2011
DOI: 10.1017/s0003055411000128
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Structure of Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution

Abstract: Against the current consensus among comparative political economists, we argue that inequality matters for redistributive politics in advanced capitalist societies, but it is the structure of inequality, not the level of inequality, that matters. Our theory posits that middle-income voters will be inclined to ally with low-income voters and support redistributive policies when the distance between the middle and the poor is small relative to the distance between the middle and the rich. We test this propositio… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

11
331
1
4

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 366 publications
(347 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
11
331
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Otherwise, support for redistribution will be low. This is most obvious in models of ethnic-racial heterogeneity (Alesina and Glaeser 2004;Gilens 2000), but the "anti-solidarity" motive-as Roemer, Lee, and Van der Straeten (2007) call it-can also be directed against the poor or the long-term unemployed because these groups are seen as very different in terms of lifestyle and shared experiences (Kristov, Lindert, and McClelland 1992;Lupu and Pontusson 2011). Such "distancing" may be exacerbated by deliberate attempts of people to set themselves apart from the poor, including support for policies that will reduce the relative standing of the poor (Luttmer 2001;Shayo 2009).…”
Section: Social Distance Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Otherwise, support for redistribution will be low. This is most obvious in models of ethnic-racial heterogeneity (Alesina and Glaeser 2004;Gilens 2000), but the "anti-solidarity" motive-as Roemer, Lee, and Van der Straeten (2007) call it-can also be directed against the poor or the long-term unemployed because these groups are seen as very different in terms of lifestyle and shared experiences (Kristov, Lindert, and McClelland 1992;Lupu and Pontusson 2011). Such "distancing" may be exacerbated by deliberate attempts of people to set themselves apart from the poor, including support for policies that will reduce the relative standing of the poor (Luttmer 2001;Shayo 2009).…”
Section: Social Distance Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority will feel less altruistic toward the poor the more the poor belong to a group for whom the median voter M feels little affinity. This is the type of logic Lupu and Pontusson (2011) and Alesina and Glaeser (2004) use to explain cross-national variation in both redistribution and support for such redistribution.…”
Section: Social Distance Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…29 For example, Lupu and Pontusson (2011). 30 Including this variable does not change the qualitative findings of this paper.…”
Section: Globalisation and Technological Changementioning
confidence: 79%
“…For example, most recently Egger et al (2016), Tanninen et al (2017); earlier studies include Kwon and Pontusson (2010), Lupu andPontusson (2011), Meinhard andPotrafke (2012), Dreher (2005), Rodrik (1998), Onaran and Boesch (2014), Gemmel et al (2008). See also Potrafke (2009) for a study on the effect of globalisation on partisan politics.…”
Section: Globalisation and Technological Changementioning
confidence: 99%