Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Browse Sessions by Fields of Interest
Browse Papers by Fields of Interest
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
An influential literature has shown that public preferences are correlated with policy, but also that there is unequal influence: The preferences of the affluent are better represented then the preferences of the poor. However, less attention has been given to the level and substance of representation. Even if more popular proposals have a higher probability of implementation, are they implemented enough? And if not, are there systematic biases in what gets implemented or not?
Using data on public opinion and policy implementation from over 30 countries, we show that while public preferences for left-right issues generally are reflected in policy, there is a substantial deficit of “leftist” policy, in favor of redistribution and welfare spending. The pattern is observed for virtually all countries in the sample. The results are not explained by unequal influence between different social groups. The affluent are more economically conservative than the poor, but there is still an under-supply of leftist policy, even relative to the preferences of the affluent.
Investigating the causal mechanism, we propose two explanations: First, that popular preferences for redistribution and welfare spending are not reflected in vote choices, so that governments generally will be more economically conservative than their electorates. Second, that left-leaning governments, while officially subscribing to an agenda of redistribution, fail to implement it into policy, for political or fiscal reasons. Preliminary analysis primarily shows support for the second hypothesis – left-leaning electorates choose left-leaning governments, but they do not deliver enough left-leaning policy. Our findings help to explain previous findings in the literature on unequal influence, while also pushing the research agenda forward, by focusing on the substance of policies.