The Income Gap in Voting: Moderating Effects of Income Inequality and Clientelism

Huijsmans, Twan; Rijken, Arieke J.; Gaidytė, Teodora

doi:10.1007/s11109-020-09652-z

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In such contexts, we are likely to observe a relatively higher level of participation of citizens from lower socio-economic groups . A second channel through which the participation gap might be reduced is a growing withdrawal from political life of citizens from higher socio-economic groups, in the face of widespread vote buying and electoral bribes (Huijsmans et al, 2020). In combination, these two dynamics should produce a narrower gap in political engagement, as the studies cited here confirm.…”

Section: The How: Political Mobilizationmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…has pitted these explanations against each other, in an attempt to understand which of them are most consistently associated with the socio-economic turnout gap. The analysis here draws strongly on this work in pursuing a similar set of questions, though crucially does so in a longitudinal setting, which should partly alleviate concerns about unobserved heterogeneity operating at the between-country level (see Huijsmans et al, 2020). Although Dalton (2017, ch.…”

Section: Goals Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 89%

“…We still possess limited insights about the causes of the socio-economic (SES) participation gap in developing and developed democracies (Dalton, 2017;Fraga, 2018;Gallego, 2015;. Most of these findings point to relatively stable causes: either features of the political system, such as the degree of clientelism (Amat & Beramendi, 2016) or ballot complexity (Gallego, 2015), or institutional factors, such as welfare state design (Schneider & Makszin, 2014), or macroeconomic factors, such as the level of economic inequality (Filetti & Janmaat, 2018;Huijsmans, Rijken, & Gaidyte, 2020;Schäfer & Schwander, 2019). These explanations would suggest that the participation gap is a slow-moving feature of politics, and that we can hope to see any changes in the trend only over a few decades.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Determinants of the Socio-Economic Turnout Gap in OECD Countries

Bosancianu¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consistent evidence of variation in the participation gap between education or income groups in developing and developed democracies has begun to accrue. This points to varying disparities in participation between the haves and have nots that occasionally reach alarming levels, potentially triggering breakdowns in political representation. A few cross-sectional analyses identify institutional factors, such as voting complexity or state capacity, or economic ones, like income inequality, as driving the difference. Few explanations currently try to address why this participation gap varies over time. This is the question I take up here—I examine the extent to which the turnout gap has changed over time, and what the most robust explanations are for this temporal trend out of a set of factors grouped into 3 “families”. These sets of explanations refer to mechanisms that operate through voters’ (1) resources, (2) motivation to participate, or (3) likelihood of being mobilized at election time. Using an original pooled data set, with individual-level turnout data from 170–180 elections in 21 OECD countries, and party placement data from the MARPOR project, I show that the magnitude of the turnout gap between lower-SES and higher-SES citizens has increased over time, and that this trend has mainly been driven by the demobilization of lower-SES citizens. A two-stage analysis reveals that union density along with legislative fractionalization are the most consistent correlates of the participation gap between SES groups. The results are obtained from the most comprehensive evaluation to date of the way in which the SES-based turnout gap in advanced democracies has evolved over time. The findings contribute to our understanding of the long-term consequences for individual political behavior of institutional transformations in advanced democracies, and the democratic implications of these changes.

show abstract

Section: The How: Political Mobilizationmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Goals Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determinants of the Socio-Economic Turnout Gap in OECD Countries

Bosancianu¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, the Harmonised PolPart Dataset created in the project "How citizens try to influence politics and why?" published harmonization scripts, a replication manual, and a codebook of the final data (Huijsmans et al, 2019). The project Global Citizen Politics, published documentation and Stata scripts to apply the necessary recodes and combine the data, as well instructions, a codebook, and mapping tables for source to target variables.…”

Section: Ex-post Survey Data Harmonization Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining multiple survey sources: A reproducible workflow and toolbox for survey data harmonization

Kołczyńska

2022

Methodological Innovations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ex-post harmonization of survey data creates new opportunities for research by extending the geographical and/or time coverage of analyses. Researchers increasingly combine data from different survey projects to analyze them as a single dataset, and while teams engaged in data harmonization continue to expand the information they provide to end users, there are still no commonly agreed standards for the documentation of data processing. Existing harmonization project typically opt for recode scripts that are generally hard to read, modify, and reuse, although some projects make efforts to facilitate verification and reproduction. This paper describes an alternative procedure and a set of simple tools for the exploration, recoding, and documentation of harmonization of survey data, relying on crosswalks. The presented tools are flexible and software-agnostic. The illustrative example uses the programming language R and spreadsheets—both common software choices among social scientists. Harmonization of variables on trust in institutions from four major cross-national survey projects serves as an illustration of the proposed workflow and of opportunities harmonization creates.

show abstract

“…How much do earnings differentials between classes vary across a larger set of countries and how is that related to overall earnings inequality? This is particularly important in light of the extensive research across the social sciences over the last decade focusing on crossnational differences in income inequality and the consequences for outcomes including health, wellbeing, social trust, solidarity, and political outcomes (Huijsmans et al, 2020;Neckerman & Torche, 2007;Paskov & Dewilde, 2012;Rözer et al, 2016;Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010). Moreover, higher overall income inequality has been linked in some studies with stronger class inequalities in outcomes (Grasso et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational Social Class and Earnings Inequality in Europe: A Comparative Assessment

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While there is renewed interest in earnings differentials between social classes, the contribution of social class to overall earnings inequality across countries and net of compositional effects remains largely uncharted territory. This paper uses data from the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions to assess earnings differentials between social classes (as measured by ESeC) and the role of between-class inequality in overall earnings inequality across 30 European countries. We find that there is substantial variation in earnings differences between social classes across countries. Countries with higher levels of between-class inequality tend to display higher levels of overall earnings inequality, but this relationship is far from perfect. Even with highly aggregated class measures, between-class inequality accounts for a non-negligible share of total earnings inequality (between 15 and 25% in most countries). Controlling for observed between-class differences in composition shows that these account for much of the observed between-class earnings inequality, while in most countries between-class differences in returns to observed compositional variables do not play a major role. In all these respects we find considerable variation across countries, implying that both the size of between-class differences in earnings and the primary mechanisms that produce these class differences vary substantially between European countries.

show abstract

The Income Gap in Voting: Moderating Effects of Income Inequality and Clientelism

Cited by 11 publications

References 38 publications

Determinants of the Socio-Economic Turnout Gap in OECD Countries

Determinants of the Socio-Economic Turnout Gap in OECD Countries

Combining multiple survey sources: A reproducible workflow and toolbox for survey data harmonization

Occupational Social Class and Earnings Inequality in Europe: A Comparative Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About