policies. This paper concludes that the second hypothesis is the most
probable.
Annotated Bibliography:
Becsi, Zsolt. "Does Wealth Imply Secularization and Longevity?" Journal of Money, Credit
and Banking 42.1 (2010): 189-202. Print.

7. This article supports the second hypothesis as well as giving an explanation as to why the United
States has not become secular like European nations. The article explains that in most countries
the wealth is positively associated with longevity and negatively associated with religiosity. As
discussed in the article, this is not the case with the United States. The author hypothesizes that
this can be explained because of the competitive religious atmosphere that is present in the
United States. The increased competition among churches for donations increases their
fundraising efforts and thus creates a stronger community with those who participate and donate.
The opposite effect occurs when a religion holds a monopoly within a nation, such as with a state
religion. The lack of competition results in the Church to put in less effort and results in fewer
followers. The author concluded that wealth effects are positive for consumption and longevity,
and that voluntary donations are a normal good. So as we see wealth increase in the United
States, donations increase as well, causing certainty of religious beliefs to increase. When
religion is a large aspect of life, the cost associated with donating, forgone consumption, is less
than in a community where religion is less prevalent.
Benabou, Roland, and Jean Tirole. "Belief in a Just World and Redistributive
Politics*."Quarterly Journal of Economics 121.2 (2006): 699-746. Print.
This article supports the first hypothesis. This article grapples with the idea of how individuals in
a society view fair distribution of wealth and in what ways fair is defined. The authors argue that
it is important for individuals to live in a society that they feel is just, a key reason for this is
religion (708). One interesting piece of information is that 30% of Americans believe people’s
wealth is based on luck rather than effort, while 54% of Europeans feel it is based on luck (701).
The article explains this through examining various aspects of America’s society. One
explanation is that Americans believe result from ideas formed and controlled by wealthier
classes (703). The idea of the American Dream keeps people from seeing the problems of the
current distribution (719). The way an individual feels about redistribution policies is a function
of their beliefs about the expected returns (711). Religion is one of the key components in
shaping individual’s ideas about self-effort and the American Dream (723). After running a
regression, they found that correlation between religious individual’s hard work and taxes. They
found that the more religious an individual is, the lower he wants his taxes to be, and the less
likely he is to support redistribution policies (731). The study hypothesizes that it is because the
religious individual believes that hardworking people will be rewarded. Protestants are
particularly less likely to favor redistribution policies (733). Religious individuals have no
incentive to change the redistribution policies to help those in need, since in general it is believed
that they should be able to help themselves.
Greene, Kenneth V., and Bong Joon Yoon. "Religiosity, economics and life
satisfaction." Review of Social Economy 62.2 (2004): 245+. Business Insights:
Essentials. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.

8. This article supports hypothesis number two. It discusses some differences between Europeans
and Americans, that Europeans view income inequality as more of a “public bad” that reduces
welfare for all individuals, while this is not evident in America. This analysis supports
hypothesis three. This study looked at the impact that religion has on the feeling of security.
They found that the more religious a person is, the more likely they are to feel secure during
times of uncertainty or during a traumatic experience. They found that this relationship is true for
both the United States and European Nations. But when religiosity and macroeconomic
conditions are all controlled, income inequality has a negative effect on satisfaction. This
explains why in European nations when religiosity is low, income inequality is viewed as a
“public bad”.
Gurdal, Mehmet Cuneyt Y., Ceyhun Elgin, Turkmen Goksel, and Cuneyt Orman.
"Religion, Income Inequality, and the Size of the Government." Science Direct. N.p.,
Jan. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.
This article supports the second hypothesis. In the most charitable country in Europe, Spain,
people on average give half the amount of the average American. This is because religious
individuals gain a larger utility from charitable donations. This utility of charitable giving is
positively correlated with religiosity. Their willingness to donate however is not enough to
counteract the equality reducing effect of implemented policies. Through their estimated
equation modeling the utility of taxes, consumption, and charitable donation, the authors obtain
the results that as taxes increase; it causes a compression of incomes, versus the lesser
compression that occurs because of voluntary charity. They also tested the relationship between
different ways of religiosity (independent variables), and government spending on welfare
payments (to test size of government) and found that they are significant and negatively
correlated. The study demonstrates that while the charitable donations of the religious are sincere
and helpful, they do not benefit a society as much as when the government provides such
services to the poor.
Huber, John D., and Piero Stanig. "Voting Polarization on Redistribution Across
Democracies." (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.
This article supports the first hypothesis. This article tries to explain the reason that many poor
voters in the United States support Republican candidates who push for policies that do not
benefit the poor. The United States is one of only eight countries of the twenty four examined in
this study where the proportion of the poor who take a right-wing attitude on inequality is greater
than those who take a left-wing attitude (6). The authors provides an explanation for this, saying
that poor voters who are religious must forgo their belief in redistribution policies that would
help them in order to support their views on “second dimension” issues (8-9). The authors
explain that the “economic cost of religiosity is born by the poor, who must cross-over and
support right-wing parties if they wish to vote based on religion” (8). This article demonstrates a

9. problem with the two party political system in the United States. Another possible explanation is
that religion places a high value on individual responsibility, causing followers to not support
redistribution policies (9). This supports the second hypothesis. The Church also plays a large
role in the social lives of people within a community, causing people to feel cross-pressure to
support the party with which their church is associated (10).
Karakoç, Ekrem, and Birol Başkan. "Religion in Politics How Does Inequality Affect
Public Secularization?" Sage Journal (n.d.): n. pag. 23 Aug. 2012. Web. 12 Nov.
2013.
This article supports the second hypothesis. It discusses how levels of high inequality create
reliance on the Church and causes people to be more religious. Religious organizations become
redistribution centers in unequal societies. This article discusses how religious organizations
“socialize” their members which increase their involvement in political activities such as voting
and protesting. This increases the number of religious individuals voting, and these people tend
to vote for politicians who share their religious views. The article discusses the idea that as long
as there is an unequal distribution and people feel insecure about their position in society,
religion will remain present as a source of comfort. This article found that individuals in the
bottom economic quintiles have lower levels of secular attitudes, while people in higher quintiles
have much higher secular attitudes. This is in direct conflict with the first hypothesis regarding
power. The Church plays a large part of creating community involvement and without it we
could see a decrease in voter participation.
Keister, Lisa A. "Upward Wealth Mobility: Exploring the Roman Catholic
Advantage." Social Forces 85.3 (2007): 1195-225. Print.
This article supports the first hypothesis. This article gives a specific look at the Catholic Church
and the way in which it has created a community that seems to gain wealth with each generation.
An interesting not is that much of the wealth being gained has been through individual work
rather than through inheritance. The author hypothesizes that the upward wealth movement can
be attributed to declining fertility, stable marriage patterns, increased rates of education, and a
unique set of values regarding work and money (1196). Using a regression that included these
categories as well as control factors, Keister found that the hypothesized independent variables
were positive and significant (1209-13). Catholics now have similar family sizes to mainline
Protestants, and some studies show that it is actually lower (1197). Having few children as
enabled them to focus on their education and careers. The Church encourages education,
especially among women (1196). Catholic schools tend to have higher test scores (1198). Their
financial decisions are responsible, including stable investment and a hard work ethic which is
derived from their desire to provide for their families (1200). This article is useful in
understanding the ways in which behaviors based on religious belief might benefit their own

10. economic development. It provides a useful comparison between two large religious groups of
the United States, Protestants and Catholics.
Putnam, Robert D., and David E. Campbell. American Grace: How Religion Divides and
Unites Us. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Print.
This book provides basic statistics and information on behavior of religious individuals in the
United States. The study found that religious individuals do not support redistribution policies,
even though they are more generous than people who are not religious (255). This is particularly
interesting because religious individuals tend to cross more class lines in their friendships than
people who are not religious (253). Black protestants are an exception to this, they are highly
religious but their focus on the social gospel causes them support redistribution policies (280).
Religious Americans donate more money than secular Americans even though on average they
are poorer (448). This can be explained through the article by Solt et al, that those who are
donating are fewer, but extremely rich.
Solt, Frederick, Philip Habel, and J. Tobin Grant. "Economic Inequality, Relative Power,
And Religiosity." Social Science Quarterly 92.2 (2011): 447-465. EconLit with Full
Text. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.
The article supports the first hypothesis to my research question. This article tests two competing
theories regarding the relationship between religiosity and equality. The first theory, the
Deprivation Theory, argues that religious organizations provide resources for people in need, and
we therefore see an increase in religiosity among the poor as inequality increases. They disprove
this theory and provide evidence supporting their Relative Power Theory, which argues that
religion serves as a mechanism for social control of wealth, and therefore as inequality increases,
religiosity increases among the rich. They argue that this convinces poor people to be content
with their position in society and rely upon divine will. The authors describe how wealthy
individuals chose to donate money to the Church, making the Church more appealing for all
members of society and leading to the growth of the Mega Church. The study then attempts to
determine causation of this relationship. Through a regression they found that in the United
States, increased inequality in one year predicts a substantial gain in religiosity the next using
past data. However, they found that increased religiosity does not predict future inequality.
Verschoor, Curtis C. "Are the rich more Unethical and greedy?" Strategic Finance May
2012: 15+. Business Insights: Essentials. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.

11. This article helps support the first hypothesis. This article discusses the different behavioral
actions of wealthy individuals as compared to poorer individuals. The article includes multiple
tests on the behavior of individuals to determine if there is a correlation between wealth and
greed. This is important because as inequality increases, there is a larger behavioral gap within
members of society. This article argues that inequality creates behavior of wealthy individuals
that is less civil to fellow human beings. This idea is important to understanding the way
wealthier secular and wealthier religious individuals behave.