ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

Does Income Inequality Really Bother Us, “the People”? Cross-National Evidence of the Inequality and Redistribution Attitudes of Far-Right Voters

Extremism
Populism
Social Justice
Comparative Perspective
Public Opinion
Survey Research
Annika Lindholm
Université de Lausanne
Annika Lindholm
Université de Lausanne

Abstract

How do supporters of the far right think about income inequality and redistribution? This question is as much unresolved as it is essential, considering how far-right parties have in recent decades entered by force the electoral competition in democracies worldwide. Research on the far-right’s positions on socio-economic inequality has so far predominantly focused on party positions, describing radical right-wing parties either as ambivalent on social policy issues (Rovny and Polk, 2019), or gradually more supportive of redistribution as a response to their working-class electoral base (Afonso and Rennwald, 2018). On the demand side, the European radical right electorate seems to desire a ‘particularistic-authoritarian’ welfare state with limited support for social transfers only to “deserving” beneficiaries (Busemeyer et al., 2022). While these studies reveal the distinct social policy and welfare preferences the far right, they do not shed enough light on the underlying attitudes that drive social policy preferences. Attitudes on inequality and redistribution draw strongly on normative expectations and conceptions of justice. Hence, their drivers are likely distinct from those of concrete policy proposals concerning the distribution of goods and burdens in society. Inspired by the literatures on welfare state preferences and social justice norms, we investigate how far-right voters think about income inequality and redistribution on three points: 1. How much inequality do far-right voters tolerate in society? 2. How do they conceive the role of ordinary people in combatting inequality? 3. How supportive are they in principle of fiscal redistribution? The analyses use the 2019 Social Inequality module of the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). The 2019 ISSP is a cross-national survey in public opinion, containing at present data from 22 countries worldwide. With high-quality comparative data, we can examine the contextual moderators of the attitudes of far-right supporters. Inequality and redistribution attitudes develop in environments that differ e.g. in terms of the public’s support for meritocracy (Roex et al., 2019) or economic insecurity (Melcher, 2021). Our analyses suggest that far-right voters are more tolerant of income inequality than center-right (“mainstream party”) voters. Firstly, they are more likely to believe that income inequality is necessary for a country’s prosperity, especially in countries where public support for meritocracy is high. Secondly, far-right voters are more skeptical about ordinary people’s ability to combat inequality. Yet, this relationship is weaker when popular belief in meritocracy is high and economic insecurity is widespread. Finally, far-right voters are less supportive of tax increases to the wealthy. Paradoxically, this relationship is more pronounced in countries where income insecurity is high. The results help us to draw a profile of the inequality and redistribution attitudes of far-right citizens and examine how the contextual environment interacts in the relationship between political ideology and public opinion. Considering how successful far-right parties have been in recent elections across the globe, the opinions and demands of its electorate are becoming increasingly influential in democratic policy-making. Finding that this electorate has distinct expectations and opinions about socio-economic inequality may have implications on the future trajectories of the welfare state.