Why do many political scientists and economists believe that states and localities should not be in charge of redistributive programs?

Because States and local governments have to compete with each other and therefore do no have an incentive to spend money on the needy people in their areas.

Explanation:

Both state and local governments are poorly equipped to redistribute wealth, according to many political scientists and economists. Many of the needy are not capitalised into home prices or rents, to encourage subsidised housing and several other support systems that will improve the lives of poor people in the community ... But in preference, some believe that states and the federal government should give local governments a larger role.

Answer: States and local government have to compete with each other and do not have, therefore, an incentive to spend their money on the needy people in their area.

Explanation: Redistributive programs are schemes which are aimed at transferring or distribution of wealth, usually to the needy in the society by the government. Redistributive programs takes the form of charity, welfare programs, poverty alleviation program. Distributive programs may also take the form of wealth, property and income transfer from an individual to another due to confiscation of property, divorce and so on.

However in redistributive programs undertaken by the government, political scientists are of the opinion that states and localities aren't so financially equipped to take responsibility for redistributive programs.