FIND DATA: By Author | Journal | Sites   ANALYZE DATA: Help with R | SPSS | Stata | Excel   WHAT'S NEW? US Politics | Int'l Relations | Law & Courts
   FIND DATA: By Author | Journal | Sites   WHAT'S NEW? US Politics | IR | Law & Courts
If this link is broken, please report as broken. You can also submit updates (will be reviewed).
Why Parties Ignore High Inequality but React to Rising Inequality
Insights from the Field
inequality
redistribution
parties
crowd-coding
OECD
Comparative Politics
APSR
21 R files
14 Datasets
4 PDF
1 Text
13 HTML
179 Other
Dataverse
Why Inequalities Persist: Parties' (Non)Responses to Economic Inequality, 1970-2020 was authored by Alexander Horn, Martin Haselmayer and Klaus Jonathan KlΓΌser. It was published by Cambridge in APSR in 2025 est..

πŸ“Š New Crowd-Coded Dataset Tracks Party Messages, 1970–2020

A novel dataset of 850,000 party statements from 12 OECD countries (1970–2020) is used to measure party emphasis on economic equality and redistribution. The dataset is crowd-coded to separate positive references to economic equality and redistribution from the rising use of equal-rights/anti-discrimination rhetoric, which previous studies have conflated with economic claims.

πŸ”Ž What Was Measured and How

  • 850,000 party statements spanning 12 OECD countries over five decades
  • Crowd-coding that distinguishes:
  • positive pro-equality/redistribution references, and
  • upward-trending equal-rights/anti-discrimination rhetoric
  • Comparison with prior measures shows that established indicators miss parties' explicit emphasis on economic equality and redistribution

🧭 Theory: Why Parties Respond Differently to Levels Versus Changes

A three-part argument explains why parties often fail to address high inequality but do respond to rising inequality:

  • Low visibility: High, persistent inequality often lacks salience and visibility as a political issue.
  • Status quo bias: Parties favor the existing distribution unless a clear change creates political opportunity.
  • Turnout effects: The mobilization consequences of long-standing inequality are muted compared to visible increases that threaten constituencies.

Rising inequality is a visible change in the status quo and can pose a threat that prompts partisan responses, particularly from the left.

πŸ“ˆ Key Findings

  • Responses identified in previous literature do not capture explicit party emphasis on economic equality and redistribution.
  • Left parties increase attention to economic equality and redistribution when inequality is rising.
  • Left parties do not systematically respond to (high) levels of inequality alone.
  • An important exception: left-party responses are weaker when the gains driving inequality are less tangible and accrue mainly to the most affluent.

βš–οΈ Why It Matters

These results explain a puzzle about the persistence of inequality: because parties are more likely to react to visible increases than to entrenched high inequality, political competition does not automatically self-correct unequal outcomes. The distinction between inequality levels and rising inequality, and between economic redistribution rhetoric and equal-rights language, is crucial for understanding party behavior and the prospects for redistributive policy.

data
Find on Google Scholar
Find on JSTOR
Find on CUP
American Political Science Review
Podcast host Ryan