(iPoster) Revisiting Lichbach in a Global Era of Polarization and Democratic Backsliding

• In Event: Poster Sessions: Foundations of Political Theory II & Autocratic Politics and Democracy
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Autocratic Politics and Democracy

Abstract

Does economic inequality systematically generate political conflict? This paper proposes a cross-national reassessment of Mark Irving Lichbach’s “An Evaluation of ‘Does Economic Inequality Breed Political Conflict?’” (1989), which famously argued that empirical findings linking inequality to political conflict were inconsistent and highly contingent. More than three decades later, renewed global concern over inequality, political polarization, and democratic backsliding invites a careful reexamination of this relationship.

Building on Lichbach’s theoretical framework, the study examines whether the conditional nature of the inequality–conflict relationship persists under contemporary political conditions. The analysis focuses on variation in economic inequality, political conflict, and regime characteristics across countries and over time, with particular attention to how institutional constraints and political polarization may condition the political effects of inequality.

Methodologically, the paper employs regression analysis using cross-national panel data to assess the relationship between inequality and multiple forms of political conflict, including unrest, protest, and violent contention. Rather than treating inequality as a sufficient cause of conflict, the study conceptualizes it as a structural condition whose political consequences depend on broader political and institutional contexts. The empirical strategy emphasizes careful operationalization and measurement of Lichbach’s original variables, while extending the analysis to incorporate additional contextual factors relevant to contemporary politics.

The expectation guiding this research is that inequality alone will not exhibit a uniform or deterministic relationship with political conflict. Instead, inequality is likely to be more politically salient under conditions of weakened institutional constraint and heightened polarization. Accordingly, the paper does not seek to overturn Lichbach’s conclusions, but to refine them through updated measurement, improved data coverage, and systematic analysis of political context.

This reassessment is of heightened importance in a global era marked by the rise of populist movements across both developed and developing democracies, where distributive grievances increasingly intersect with institutional strain. By clarifying when and how inequality is more likely to translate into political conflict, the study aims to contribute to ongoing debates in comparative political economy and conflict studies while reaffirming the enduring relevance of Lichbach’s original insights.

Author

• David Edgardo Leiva, University of Southern Mississippi