Abstract

How do citizens assess whether the state or territory in which they live receives its ‘fair share’ of federal resources? We develop a theory of dual positional logic, which holds that perceptions of fiscal fairness emerge from the intersection of individual income and territorial context. Citizens experience redistribution both as individuals – through progressive taxation and transfers – and as residents of advantaged or disadvantaged places. Alignment of these positions reinforces judgments of fairness, while divergence creates cross-pressures. We test this by using a nationally representative survey module fielded in August 2023 in Australia, a federation marked by high vertical fiscal imbalance and an institutionalised system of horizontal equalisation. Results from multinomial logit models reveal a clear conditional pattern: low-income respondents in disadvantaged areas are most likely to perceive unfair treatment, with this likelihood declining sharply as local conditions improve; by contrast, high-income respondents are especially likely to perceive unfairness in affluent areas. These findings advance debates on fiscal federalism by demonstrating how individual income and place-based context jointly shape citizens attitudes toward intergovernmental redistribution.