Welfare policy studies have become a genuine subfield of public policy over the past several decades. Attitudes toward redistribution policy are an ever-more salient issue that has sparked interest across disciplines of social sciences, especially in Europe. In Group Interests, Individual Attitudes, Michael J. Donnelly makes an important contribution to this field of study by offering a new heuristic theory that is supported empirically by a strong mixed-method approach.

The book focuses on two core questions: (1) What drives support for redistributive taxation and spending? and (2) why is ethnic diversity associated with inequality and a lack of redistribution? Arguably, these two questions can be addressed using a wide range of methods and data, from well-established large-N surveys (European Social Survey, World Values Survey, and Eurobarometer, just to name a few) to more qualitative-driven research consisting of interviews or focus groups. The usual qualitative–quantitative divide has often been criticized for offering a biased vision of complex social realities. Donnelly is well aware of these shortcomings: the author’s arguments therefore rely on both quantitative data and mostly exploratory interviews conducted with activists, politicians, and interest group officials in two countries (the United Kingdom and Slovakia). The analysis is also partially expanded to three other countries (more on the case selection later).

Donnelly develops a heuristic theory of group membership and of attitudes toward redistribution (chap. 2). Eight hypotheses are tested in this book, relating to widespread variables such as the salience of ethnic or regional inequalities, or the role of institutions in shaping redistributive preferences. These variables are covered quite extensively in chapters 4–9. Although Donnelly bases most of the empirical findings on his original fieldwork, he also uses well-established studies to contextualize and support his argument. As such, the book uses a wealth of empirical data to provide an answer to the two core questions mentioned earlier and to support the heuristic theory presented in chapter 2.

This excellent book gives the reader a lot to unpack, both theoretically and empirically. The theory, hypotheses, and empirical observations are all presented in a convincing and accessible manner; therefore, they do not require an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter to comprehend, despite its very complex nature. It is methodologically outstanding, if not flawless. Some readers might feel uneasy at times because the book consistently cuts across traditional disciplinary boundaries, but Donnelly just as consistently manages to bring us back on track by asking the right questions, reminding the reader of where we stand in the broad argument being made, and drawing the lessons to be learned throughout each chapter. In other words, the book’s narrative makes up for its complex mixed-methods and interdisciplinary approach.

There is only so much one can do and cover within the framework of a single research project, but one might criticize the book for being too Eurocentric at times. Five countries are covered in the book: most of the empirical analysis compares the United Kingdom to Slovakia, but additional analyses focus on Canada, Germany, and Italy. The justification for these case studies makes sense, yet one sentence caught my attention: as a case study, the United Kingdom is used to investigate the longer-term and more ingrained effects of group inequality, given the country’s “stable regional and ethnic politics (at least up until June of 2016)” (p. 52). This can be a drawback: as we are all aware (and Donnelly acknowledges, on p. 200), Brexit created a significant shock that affected and continues to affect Britain’s domestic politics, especially in terms of migration. These changing dynamics could be addressed by scholars studying group attitudes, and therefore using Donnelly’s contributions as a starting point for their analysis. Another challenge is the limited ability to generalize the findings of this study. Although elements of the analysis expand the book’s geographical scope by using larger studies such as the European Social Survey, I would have liked to see a broader reflection on the empirical findings that not only cuts across the traditional worlds of the welfare state but also addresses how they will stand the test of time. These limitations are, however, well-acknowledged by Donnelly in the concluding chapter (section 10.5).

At times, I was a bit confused by the methodological complexity of the study and risked being overwhelmed by the wealth of data it offered. This might not come as a surprise, given that Donnelly breaks the mold by using complex mixed methods to investigate a complex issue. Perhaps, however, some data could have been presented in a more straightforward way. The sources of the data in the empirical analyses (chaps. 4–9) are also not always clear. The reader should carefully read appendices A and, most importantly, B before moving from chapter 3 to chapter 4. Placing this material in the appendices might have been an editorial decision to make the book more appealing to a wider audience, of course, but I found such an abrupt separation of data unexpected and slightly disconcerting. What I really missed, however, is more use of the interviews conducted by the author and more information about the questions asked and their usefulness within the framework of this research.

However, I consider these two critiques as trivial because Group Interests, Individual Attitudes is a genuinely impressive contribution to the existing literature on preferences toward redistribution. Whatever their discipline and level of expertise on the topic (including methodological expertise), everyone will learn a lot from this book. Those readers who find some chapters a bit too technical because of differences in disciplines should turn to the concluding chapter 10, which offers a comprehensive and most accessible summary of the findings. This chapter superbly manages to bring all the pieces of this complex puzzle together.

More fundamentally, what genuinely impressed me is how Donnelly manages to make such a dense issue so appealing and comprehensible, especially to a non-expert audience, although the book certainly does not target the general public! This is a book I would recommend to most academics, including those working in completely different disciplines, because it is a model of storytelling and what I would call “accessible interdisciplinarity.” In the concluding paragraphs, Donnelly explains that, in addition to presenting a heuristic theory of group memberships and welfare attitudes, a broader objective of the book is to let the reader reflect on how disciplines such as psychology, sociology, political science. and economics “can and should speak to each other” (p. 203). This objective is certainly met.

Interdisciplinary studies used to be met with much criticism, especially by older generations of academics who might have perceived disciplinary boundaries as a means to protect themselves. Certainly, interdisciplinarity requires considerable effort from researchers, especially because most academic institutions still tend to train social scientists within existing disciplinary boundaries. Yet, through this book, Donnelly demonstrates that interdisciplinary studies can not only offer a more accurate picture of complex social realities but also remain comprehensive and appealing to a wide audience that cuts across academic fields.