Income Inequality and Policy Responsiveness

Erikson, Robert S.

doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-020614-094706

Cited by 135 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By now, there is solid evidence for two patterns that probably reinforce each other (Piven & Cloward 1988): relatively low turnout among poor voters and stronger responsiveness of political elites to the preferences of better-off citizens (Erikson 2015;Gilens & Page 2014;Rosset et al 2013). By now, there is solid evidence for two patterns that probably reinforce each other (Piven & Cloward 1988): relatively low turnout among poor voters and stronger responsiveness of political elites to the preferences of better-off citizens (Erikson 2015;Gilens & Page 2014;Rosset et al 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Anti‐elite parties and political inequality: How challenges to the political mainstream reduce income gaps in internal efficacy

Marx

Nguyen

2018

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is growing interest in political inequality across income groups. This article contributes to this debate with two arguments about political involvement: poverty depresses internal political efficacy by undermining cognitive and emotional resources; and dissent in the party system reduces the efficacy gap to higher incomes. Specifically, conflict is to be expected between anti‐elite and mainstream parties to simplify political decisions and stimulate political attention among poor voters. These arguments are supported with comparative and experimental analyses. Comparative survey data shows that the income gap in efficacy varies with a novel measure of the anti‐elite salience in the party system. The causal impact of anti‐elite rhetoric is established though a representative survey experiment. Finally, the article investigates how these mechanisms affect both electoral and other forms of political participation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Anti‐elite parties and political inequality: How challenges to the political mainstream reduce income gaps in internal efficacy

Marx

Nguyen

2018

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is growing evidence that voters with low incomes, weak labour market attachment and other social problems are poorly represented in politics (Rueda 2007;Hacker & Pierson 2010;Rosset et al 2013;Erikson 2015). As a consequence of politicians' unresponsiveness, voters with low socioeconomic status might become alienated from politics and develop negative attitudes, such as low external efficacy or cynicism (Lindvall & Rueda 2014;Emmenegger et al 2015).…”

Section: Expressive Motivementioning

confidence: 99%

Do Poor Citizens Vote for Redistribution, Against Immigration or Against the Establishment? A Conjoint Experiment in Denmark

Marx

Schumacher

2018

Scand Pol Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the link between socioeconomic disadvantage and vote choice? The literature on this question is fragmented and points to motivations based on welfare policy, immigration policy or anti‐establishment sentiments. To test which of these motives explains differences in voting behaviour between classes, a conjoint experiment in which fictitious candidates present randomly assigned positions was designed. The experiment evaluated the relative importance of the position on welfare, immigration and anti‐establishment as well as candidates’ occupational background. By splitting the analyses into lower, middle‐ and upper class voters, it was found that lower class voters are most distinct from other voters in their preferences for anti‐establishment candidates. Strikingly, lower class voters even support welfare retrenchment, as long as it is an anti‐establishment candidate proposing it. The experiment also found a general tendency to vote against career politicians across classes and remarkably few differences regarding immigration preferences.

show abstract

“… See Erikson () for a review of recent debates about the relevance of the M‐R model in the U.S. context, and a related discussion of political inequalities between rich and poor. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Policy Perspectives on Economic Inequality in Wealthy Countries

Giordono¹,

Jones²,

Rothwell³

2019

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay reviews the policy‐oriented literature on economic inequality in wealthy countries published from 2008 to 2018. We focus on this decade because it is a period bookended by both the beginnings of the Great Recession of 2008–2009 as well as the recovery. During this timeframe, attention to inequality by social policy scholars grew substantially, which we argue reflects an interest in both inequality trends as well as redistributive social policy. We observe in the literature sustained efforts to understand both the relationship between social policy and economic inequality, as well as determinants of changes to redistributive social policy. We also note substantial variation in research traditions, as well as opportunities to address substantive, methodological, and theoretical gaps. Our review summarizes the approaches and findings from the literature and discusses the implications of the findings for the study of economic inequality within the academic field of public policy.

show abstract

Income Inequality and Policy Responsiveness

Cited by 135 publications

References 39 publications

Anti‐elite parties and political inequality: How challenges to the political mainstream reduce income gaps in internal efficacy

Anti‐elite parties and political inequality: How challenges to the political mainstream reduce income gaps in internal efficacy

Do Poor Citizens Vote for Redistribution, Against Immigration or Against the Establishment? A Conjoint Experiment in Denmark

Social Policy Perspectives on Economic Inequality in Wealthy Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About