Understanding unequal representation

Income and class biases in political representation have attracted a great deal of scholarly attention recent years. The reasons are understandable: since the 1980s, very few democratically elected governments Organisation for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) undertook new initiatives to compensate low- middle-income citizens unequal rise top-income shares concentration wealth. Instead, redistribution actually declined United States many Western European countries from early 1990s 2010s (Pontusson & Weistanner, 2018). This apparent puzzle might partly be explained by pivotal failing perceive rising inequality, their belief trickle-down economics or perception poor as undeserving. But it is also tempting interpret this revealing something about influence different socioeconomic groups processes that determine redistributive policy. populist parties – politicians within some mainstream lends credibility interpretation. claim policy-making favours interests privileged elites clearly resonates with working-class lower-middle-class (Rennwald Pontusson, 2022). Students American politics pioneered study representation, much US literature on topic implicitly assumes affluence bias distinctively phenomenon. More recently, however, scholars produced cross-national analyses case studies other suggest income common feature contemporary democracies. breadth these further implies explanations commonly advanced Americanists low voter turnout among ‘outsized role money politics’ (Gilens, 2015) leave desired.11 We refer reader Symposium articles references literature. seeks advance comparative turn representation. It features six contributions originated two workshops we organized at University Geneva Amsterdam 2019.22 One articles, Lupu Warner, was published February 2022 issue EJPR (vol. 61, no. 1). five current issue. diverse both how they conceive research designs employ. Our purpose not present unified approach but rather identify key analytical issues important field inquiry illustrate can addressed empirically. In what follows, briefly summarize featured terms conceptualize measure causal mechanisms empirical strategies. then raise lingering point avenues research. Empirical typically focus either congruence responsiveness. Studies degree which representatives reflect preferences citizens, an exemplified Warner's contribution Symposium. classic version situates preference scale (often left-right scale) based survey responses, estimates distance between positions categories (typically grouped income). Analyzing large dataset, Warner show tend more closely aligned affluent relative extent varies across over time. responsiveness instead comparing citizens’ policy outcomes. Gilens (2012) identifies levels support change available data effects probability being adopted window Among Symposium, Elsässer Haffert's Germany exemplifies approach, convincingly showing outputs consistently responsive business owners those unskilled workers. limitation generalizes wide variety without taking into account salience citizens. Policymakers may cater do matter still respond most salient concerns poor. Moreover, samples items used kinds country-specific, complicating comparisons.33 See Mathisen et al. (2021) discussion. Following Schakel (2020), Alexiadou's addresses problems analyzing welfare-state generosity its change. Focusing domain, evidently analysis yields clear evidence pro-affluent policy-making. Traber, Hänni, Giger, Breunig renders tractable purposes focusing priorities. Their differences high-status occupational consider confronting country legislative activity higher domains important. Exploring alignment spending commitments electoral programs parties, Burgoon's classified congruence. As party strategic calculations, illustrates overlap Finally, Wüest Pontusson address question why members parliament themselves better-educated wealthier than represent only indirectly engage make clear, supposes descriptive (mis)representation matters agenda-setting choices takes step back shed light sources (mis)representation. similar vein, included suppose ideological dispositions (Lupu Warner) platforms (Schakel Burgoon) feed government ways observing representations illustrated complementary, capturing dimensions same phenomenon steps long chain What causes representation? Answering involves identifying, conceptually empirically, emerges. first type mediating conditions link power. Such lie somewhere begins citizen ends legislated outputs. Does confer power because participate poorer citizens? Because affluent-friendly candidates get selected? set agenda? affluent? Or disproportionately process itself? To use metaphor, where road substantive does inequality arise? Finding identifying moderating conditions, factors shape confers any Do see settings others instance, particular backgrounds populate legislatures, private plays politics, majoritarian proportional systems? Identifying such ‘switchmen history’ understanding growing surprisingly directly explore kind explanation. stage While handful like lobbying campaign finance (e.g., Bartels 2008; 2012), know little moderate incidence around world. offer insights examining linking influence. one earliest candidate selection. They experimentally examine possible stage, finding middle-class voters dislike candidates. Also, relatively process, Traber priorities better suggesting central Further down Burgoon position-taking (particularly right-wing parties) appear rich Alexiadou later individuals populating cabinets over-represent classes professional orientations associated under-represent backgrounds. Notably, cabinet composition outcomes, making social welfare policies less generous. range economic whether Most sweeping analysis, overlooked prior studies, including clientelism corruption, growth inequality. Equally important, suggests emphasized seem moderators, globalization Other single moderator. Haffert find while generally represented policymaking, fiscal constraints reduce less-affluent too. ideology Importantly, previously thought, rules. manifestations employ methods cover cases. These hundreds country-year observations single-country observational experimental datasets, employing statistical computational techniques. scope heterogeneity offers lens At broadest end study, provides broad, macro-comparative perspective measured 33 period 1967–2015. Based dataset includes thousands elite responses millions mass machine-learning techniques system producing legislatures biased favour alignments similarly covers swath (39) extended time (1985–2017). allows us reflected holds particularly parties. 18 parliamentary democracies, draws original ministers goes 1945. She direct condition high-income Her interacts partisanship. al.’s presents sets analyses: pooled 10 2003 2016 separate series going Germany, Spain Kingdom. Both confirm prioritize prioritized Whereas combine analyses, final papers exclusively countries. leverages longitudinal consisting 800 questions asking respondents’ opinions federal proposals 1980–2016. authors budgetary implications conditioning pressure groups. analyze conjoint experiment fielded Switzerland 2019 assess profiles. Relative previous kind, distinguishes workers professionals, strong against routine well Comparative infancy fundamental remain unanswered. diversity helps expand our facets highlighting conceptual future build will distinguish least three stages representation: pre-electoral recruitment platform development, incorporates campaigns choice, post-electoral involving bargaining lobbying. touch each differing degrees, contribute stage. There work done contributes patterns A challenge salience. Are democratic care most? focuses priorities, positions. Combining especially challenging surveys rarely ask position them. cannot fully understand studying salience, need develop innovative approaches doing so. Much outside case, inequalities versus poor, Many comparisons, Pontusson's piece exception. Of course, subset comparisons made given society. How compare middle-class? skilled fare workers? intersect gender ethnicity? Studying types undoubtedly help For equally having participation gaps donations rich. If pronounced intersection disadvantages ethnicity, could imply Beyond consequences. aware behaviour? populism declining democracy world, there systematic documenting connections phenomena. exemplify contributing it. Yet, far so liberal democracies shaping politics. hope take up critical questions. contents Introduction, were presented discussed held Geneva. grateful all participants discussions, Larry Bartels, Torben Iversen, Mikael Persson Anne Rasmussen. Funding subsequent provided Research Council (Advanced Grant 741538, Jonas principal investigator), Netherlands Organization Scientific (grant number 406-15-089) Center Inequality (AMCIS). institutions support.