Europeans’ Happiness from an Egalitarian Perspective: More Equal Overall, but Often More Polarized Between Rich and Poor

Delhey, Jan; Ge cke, Ma cus
A icle — Published Ve sion
Eu opeans’ Happiness om an Egali a ian Pe spec i e:
Mo e Equal O e all, bu O en Mo e Pola ized Be ween
Rich and Poo
Social Indica o s Resea ch
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Sp inge Na u e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Delhey, Jan; Ge cke, Ma cus (2025) : Eu opeans’ Happiness om an Egali a ian
Pe spec i e: Mo e Equal O e all, bu O en Mo e Pola ized Be ween Rich and Poo , Social Indica o s
Resea ch, ISSN 1573-0921, Sp inge Ne he lands, Do d ech , Vol. 179, Iss. 1, pp. 441-462,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11205-025-03619-5
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/330772
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Vol.:(0123456789)
Social Indica o s Resea ch (2025) 179:441–462
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11205-025-03619-5
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Eu opeans’ Happiness omanEgali a ian Pe spec i e:
Mo e Equal O e all, bu O en Mo e Pola ized Be ween Rich
andPoo
JanDelhey1 · Ma cusGe cke1
Accep ed: 29 Ap il 2025 / Published online: 17 May 2025
© The Au ho (s) 2025, co ec ed publica ion 2025
Abs ac
Eu opean coun ies ha e become mo e p ospe ous since 2000, bu social and economic
de elopmen has also become mo e c isis-p one and, in pa icula , cha ac e ized by g ow-
ing economic inequali y. F om an egali a ian pe spec i e, he ques ion a ises as o how
his ambi alen si ua ion has a ec ed he dis ibu ion o subjec i e well-being and, in
pa icula , he gap be ween ich and poo . Based on li e sa is ac ion da a o 27 coun ies
om 10 wa es o he Eu opean Social Su ey (2002–2024), his pape examines whe he
well-being wi hin na ions has become mo e unequal, bo h in he popula ions as a whole
(o e all dispe sion) and be ween income g oups speci ically (g oup pola iza ion). Fo he
o al popula ion, ou esul s sugges ha he e is g owing equali y in li e sa is ac ion almos
e e ywhe e, which is mainly d i en by alling unemploymen and inc eases in na ional
p ospe i y. In abou hal o he coun ies, howe e , we ind an inc easing pola iza ion o
li e sa is ac ion be ween ich and poo , ueled by ising na ional p ospe i y and inc easing
social p o ec ion expendi u es. F om an egali a ian poin o iew, he las wo decades ha e
hus b ough bo h p og ess and eg ession.
Keywo ds Li e sa is ac ion· Well-being· Happiness inequali y· Pola iza ion· Income
g oups· T end analysis
1 In oduc ion
Economic inequali y has inc eased in many Wes e n and Eu opean coun ies since he
1990s (Alde son e  al., 2005; Makhlou , 2023). P ominen social scien is s ha e long
wa ned o he a - eaching consequences o a wide—and widening—gap be ween ich
and poo , such as declining social mobili y, g ea e heal h and social p oblems, and dwin-
dling suppo o democ acy (G usky & Maclean, 2016; S igli z, 2012; Wilkinson &
* Jan Delhey
jan.delhey@o gu.de
Ma cus Ge cke
ma cus.ge cke@o gu.de
1 O o- on-Gue icke Uni e si y Magdebu g, Facul y o Humani ies andSocial Sciences, Ins i u e
o Social Sciences, Zschokkes . 32, 39106Magdebu g, Ge many
442
J.Delhey, M.Ge cke
Picke , 2010). Bu is people’s subjec i e well-being also a ec ed? Has well-being inequal-
i y inc eased along wi h economic inequali y?
P e ious s udies based on da a up o ea ly 2000 ha e sugges ed ha his ea did no
ma e ialize in Wes e n Eu ope (Cla k e al., 2016; Veenho en, 2005), mainly as a esul
o income g ow h. Bu has his p og essi e end con inued, and, i so, has i con inued
h oughou Eu ope? Economic inequali y has con inued o ise in many coun ies and soci-
oeconomic de elopmen has become mo e c isis-p one o e all, which has led o economic
insecu i y, especially among low-income and o he ulne able g oups (Hacke , 2006;
Ranci e al., 2021). A s udy ha ex ended he Eu oba ome e ime se ies o he mid-2010s
epo s ising inequali y in li e sa is ac ion in he coun ies mos a ec ed by he eu o zone
c isis (Jo da e al., 2019). Agains his backg ound, he p esen a icle examines changes
in he well-being dis ibu ion o e mo e han wo decades (2002–2024) wi h popula ion-
ep esen a i e da a om he Eu opean Social Su ey (ESS) o a la ge numbe o Eu opean
coun ies.
Ou pape makes h ee con ibu ions. Fi s , we upda e he abo e-men ioned esea ch on
he e olu ion o well-being inequali y in he o al popula ion, using he mos ecen da a.
Second, we examine changes in he ex en o well-being pola iza ion be ween he op and
bo om income g oups. When i comes o he e ec s o widening economic dispa i ies,
we belie e i is essen ial o compa e he happiness wi h li e o iche and poo e people
di ec ly. To ou knowledge, e idence o changing be ween-g oup happiness inequali y only
exis s so a o indi idual coun ies, such as he USA (S e enson & Wol e s, 2008), Ge -
many, and Swi ze land (Lipps & Oesch, 2018), and—su p isingly—no o income g oups.
Finally, we p o ide e idence o which changes in undamen al socioeconomic condi ions
ha e d i en changes in well-being inequali y. The e a e mainly c oss-sec ional s udies on
his opic (e.g., Be g & Veenho en, 2010; Delhey & Kohle , 2011; Kalmijn & Veenho en,
2005), and longi udinal s udies (G aa land & Lous, 2019) a e a e excep ions. Longi udinal
s udies ha e so a mainly ocused on he mac o de e minan s o happiness le els a he
han dispa i ies (Ba olini e al., 2017; E ans e al., 2019; Sch öde , 2018).
The emainde o his pape is o ganized as ollows. Fi s , we cla i y ou main concep s
and ou line wha expec a ions a e plausible o ends in well-being inequali y, based on
he sequence model o li e e alua ion (Veenho en, 2012) and exis ing esea ch. We hen
in oduce ou da a se and he measu es we used o quan i y well-being inequali y wi hin
na ions. We mo e on o he esul s o ou analysis, place hem in he con ex o he cu en
s a e o esea ch, and, inally, discuss hei b oade implica ions.
2 Concep ual Cla i ica ions, Expec a ions, andS a e o Resea ch
2.1 Li e Sa is ac ion andi s Inequali y
Recen decades ha e seen a g owing in e es in subjec i e li e ou comes— ha is, how peo-
ple pe cei e and e alua e hei quali y o li e, also known as happiness o (subjec i e) well-
being. Indi iduals’ li e sa is ac ion has been sugges ed as a means o cap u e well-being
as comp ehensi ely as possible; his can be de ined as he “deg ee o which an indi idual
judges he o e all quali y o his/he own li e-as-a-whole a o ably” (Veenho en, 1984, p.
22, i alics in he o iginal). This key exp ession o e alua i e well-being is conside ed o be
less ola ile and mo e cogni i ely based han measu es o emo ional well-being (Diene
e al., 2003; Ne le, 2005).
443
Eu opeans’ Happiness omanEgali a ian Pe spec i e: Mo e…
Acco ding o Veenho en’s (2012) sequence model, happiness wi h li e in he sense o li e
sa is ac ion is he ou come o a s epwise assessmen p ocess. The model’s s a ing poin is
a pe son’s li e chances, which esul om indi idual li e skills (e.g., in elligence), pe sonal
esou ces (e.g., economic capi al), and la ge socie al condi ions (e.g., na ional weal h and
income dis ibu ion). These—di e en ially a o able—li e chances gene a e a s eam o posi-
i e o nega i e e en s ha a pe son encoun e s in daily li e, which in u n is e lec ed in a
co esponding s eam o pleasan o unpleasan expe iences o bo h a cogni i e and emo ional
na u e ha o m he basis o he indi idual’s gene al assessmen o li e, which ul ima ely also
ac o s in social and o he compa isons (Michalos, 1985).
Looking a li e sa is ac ion om an egali a ian pe spec i e means aking a p ima y in e -
es in i s dis ibu ion (Veenho en & Kalmijn, 2005). Because he cen al inpu a iables o
he sequence model a e unequally dis ibu ed be ween indi iduals (e.g., some ha e be e
li e abili ies, o he s wo se; some ha e mo e pe sonal esou ces, o he s ewe ), he e is also a
ce ain inequali y in li e sa is ac ion: nowhe e is e e yone equally happy (o unhappy). E en
hough i is ob ious ha happiness canno simply be “ edis ibu ed” like o he goods, poli i-
cal bodies ha e adop ed he idea o aiming o he highes possible well-being o all ci izens,
which implies a low le el o inequali y. The Council o Eu ope (2008, p. 14) has explici ly
commi ed i sel o he goal o cohesi e well-being and de ined cohesion as “ he capaci y o
a socie y o ensu e he well-being o all i s membe s, minimising dispa i ies and a oiding
ma ginalisa ion.”
Two main app oaches can be dis inguished in how happiness inequali y is concep ualized
(Quick, 2015). The i s and mos widesp ead app oach conside s he subjec i e well-being o
all membe s o socie y and exp esses he esul ing dis ibu ion in one numbe , be i he s anda d
de ia ion (e.g., Be g & Veenho en, 2010), he pe cen -maximum s anda d de ia ion (e.g., Del-
hey & Kohle , 2011), he Gini index (e.g., Gandelman & Po zecanski, 2013), o a ious o di-
nal inequali y measu es (e.g., Bé enge & Sil e , 2022; G imes e al., 2023); no gold s anda d
has ye been es ablished. Compa a i ely equal dis ibu ions o well-being a e ypically ound in
Eu ope and English-speaking New Wo ld coun ies, mo e unequal ones in he Middle Eas and
No h A ica, in La in Ame ica, and, especially, sub-Saha an A ica (Be g & Veenho en, 2010;
Delhey & Kohle , 2011; Helliwell e al., 2022). Coun y cha ac e is ics ha a e associa ed wi h
low happiness inequali y c oss-na ionally include economic p ospe i y, egali a ian income
dis ibu ion, low le els o co up ion, and a clima e o social us (Delhey & Kohle , 2011;
O aska & Takashima, 2010; Salahodjae , 2021; Veenho en & Kalmijn, 2005), condi ions ha
a e also conduci e o high le els o happiness (O , 2005; Veenho en, 2012).
The second app oach ocuses on he inequali y in well-being be ween p ede ined g oups.
This can in ol e he compa ison o demog aphic g oups such as u bani es and coun y-dwell-
e s (Bu ge e  al., 2020), o o socioeconomic g oups di e en ia ed by income, educa ion,
o social class. Typically, highe -s a us people enjoy a highe le el o subjec i e well-being,
which gi es ise, o example, o a gap be ween he ich and he poo (Capo ale e al., 2009;
Delhey & S ecke meie , 2016; Schyns, 2002). Howe e , hese gaps a e no he same size e e-
ywhe e. In Eu ope in he ea ly 2000 s, di e ences in li e sa is ac ion be ween op and bo om
g oups acco ding o income, educa ion, o class we e small in No dic coun ies and much
g ea e in pos -socialis coun ies (Delhey, 2004).
2.2 Expec a ions o  heDe elopmen o Li e Sa is ac ion Inequali y
In his a icle, we seek o de e mine whe he well-being inequali y has changed du ing he
pas wo decades. The ac ha Eu opean coun ies ha e become e en weal hie in he new
444
J.Delhey, M.Ge cke
millennium could ce ainly mean a con inua ion o he posi i e end owa d a mo e equal
well-being ha was iden i ied o he h ee decades up o he ea ly 2000s (Cla k e al., 2016;
Veenho en, 2005). Ye o he de elopmen s could sugges a b eak in he end, i s and
o emos he widening economic gaps be ween ich and poo in many coun ies. These dis-
ibu i e shi s hemsel es a e ueled by p eca ious wo king condi ions (S anding, 2011),
a g owing low-wage sec o , and he ansi ion o an ac i a ing wel a e s a e. Acco ding o
Nach wey (2018), we a e li ing in a new e a o eg essi e mode niza ion, which wo ks like
he escala o s in a depa men s o e: o some i is s ill going up, bu o o he s i is going
down. Empi ically, economic capi al is associa ed wi h happiness and li e sa is ac ion (see
abo e); so, i economic esou ces a e mo e unequally dis ibu ed oday, his should—all
o he hings being equal—lead o mo e unequal lows o li e e en s, expe iences, and he e-
o e emo ions and cogni ions, hus making g ea e sa is ac ion inequali y likely. Widening
income dispa i ies also mean ha hose wi h low incomes a e e en wo se in social com-
pa isons (Laya d e al., 2010), which could u he inc ease happiness inequali y.
The succession o social and economic c ises could also sugges a b eak in he posi-
i e end owa d mo e e en dis ibu ion o happiness. The global inancial c isis in 2008/9
plunged he majo i y o Eu opean coun ies in o a ecession, while he eu ozone deb c isis
in he pe iod 2010–2014 p ima ily a ec ed coun ies in Sou he n Eu ope, plus I eland. Fo
se e al yea s, unemploymen ose ac oss Eu ope, bu mos d ama ically in sou he n Eu ope
(Boe i & Jimeno, 2016; Heiden eich, 2016). The e, and in Eu ope’s libe al wel a e s a es,
he a e o people wi h se e e ma e ial dep i a ion inc eased (Heiden eich, 2016). Cu s in
wel a e s a e bene i s disp opo iona ely a ec ed he ulne able and especially low-income
g oups (Ma os, 2022). The s ong in lux o mig an s in 2015/16, and again in 2022 as a
esul o Russia’s wa o agg ession agains Uk aine also had he s onges impac on he
li es o he lowe classes, as many mig an s compe e wi h hem o simila jobs (Je en,
2019) and social bene i s (Co de o e al., 2023). Due o he wa , he supply o ene gy has
become mo e di icul and he e o e mo e expensi e, and in combina ion wi h he supply
sho ages caused by he co ona i us pandemic, consume p ices ose sha ply in 2022 and
2023. Typically, low-income ea ne s a e he ones who eel in la ion he mos . The gene al
a gumen we wan o pu o wa d is ha pe iods o economic malaise and social u bulence
hi he al eady disad an aged g oups ha des —which could ha e esul ed in widening gaps
in subjec i e well-being o e all and be ween iche and poo e people in pa icula .
Wha is known om he exis ing s udies? Two s udies, oughly co e ing he pe iod
1970–2000, concluded ha inequali y in li e sa is ac ion has na owed in mos Wes e n
Eu opean coun ies (Cla k e al., 2016; Veenho en, 2005). Fo he pe iod 2006–2021,
he Wo ld Happiness Repo (Helliwell e al., 2022) echoes his conclusion o Eu opean
coun ies on a e age; howe e , a e aging could conceal di e ging ends in indi idual
coun ies. No ably, a ecen esea ch pape poin s o a g owing dispa i y in li e sa is ac-
ion in coun ies se e ely a ec ed by he eu ozone deb c isis (Jo da e al., 2019). Fo
pos -communis coun ies, i s an inc ease, hen a dec ease in li e sa is ac ion inequal-
i y has been epo ed since he 1990 s (A slan, 2023), la gely pa allel o he ini ially
di icul and hen consolida ing ans o ma ion p ocess. Looking beyond Eu ope, he e
is e idence o declining happiness inequali y o single coun ies like he USA (Du a
& Fos e , 2013; S e enson & Wol e s, 2008), Japan (A aki, 2023), and Sou h A ica
(Kollampa ambil, 2020), as well as globally (Veenho en, 2005). In e es ingly, and con-
usingly, he Wo ld Happiness Repo iden i ies widening dispa i ies in well-being as a
global end, excep o Eu ope (as men ioned abo e).
The e is only sca ce e idence on how be ween-g oup well-being inequali y has
e ol ed. In he USA, di e ences in li e sa is ac ion acco ding o gende , ace, ma i al

445
Eu opeans’ Happiness omanEgali a ian Pe spec i e: Mo e…
s a us, and age ha e na owed, while di e ences by educa ion ha e widened (S e enson
& Wol e s, 2008). The happiness gap be ween ich and poo has also widened in he
USA (Okulicz-Koza yn & Mazelis, 2017). Fo Ge many, a ecen s udy poin s o widen-
ing gaps be ween social classes (Lipps & Oesch, 2018).
Fo he mos pa , hese end s udies end o be desc ip i e, so he ques ion o wha
d i es happiness inequali y can be conside ed o be unde - esea ched. A compa a i e s udy
on Wes e n Eu ope poin ed o he c ucial ole o changes in na ional p ospe i y (Cla k
e al., 2016), while a compa ison o OECD coun ies highligh ed changes in income ine-
quali y (G aa land & Lous, 2019). Ano he esea ch pape ocusing on one coun y case,
Ge many, con i med he posi i e ole o inc eases in a e age income in educing happiness
inequali y, whe eas g owing unemploymen has he opposi e e ec (Becche i e al., 2014).
The p esen s udy aims o expand knowledge on he ollowing esea ch ques ions:
RQ1: Has he end owa d g ea e well-being equali y in Eu opean coun ies con in-
ued o e he pas wo decades, o has his end e e sed?
RQ2: Wha changes in socioeconomic condi ions in luence well-being inequali y
o e ime, ei he inc easing o dec easing i ?
We use li e sa is ac ion as an indica o o well-being and analyze i s dis ibu ion om
wo dis inc pe spec i es on pola iza ion. The i s pe spec i e examines he dis ibu ion
o sa is ac ion wi hin he popula ion as a whole and uses a measu e designed o o di-
nal a iables. In ligh o he ongoing deba e ega ding he ca dinal (Kalmijn & A ends,
2010; Kalmijn & Veenho en, 2005) e sus o dinal measu emen o li e sa is ac ion ine-
quali y (Cowell & Flachai e, 2017; Jenkins, 2020), we ha e adop ed an app oach ha
accoun s o he o dinal na u e o he da a. The second pe spec i e compa es he o e lap
be ween dis ibu ions o li e sa is ac ion in wo p e-de ined subpopula ions, iche and
poo e people. To clea ly dis inguish hese wo pe spec i es, we e e o gene al pola i-
za ion as o e all dispe sion and o he pola iza ion be ween income g oups as (income)
g oup pola iza ion.
As o he po en ial d i e s, we closely ollow ou s o yline (see abo e) and ocus on
socio-economic ac o s. Fi s , we conside economic inequali y, which we measu e using
a ious indica o s. We also ake in o accoun mac oeconomic ac o s, including na ional
p ospe i y, unemploymen , in la ion, and social spending. Changes in hese pa ame e s
c i ical o well-being e lec he inc eased ola ili y—i no he suscep ibili y o c ises—
o Eu opean socie ies o e he pas wo decades. Finally, we conside social us as a key
indica o o social cohesion (La sen, 2013) abou which many people a e deeply con-
ce ned oday. The chosen explana o y a iables a e epea edly used in compa a i e qual-
i y-o -li e esea ch o explain happiness le els (e.g., Bjo nsko , 2003; Welsch & Bonn,
2008), happiness inequali y (e.g., Delhey & Kohle , 2011; Veenho en & Kalmijn, 2005),
and inequali y-adjus ed happiness le els (Veenho en & Kalmijn, 2005).
3 Da a andMe hods
To desc ibe and explain ends in well-being inequali y, his s udy employs indi idual-le el
su ey da a ha a e agg ega ed a he coun y le el and supplemen ed by coun y-le el
social indica o s.
446
J.Delhey, M.Ge cke
Li e Sa is ac ion Da a on li e sa is ac ion we e aken om 10 ounds o he Eu opean
Social Su ey Cumula i e File (ESS 1–11, 2024). The ESS has been conduc ed bian-
nually since 2002 (Round 1), wi h he 2024 su ey (Round 11) being he mos ecen
one. Round 10 om 2020 was excluded due o an in e im change in su ey mode du -
ing he co ona i us pandemic. The subsequen analyses co e 27 coun ies; we excluded
coun ies ha had pa icipa ed in ewe han h ee ESS ounds (se en coun ies)1 o had
missing da a on key explana o y a iables, including a iables used o obus ness checks
( h ee coun ies).2 The ESS con ains he ollowing es ablished i em o measu e li e sa -
is ac ion: “All hings conside ed, how sa is ied a e you wi h you li e as a whole nowa-
days? Please answe using his ca d, whe e 0 means ex emely dissa is ied and 10 means
ex emely sa is ied” (Eu opean Social Su ey Eu opean Resea ch In as uc u e Conso -
ium [ESS ERIC], 2024).
Table1 p esen s he desc ip i e s a is ics o he in e - and ex apola ed sample. The
median li e sa is ac ion o he en i e sample is 7. The lowes coun y median is 5, and
he highes is 9. The o e all s anda d de ia ion (SD) o he sample is jus unde one
scale poin (0.95); he wi hin-coun y SD is conside ably lowe a 0.41 (see Table1). The
o e all SD ep esen s he s anda d de ia ion o he en i e sample ac oss all coun ies
and yea s, whe eas he wi hin-coun y s anda d de ia ion (wi hin-coun y SD) ep esen s
he s anda d de ia ion wi hin each coun y o e he ime pe iod co e ed. Missing alues
o agg ega ed da a be ween a ailable da a poin s we e linea ly in e pola ed, while miss-
ing in o ma ion beyond he a ailable da a was eplaced wi h he las obse ed da a poin .
De ailed in o ma ion on he a ailabili y o coun y-yea da a is p o ided in he appendix
(Table1).
Table 1 Desc ip i e in o ma ion o he coun y sample, pe iod 2002–2024
LIFESAT-OD = O e all dispe sion o li e sa is ac ion; LIFESAT-GP = Income g oup pola iza ion o li e
sa is ac ion. Explana o y a iables a e lagged by one yea ( − 1) excep o us . Coun y da a a e in e -
and ex apola ed ac oss ESS ounds; see Appendix 1
Va iable Coun ies ESS
Rounds
Mean
(*Median)
O e all
SD
Wi hin
SD
Min Max
LIFESAT 27 10 7* 0.95 0.41 5 9
T us 27 10 5* 1.10 0.36 3 7
LIFESAT-OD 27 10 24.54 6.51 2.23 13.20 38.70
LIFESAT-GP 27 10 26.64 7.50 4.53 7.60 46.40
GDPpc −1 27 10 36,275.12 16,593.05 12,052.38 6961.08 127,873.20
log. GDPpc −1 27 10 10.40 0.46 0.31 8.85 11.76
Gini −1 27 10 29.03 3.34 1.11 22.30 38.10
Unemploymen −1 27 10 8.25 4.45 3.15 1.87 27.69
Social p o ec ion −1 27 10 16.62 4.28 1.62 7.50 26.40
In la ion −1 27 10 2.61 2.60 2.36 –4.45 17.13
Age s uc u e −1 27 10 25.43 4.91 3.09 14.70 38.35
1 These coun ies a e Albania, Koso o, Mon eneg o, No h Macedonia, Romania, Se bia, and Tu key.
2 These coun ies a e Is ael, Russia, and Uk aine.
447
Eu opeans’ Happiness omanEgali a ian Pe spec i e: Mo e…
O e all Dispe sion o Li e Sa is ac ion To quan i y he well-being inequali y in he o al
popula ion, we calcula ed Van de Eijk’s (2001) Ag eemen A, in e ed i , and scaled i
om 0 o 100, wi h highe alues indica ing g ea e inequali y and pola iza ion. Ag eemen
A, designed speci ically o o dinal a ing scales, is based on he p inciple ha consensus
is highes when esponses clus e in a single ca ego y (a homogenous, unimodal dis ibu-
ion) and lowes when hey a e e enly spli be ween wo ca ego ies (a pola ized, bimodal
dis ibu ion). Ma hema ically, Van de Eijk’s me hod decomposes he esponse dis ibu-
ion in o semi-uni o m laye s, whe e each laye consis s o con iguous non-emp y ca ego-
ies. The o iginal ange o Ag eemen A is om –1 (pe ec bimodali y) o + 1 (pe ec
unimodali y). To de i e a measu e o disag eemen , we i s escaled Ag eemen A o a
ange o 0 o 1, hen in e ed i and mul iplied by 100. The esul ing Disag eemen Index
is de ined as: (1 – A escaled) × 100. A alue o 0 occu s when all esponden s selec he
same ca ego y (g ea es possible homogenei y); a alue o 100 occu s when esponden s
a e e enly spli be ween jus wo ca ego ies— ha is, hal o esponden s a e e y dissa is-
ied, he o he hal e y sa is ied (g ea es possible pola iza ion). A alue o 50 indica es a
uni o m dis ibu ion o esponden s ac oss all ca ego ies. Please no e ha he index does
no indica e he le el o sa is ac ion a which he (dis)ag eemen occu s. Acco ding o he
Disag eemen Index, he mean o e all dispe sion o li e sa is ac ion in he sample is 24.54,
wi h an o e all SD o 6.51 and a wi hin-coun y SD o 2.23. The empi ical alues ange
om 13.2 o 38.7 (see Table1).
Figu e1 illus a es his app oach wi h ESS da a o Cyp us. In 2002, esponses we e
concen a ed in ca ego ies 7, 8, and 9, esul ing in a low sco e o he Disag eemen Index
(19.7). In 2024, ca ego ies 7, 8, and 9 a e less s ongly illed, while ca ego ies 0, 2, 3, 4,
and 5 a e somewha mo e s ongly illed. Responden s a e mo e sp ead ou ac oss he sa is-
ac ion scale, which is e lec ed in he highe Disag eemen Index (30.8).
Pola iza ion o Li e Sa is ac ion Be ween Income G oups (G oup Pola iza ion) As a p epa -
a o y s ep, we i s ha monized he ESS income da a, as income ca ego ies changed om
Round 3 onwa d. To ob ain a con inuous income a iable, we assigned each esponden
he mean alue o hei epo ed mon hly income ca ego y (e.g., €75 o he ca ego y “0
o €150”). To accoun o di e ences in household size, we applied he squa e oo equi a-
lence scale, a me hod commonly used in he Luxembou g Income S udy (Buhmann e al.,
1988) and by esea che s wo king wi h OECD da a (Thewissen e al., 2018). Speci ically,
we adjus ed disposable household income by di iding i by he squa e oo o he numbe
o household membe s be o e o ming income quin iles.
To assess he pola iza ion o li e sa is ac ion be ween income g oups, we compa ed how
(dis)simila he dis ibu ions o li e sa is ac ion o he poo es and iches quin iles a e.
Ou s a ing poin was he ex en o which he wo dis ibu ions o e lap, using he o e lap-
ping coe icien (OVL; see Lelkes, 2016). The simple idea is ha he simila i y be ween
wo dis ibu ions inc eases as hei a ea o o e lap g ows. Ma hema ically, he o e lap-
ping a ea is de e mined by he in eg al o hei p obabili y densi y unc ions and can be
app oxima ed using hei s anda d no mal cumula i e dis ibu ion unc ions ( o de ails,
see Golds ein, 1995; Inman & B adley, 1989). The o e lapping coe icien anges om 0
(no o e lap, comple e dissimila i y) o 1 (comple e o e lap, comple e simila i y). To ob ain
a measu e o dissimila i y, we simply in e he o e lap coe icien and escale i om 0
o 100. This Dissimila i y Index is hus de ined as: (1 − OVL) × 100. Highe index alues
448
J.Delhey, M.Ge cke
Fig. 1 O e all dispe sion o li e sa is ac ion in Cyp us, 2002 e sus 2024
455
Eu opeans’ Happiness omanEgali a ian Pe spec i e: Mo e…
and Spain, he e was no change. Co ela ion o he pooled ime se ies da a con i ms an
upwa d end o g oup pola iza ion o e ime ( (270) = 0.123, p < 0.05). Fo some coun-
ies, he end be ween ich and poo con as s wi h he end o o e all dispe sion shown
abo e; his is also e lec ed in he ela i ely weak, ye s ill posi i e, associa ion be ween he
wo measu es ( (270) = 0.225, p < 0.001).
Acco ding o he mul iple TWFE models (Table3), wi hin-coun y changes in li e sa is ac-
ion pola iza ion be ween income g oups a e less well explained by ou se o p edic o s han
changes in o e all dispe sion (R2 = 13.5 max.). S anda dized e ec sizes sugges ha na ional
p ospe i y and social p o ec ion expendi u e—bo h wi h small posi i e e ec s—exceed he
h eshold o a small e ec and hus quali y as he main d i e s. As na ional p ospe i y ises,
li e sa is ac ion becomes somewha mo e pola ized be ween ich and poo (M3: β = 0.349,
M4: β = 0.322). The same applies when go e nmen s inc ease hei expendi u es on social
p o ec ion (M3: β = 0.207, M4: β = 0.214), which may sound coun e -in ui i e. Howe e ,
inc easing social p o ec ion expendi u e may indica e an inc ease in he numbe o people who
depend on i – a dependence ha migh widen a he han na ow he well-being gap be ween
Fig. 4 Changes in g oup pola iza ion in ela ion o li e sa is ac ion (highes s. lowes income quin ile),
2002–2024. No e: Pola iza ion measu e: Dissimila i y Index [0;100]; 0 = no pola iza ion (comple e o e lap
o he wo dis ibu ions); 100 = absolu e pola iza ion (no o e lap o he wo dis ibu ions). Co ela ion o e
ime: (270) = 0.123, p < 0.05

456
J.Delhey, M.Ge cke
ich and poo . Changes in he o he socioeconomic condi ions ha e s anda dized e ec s below
he h eshold o a weak e ec and a e he e o e subs an i ely negligible.
Robus ness checks (see Appendix A6 o A9) indica e ha he e ec o social p o ec ion
expendi u e alls below he h eshold o a small e ec when income inequali y is measu ed
using he S80/S20 a io o he a - isk-o -po e y a e. In con as , he e ec o na ional p os-
pe i y emains obus . Changes in income inequali y emain negligible ega dless o i s con-
c e e measu emen . The esul s om M3 and M4 a e also obus o changes in ci il libe ies
and poli ical igh s.
6 Discussion andConclusions
The s a ing poin o ou in es iga ion was he coincidence o a ( u he ) ise in income
inequali y in many Eu opean coun ies and a succession o economic c ises since 2000.
This, and he inconclusi eness o p e ious esea ch, mo i a ed wo esea ch ques ions: (a)
Has he e been a end owa d g owing inequali y o subjec i e li e ou comes—measu ed
as li e sa is ac ion—in Eu opean coun ies o e he pas wo decades? (b) Wha changes in
socioeconomic condi ions ha e wo ked o inc ease o dec ease i ? Fo 27 ESS coun ies,
we examined he well-being dis ibu ion in a longi udinal design h ough wo lenses o
Table 3 Wi hin models o g oup
pola iza ion in li e sa is ac ion
(highes s. lowes income
quin ile), 2002–2024
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, † p < 0.1. S anda dized e ec
(β) size o b: small (0.2 < β < 0.5); medium (0.5 < β < 0.8); la ge (β >
0.8). β = bX × wi hin SDX/wi hin SDY
(M3) (M4)
VARIABLES LIFESAT-GP LIFESAT-GP
log. GDPpc −1 5.108 4.710
Gini −1 0.575†0.598†
Unemploymen −1 0.098 0.096
Social p o ec ion −1 0.579*0.599*
In la ion −1 –0.258†–0.246†
Age s uc u e −1 0.130 0.051
T us 1.191
Round –0.183 –0.154
S anda dized e ec sizes β
log. GDPpc −1 0.349 0.322
Gini −1 0.141 0.147
Unemploymen −1 0.068 0.067
Social p o ec ion −1 0.207 0.214
In la ion −1 –0.134 –0.128
Age s uc u e −1 0.089 0.035
T us 0.095
Obse a ions 270 270
Coun ies 27 27
ESS Rounds 10 10
F-S a 4.584 3.706
R-squa ed wi hin 0.128 0.135
457
Eu opeans’ Happiness omanEgali a ian Pe spec i e: Mo e…
pola iza ion—ac oss all membe s o socie y (o e all dispe sion) and be ween he uppe -
and lowe -income g oups speci ically (g oup pola iza ion).
A i s impo an esul is ha he o e all dispe sion and g oup pola iza ion a e only
weakly ela ed, e ol ed in di e en di ec ions in qui e a numbe o coun ies, and ha e
di e en socioeconomic d i e s. This may sound con adic o y, bu i is no . The measu es
used a e, i s , based on di e en se s o people—he e he popula ion as a whole, he e
he ich and he poo as speci ic subg oups—and a e he e o e no de i ed om he same
dis ibu ion. Second, he popula ion as a whole is a composi e o many g oups, and he
de elopmen o pola iza ion be ween ich and poo can be “ ep esen a i e” o he o al
popula ion, bu i does no ha e o be. In some coun ies he ich and poo ha e become
mo e dissimila in e ms o li e sa is ac ion, bu a he same ime he o e all dispe sion has
na owed, so i s ands o eason ha o he g oups mus ha e con e ged. To gain a mo e
comple e pic u e, i is he e o e necessa y o examine g oup pola iza ion in addi ion o he
o e all dispe sion.
Fo he o al popula ion, we can enew Veenho en’s (2005) well-known e dic : he e
has been no e u n o inequali y in well-being. This gene al p og essi e end pu s popula
po ayals o con empo a y Wes e n socie ies as social ailu es ha a e acked by inequal-
i y (Wilkinson & Picke , 2010) in pe spec i e. The e olu ion o he o e all dispe sion
o sa is ac ion o e ime has p ima ily been in luenced by changes in na ional p ospe i y
(a homogenizing e ec ), unemploymen (a pola izing e ec ), and he aging o socie ies
(again a homogenizing e ec ). I policymake s wan o enable as many people as possible
o achie e he same le el o happiness, hen secu ing economic p ospe i y and comba -
ing unemploymen a e p omising s a ing poin s. Seen in conjunc ion wi h esul s om
p e ious esea ch, inc easing p ospe i y hus seems o imp o e bo h he le el o well-being
(Hage y & Veenho en, 2003; Veenho en & Hage y, 2006), and i s o e all dis ibu ion,
by making i mo e homogenous. Ou inding ega ding he ole o unemploymen a es is
consis en wi h s udies on well-being inequali y in Ge many (Becche i e al., 2014) and on
a ious public heal h ou comes ac oss he Eu opean Union (S uckle e al., 2009).
The pola iza ion o li e sa is ac ion be ween ich and poo p esen s a mixed pic u e.
Seen h ough his lens, he e has been a e u n o inequali y in well-being in qui e a
numbe o coun ies. This a leas quali ies Veenho en’s (2005) e dic —and i also
indica es policy ailu e, as he Council o Eu ope (2008, p. 14) has se he goal o min-
imizing inequali ies in he well-being o he ich and he poo speci ically. No only
sou he n Eu opean coun ies ail o mee his a ge (Jo da e al., 2019); coun ies om
all pa s o Eu ope, including he No dic coun ies o Denma k, Sweden, and Finland,
ail o do so. As a esul , he e idenced lead o he “old” Eu opean membe s a es in
e ms o well-being equali y (Delhey, 2004) has become smalle . The s onges d i e o
pola iza ion be ween income g oups is, somewha su p isingly, ising na ional p ospe -
i y. The eason could be ha , as na ions ge iche , people in he uppe income g oups
in pa icula become mo e and mo e homogenous in hei —qui e high—subjec i e well-
being, so he e a e ha dly any dissa is ied o unhappy people among he weal hy. Such
a pa e n along he income dis ibu ion cha ac e izes he USA (Klein Teeselink & Zau-
be man, 2023), and i could also cha ac e ize Eu ope. The second d i e is when s a es
a e spending a g owing sha e o hei GDP on social p o ec ion. The s igma a ached o
wel a e ecipien s, o hei sel -s igma iza ion, could be he c i ical ac o he e (Baum-
be g, 2016); inc eased social spending would hen alle ia e ma e ial dep i a ion, while
ne e heless lea ing ecipien s wi h a sa is ac ion de ici . Fu he mo e, highe social
p o ec ion expendi u e may indica e an inc ease in he numbe o people who depend on
i . I we assume ha his dependence—especially among poo e indi iduals— educes
458
J.Delhey, M.Ge cke
well-being, his could u he explain he ise in li e sa is ac ion inequali y be ween ich
and poo ha we obse ed wi h ESS da a.
Wha abou he “usual suspec ”—income inequali y—which is cen al o he amous
“spi i le el heo y” (Wilkinson & Picke , 2010) and he mo i a ion o his a icle? In
ou s udy, economic inequali y is less impo an han we hough : Widening income ine-
quali y leads, a mos , o only a e y small ise in li e sa is ac ion inequali y. Ou con-
clusion o a e y small longi udinally impac con as s wi h he indings o G aa land
and Lous (2019) o OECD coun ies bu aligns wi h end analyses on heal h and social
p oblems (Delhey e al., 2023). Why does ising income inequali y ma e so li le? One
explana ion could be ha he scale o “objec i e” income inequali y is no accu a ely
ep esen ed in people’s subjec i e pe cep ions (Faggian e al., 2023). Ano he explana-
ion could be ha people oday end o ank hei own posi ion in he social hie a chy
highe han people did in he pas decades (Oesch & Vigna, 2022). Inequali y could
he e o e be seen as a social p oblem a he han an indi idual one, wi h limi ed impac
on li e sa is ac ion inequali y.
Because ou s udy is necessa ily limi ed in scope, a numbe o ollow-up ques ions
a ise o u he esea ch. We only conside ed subjec i e well-being om an egali a ian
pe spec i e; an addi ional examina ion o how le els o li e sa is ac ion ha e de eloped
would comple e he pic u e and allow a conclusi e assessmen o wel a e de elopmen
om he pe spec i e o social p og ess. I also emains o be explo ed whe he he con-
as ing ends—o e all a mo e homogeneous dis ibu ion, bu qui e o en ising pola i-
za ion be ween ich and poo —also apply o non-Eu opean coun ies. A e all, i is
well known ha economic dispa i ies ha e widened mo e sha ply in o he egions o
he wo ld (UNDP, 2019). Nex , i would be wo hwhile o sys ema ically examine ends
in g oup pola iza ion be ween a ious sub-popula ions, such as hose di e en ia ed by
age, gende , educa ion, place o esidence ( u al–u ban), e hnic backg ound, ela ion-
ship s a us, o poli ical alues—a esea ch agenda ha would ha e gone a beyond he
scope o his pape . Ano he esea ch deside a um is a sys ema ic analysis o which
popula ion g oups ha e become mo e homogeneous in e nally in e ms o li e sa is ac-
ion ( o income g oups in he USA, see Klein Teeselink & Zaube man, 2023). Wi hin-
g oup homogeniza ion may ha e con ibu ed o a mo e e en dis ibu ion o li e sa is ac-
ion in he popula ion as a whole. Wha e e issues a e aken up, con inuing his ype o
esea ch will p o ide aluable insigh s in o whe e and why con empo a y socie ies a e
mo ing close o—o u he away om— he goal o cohesi e well-being.
Supplemen a y In o ma ion The online e sion con ains supplemen a y ma e ial a ailable a h ps:// doi.
o g/ 10. 1007/ s11205- 025- 03619-5.
Au ho s’ Con ibu ions Bo h au ho s ha e equally con ibu ed acco ding o he ou c i e ia men ioned he e:
h ps:// www. icmje. o g/ ecom menda ions/ b owse/ oles- and- espo nsibi li ies/ de in ing- he- ole- o - au ho s-
and- con ibu o s. h ml
Funding Open Access unding enabled and o ganized by P ojek DEAL. The au ho s decla e ha hey ha e
no inancial in e es s.
Code A ailabili y S a a Code is a ailable on eques , cus om code.
Decla a ions
E hical App o al The au ho s decla e ha he s udy complies wi h human esea ch e hics. The au ho s
decla e ha esponden s ga e in o med consen o he su ey.
459
Eu opeans’ Happiness omanEgali a ian Pe spec i e: Mo e…
Con lic o in e es The au ho s decla e no con lic o in e es .
Open Access This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License,
which pe mi s use, sha ing, adap a ion, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma , as long
as you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce, p o ide a link o he C ea i e Com-
mons licence, and indica e i changes we e made. The images o o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his a icle
a e included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence, unless indica ed o he wise in a c edi line o he
ma e ial. I ma e ial is no included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence and you in ended use is no
pe mi ed by s a u o y egula ion o exceeds he pe mi ed use, you will need o ob ain pe mission di ec ly
om he copy igh holde . To iew a copy o his licence, isi h p:// c ea i eco mmons. o g/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
Re e ences
Alde son, A. S., Beck ield, J., & Nielson, F. (2005). Exac ly how has income inequali y changed? Pa e ns o
dis ibu ional change in co e socie ies. In e na ional Jou nal o Compa a i e Sociology, 46, 405–423.
Allison, P. D. (2005). Fixed e ec s eg ession me hods o longi udinal da a using SAS. SAS Ins i u e.
A aki, S. (2023). Shedding new ligh on happiness inequali y ia uncondi ional quan ile eg ession: The
case o Japan unde he Co id-19 c isis. Resea ch in Social S a i ica ion and Mobili y, 84, A icle
100782.
A slan, H. (2023). Happiness inequali y in pos -socialis coun ies du ing neolibe al ansi ion. Compa a i e
Sociology, 22(1), 30–73.
Ba olini, S., Mikucka, M., & Sa acino, F. (2017). Money, us and happiness in ansi ion coun ies: E i-
dence om ime se ies. Social Indica o s Resea ch, 130, 87–106.
Ba am, D. (2022). Does inequali y exace ba e s a us anxie y among highe ea ne s? A longi udinal e alua-
ion. In e na ional Jou nal o Compa a i e Sociology, 63(4), 184–200.
Baumbe g, B. E. N. (2016). The s igma o claiming bene i s: A quan i a i e s udy. Jou nal o Social Policy,
45(1), 181–199.
Becche i, L., Massa i, R., & Na icchioni, P. (2014). The d i e s o happiness inequali y: Sugges ions o
p omo ing social cohesion. Ox o d Economic Pape s, 66, 419–442.
Bé enge , V., & Silbe , J. (2022). On he measu emen o happiness and o i s inequali y. Jou nal o Happi-
ness S udies, 23, 861–902.
Be g, M., & Veenho en, R. (2010). Income inequali y and happiness in 119 na ions. In B. G e e (Ed.),
Social policy and happiness in Eu ope (pp. 174–194). Edwa d Elga .
Bjo nsko , C. (2003). The happy ew: C oss-coun y e idence on social capi al and li e sa is ac ion. Kyklos,
56, 3–16.
Boe i, T., & Jimeno, J. F. (2016). Lea ning om he g ea di e gence in unemploymen in Eu ope du ing he
c isis. Labou Economics, 41, 32–46.
Buhmann, B., Rainwa e , L., Schmaus, G., & Smeeding, T. M. (1988). Equi alence scales, well-being, ine-
quali y, and po e y: Sensi i i y es ima es ac oss en coun ies using he Luxembou g Income S udy
(LIS) da abase. Re iew o Income and Weal h, 34(2), 115–142. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/j. 1475- 4991.
1988. b005 64.x
Bu ge , M. J., Mo ison, P. S., Hend iks, M., & Hooge b ugge, M. M. (2020). U ban- u al happiness di e -
en ials ac oss he wo ld. Wo ld Happiness Repo , 2020, 66–93.
Capo ale, G. M., Geo gellis, Y., Tsi siania, N., & Yin, Y. P. (2009). Income and happiness ac oss Eu ope:
Do e e ence alues ma e ? Jou nal o Economic Psychology, 30, 42–51.
Cla k, A. E., Flèche, S., & Senik, C. (2016). Economic g ow h e ens ou happiness: E idence om six su -
eys. Re iew o Income and Weal h, 62(3), 405–419.
Co de o, G., Zagó ski, P., & Rama, J. (2023). Economic sel -in e es o cul u al h ea ? Mig an unemploy-
men and class-based suppo o populis adical igh pa ies in Eu ope. Poli ical Beha io , 46, 1397–
1416. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s11109- 023- 09877-8
Council o Eu ope. (2008). Oppo uni ies, access and solida i y: Towa ds a new social ision o 21s cen-
u y Eu ope. Repo o he High-Le el Task Fo ce on Social Cohesion in he 21s Cen u y. h ps:// m.
coe. in / 09000 01680 747068
Cowell, F. A., & Flachai e, E. (2017). Inequali y wi h o dinal da a. Economica, 84(334), 290–321. h ps://
doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ ecca. 12232
Delhey, J. (2004). Li e sa is ac ion in an enla ged Eu ope. O ice o O icial Publica ions o he Eu opean
Communi ies.
460
J.Delhey, M.Ge cke
Delhey, J., & Kohle , U. (2011). Is happiness inequali y immune o income inequali y? New e idence
h ough ins umen -e ec -co ec ed s anda d de ia ions. Social Science Resea ch, 40(3), 742–756.
Delhey, J., & S ecke meie , L. C. (2016). The good li e, a luence and sel - epo ed happiness: In oducing
he Good Li e index and debunking wo popula my hs. Wo ld De elopmen , 88, 50–66.
Delhey, J., S ecke meie , L. C., & Ge cke, M. (2023). No jus a ma e o inequali y. The ex en and
de elopmen o social and heal h p oblems in ich coun ies. In R. Baikady, S. M. Sajid, J. P zep-
e ski, V. Nadesan, M. R. Islam, & J. Gao (Eds.), The Palg a e handbook o global social p oblems
(pp. 1–30). Sp inge In e na ional Publishing.
Diene , E., Scollon, C. N., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). The e ol ing concep o subjec i e well-being: The
mul i ace ed na u e o happiness. Ad ances in Cell Aging and Ge on ology, 15, 187–219.
Du a, I., & Fos e , J. (2013). Inequali y o happiness in he US: 1972–2010. Re iew o Income and
Weal h, 59(3), 393–415. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/j. 1475- 4991. 2012. 00527.x
Eu opean Social Su ey Eu opean Resea ch In as uc u e Conso ium (ESS ERIC). (2024). ESS Round
11 - 2023: Social inequali ies in heal h, gende in con empo a y Eu ope. Sik – No wegian Agency
o Sha ed Se ices in Educa ion and Resea ch. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 21338/ ess11- 2023
E ans, M. D. R., Kelley, J., Kelley, S. M. C., & Kelley, C. G. E. (2019). Rising income inequali y du ing
he G ea Recession had no impac on subjec i e wellbeing in Eu ope, 2003–2012. Jou nal o Hap-
piness S udies, 20, 203–228.
Faggian, A., Michelangeli, A., & Tkach, K. (2023). Income inequali y in Eu ope: Reali y, pe cep ions,
and hopes. Resea ch in Globaliza ion, 6, A icle 100118.
Gandelman, N., & Po zecanski, R. (2013). Happiness inequali y: How much is easonable? Social Indi-
ca o s Resea ch, 110, 257–269.
Golds ein, R. (1995). The o e lapping coe icien and an “imp o ed” ank-sum s a is ic. S a a Technical
Bulle in, 4(22). h ps:// ideas. epec. o g//a/ sj/ s bull/ y1995 4i22 sg27. h ml
G aa land, J., & Lous, B. (2019). Income inequali y, li e sa is ac ion inequali y and us : A c oss coun-
y panel analysis. Jou nal o Happiness S udies, 20(6), 1717–1737.
G imes, A., Jenkins, S. P., & T anquilli, F. (2023). The ela ionship be ween subjec i e wellbeing and
subjec i e wellbeing inequali y: An impo an ole o skewness. Jou nal o Happiness S udies,
24(1), 309–330.
G usky, D. B., & MacLean, A. (2016). The social allou o a high-inequali y egime. The Annals o he
Ame ican Academy o Poli ical and Social Science, 663(1), 33–52. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 00027
16215 596946
Hacke , J. S. (2006). The g ea isk shi . Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Hage y, M. R., & Veenho en, R. (2003). Weal h and happiness e isi ed—G owing na ional income
does go wi h g ea e happiness. Social Indica o s Resea ch, 64, 1–27.
Heiden eich, M. (2016). In oduc ion: The double dualiza ion o inequali y in Eu ope. In M. Heiden eich
(Ed.), Explo ing inequali y in Eu ope. Di e ging income and employmen oppo uni ies in he c i-
sis (pp. 1–21). Edwa d Elga .
Helliwell, J. F., Laya d, R., Sachs, J. D., Ne e, J.-E., Aknin, L. B., & Wang, S. (2022). Wo ld happiness
epo 2022. Sus ainable De elopmen Solu ions Ne wo k.
Inman, H. F., & B adley, E. L. (1989). The o e lapping coe icien as a measu e o ag eemen be ween
p obabili y dis ibu ions and poin es ima ion o he o e lap o wo no mal densi ies. Communica-
ions in S a is ics - Theo y and Me hods, 18(10), 3851–3874. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 03610 92890
88301 27
Jenkins, S. P. (2020). Compa ing dis ibu ions o o dinal da a. The S a a Jou nal, 20(3), 505–531.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 15368 67X20 953565
Je en, J. (2019). The weal h pa adox: P ospe i y and opposi ion o immig a ion. Eu opean Jou nal o
Social Psychology, 49(6), 1097–1113. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1002/ ejsp. 2552
Jo da, V., López-No al, B., & Sa abia, J. M. (2019). Dis ibu ional dynamics o li e sa is ac ion in
Eu ope. Jou nal o Happiness S udies, 20, 1015–1039.
Kalmijn, W. M., & A ends, L. R. (2010). Measu es o inequali y: Applica ion o happiness in na ions.
Social Indica o s Resea ch, 99(1), 147–162. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s11205- 010- 9573-z
Kalmijn, W., & Veenho en, R. (2005). Measu ing inequali y o happiness in na ions: In sea ch o p ope
s a is ics. Jou nal o Happiness S udies, 6(4), 357–396. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s10902- 005- 8855-7
Kezdi, G. (2003). Robus s anda d e o es ima ion in ixed-e ec s panel models. SSRN Elec onic Jou -
nal. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 2139/ ss n. 596988
Klein Teeselink, B., & Zaube man, G. (2023). The Anna Ka enina income e ec : Well-being inequali y
dec eases wi h income. Jou nal o Economic Beha io & O ganiza ion, 212, 501–513.

461
Eu opeans’ Happiness omanEgali a ian Pe spec i e: Mo e…
Kollampa ambil, U. (2020). Happiness, happiness inequali y and income dynamics in Sou h A ica.
Jou nal o Happiness S udies, 21, 201–222.
Laya d, R., May az, G., & Nickell, S. (2010). Does ela i e income ma e ? A e he c i ics igh ? In e -
na ional Di e ences in Well-Being, 28, 139–166.
Lelkes, Y. (2016). Mass pola iza ion: Mani es a ions and measu emen s. Public Opinion Qua e ly,
80(S1), 392–410. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1093/ poq/ n w005
Lipps, O., & Oesch, D. (2018). The wo king class le behind? The class gap in li e sa is ac ion in Ge -
many and Swi ze land o e he las decades. Eu opean Socie ies, 20(4), 549–571.
Makhlou , Y. (2023). T ends in income inequali y: E idence om de eloping and de eloped coun ies.
Social Indica o s Resea ch, 165(1), 213–243.
Ma os, C. S. (2022). Household income ins abili y: Po uguese wel a e s a e mee s he eu ozone c isis.
Jou nal o Economic Issues, 56(3), 758–769.
Michalos, A. C. (1985). Mul iple disc epancies heo y (MDT). Social Indica o s Resea ch, 16, 347–413.
Nach wey, O. (2018). Ge many’s hidden c isis. Social decline in he hea o Eu ope. Ve so.
Ne le, D. (2005). Happiness. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Oesch, D., & Vigna, N. (2022). A Decline in he Social S a us o he Wo king Class? Con lic ing E i-
dence o 8 Wes e n Coun ies, 1987–2017. Compa a i e Poli ical S udies, 55(7), 1130–1157.
Okulicz-Koza yn, A., & Mazelis, J. M. (2017). Mo e unequal in income, mo e unequal in wellbeing.
Social Indica o s Resea ch, 132(3), 953–975.
O , J. (2005). Le el and inequali y o happiness in na ions: Does g ea e happiness o a g ea e numbe
imply g ea e inequali y in happiness? Jou nal o Happiness S udies, 6, 397–420.
O aska, T., & Takashima, R. (2010). Does a ising ide li all he boa s? Explaining he na ional ine-
quali y o happiness. Jou nal o Economic Issues, 44(1), 205–224.
Quick, A. (2015). Inequali ies in wellbeing. Challenges and oppo uni ies o esea ch and policy. New
Economics Founda ion.
Ranci, C., Beck ield, J., Be na di, L., & Pa ma, A. (2021). New measu es o economic insecu i y
e eal i s expansion in o EU middle classes and wel a e s a es. Social Indica o s Resea ch, 158(2),
539–562.
Salahodjae , R. (2021). Tole ance, go e nance and happiness (in)equali y: C oss-coun y e idence.
In e na ional Jou nal o De elopmen Issues, 20(2), 280–289.
Sch öde , M. (2018). Income inequali y and li e sa is ac ion: Un ela ed be ween coun ies, associa ed
wi hin coun ies o e ime. Jou nal o Happiness S udies, 19(4), 1021–1043.
Schyns, P. (2002). Weal h o na ions, indi idual income and li e sa is ac ion in 42 coun ies: A mul i-
le el app oach. Social Indica o s Resea ch, 60(1), 5–40.
S anding, G. (2011). The p eca ia : The new dange ous class. Bloomsbu y Academic. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10.
5040/ 97818 49664 554
S e enson, B., & Wol e s, J. (2008). Happiness inequali y in he Uni ed S a es. The Jou nal o Legal
S udies, 37(S2), 33–79.
S igli z, J. E. (2012). The p ice o inequali y: How oday’s di ided socie y endange s ou u u e. W.W.
No on & Company.
S uckle , D., Basu, S., Suh cke, M., Cou s, A., & McKee, M. (2009). The public heal h e ec o eco-
nomic c ises and al e na i e policy esponses in Eu ope: An empi ical analysis. The Lance , 374,
315–323.
Thewissen, S., Kenwo hy, L., Nolan, B., Rose , M., & Smeeding, T. (2018). Rising income inequali y
and li ing s anda ds in OECD coun ies: How does he middle a e? LIS Wo king Pape Se ies,
656, 1–23. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 25071/ 1874- 6322. 40351
UNDP (Uni ed Na ions De elopmen P og amme) (2019). Human De elopmen Repo 2019: Beyond
income, beyond a e ages, beyond oday: Inequali ies in human de elopmen in he 21s cen u y.
UNDP.
Van de Eijk, C. (2001). Measu ing ag eemen in o de ed a ing scales. Quali y and Quan i y, 35,
325–341.
Veenho en, R. (1984). Condi ions o happiness. D. Reidel Publishing Company. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/
978- 94- 009- 6432-7
Veenho en, R. (2005). Re u n o inequali y in mode n socie y? Tes by dispe sion o li e-sa is ac ion
ac oss ime and space. Jou nal o Happiness S udies, 6(4), 457–487.
Veenho en, R. (2012). Happiness, also known as ‘li e sa is ac ion’ and ‘subjec i e well-Being.’ In K.
C. Land, A. C. Michalos, & M. J. Si gy (Eds.), Handbook o social indica o s and quali y o li e
esea ch (pp. 63–77). Sp inge .
Veenho en, R., & Hage y, M. R. (2006). Rising happiness in na ions 1946–2004: A eply o Eas e lin.
Social Indica o s Resea ch, 79, 421–436.
462
J.Delhey, M.Ge cke
Veenho en, R., & Kalmijn, W. (2005). Inequali y-adjus ed happiness in na ions. Egali a ianism and u ili a i-
anism ma ied in a new index o socie al pe o mance. Jou nal o Happiness S udies, 6(4), 421–455.
Welsch, H., & Bonn, U. (2008). Economic con e gence and li e sa is ac ion in he Eu opean Union.
Jou nal o Socio-Economics, 37, 1153–1167.
Wilkinson, R., & Picke , K. (2010). The spi i le el: Why mo e equal socie ies always do be e . Pen-
guin Books.
Da a
Eu os a . (2024a). Income quin ile sha e a io S80/S20 o disposable income by sex and age g oup (ilc_
di11) . h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 2908/ ILC_ DI11
Eu os a . (2024b). A - isk-o -po e y a e by po e y h eshold, age and sex (ilc_li02). h ps:// doi. o g/ 10.
2908/ ILC_ LI02
Eu os a . (2024c). Gene al go e nmen expendi u e by unc ion (COFOG) (Social p o ec ion) (go _10a_
exp). h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 2908/ GOV_ 10A_ EXP
Eu opean Social Su ey Cumula i e File, ESS 1–11 (2024). Da a ile edi ion 1.0. Sik – No wegian Agency
o Sha ed Se ices in Educa ion and Resea ch.
F eedom House (2024a). Ci il libe ies a ing [Da a se ]. In Ou Wo ld in Da a. h ps:// ou wo ldin da a. o g/
g aph e / ci il- libe ies- a ing- h. Accessed 03-02-2025.
F eedom House (2024b). Poli ical igh s a ing [Da a se ]. In Ou Wo ld in Da a. h ps:// ou wo ldin da a. o g/
g aph e / poli ical- igh s- a ing- h. Accessed 03-02-2025.
OECD. (2024). Ne o al social expendi u e in % GDP. h ps:// inyu l. com/ m ys7 s s. Accessed 03-02-2025.
Sol , F. (2020). Measu ing income inequali y ac oss coun ies and o e ime: The s anda dized Wo ld
Income Inequali y da abase. Social Science Qua e ly, 101(3), 1183–1199. SWIID Ve sion 9.7, Sep-
embe 2024.
Wo ld Bank. (2024a). GDP pe capi a, PPP (cu en in e na ional $) (NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD) . h ps:// www.
da a. wo ld bank. o g/ indic a o / NY. GDP. PCAP. PP. CD. Accessed 03-02-2025.
Wo ld Bank. (2024b). Unemploymen , o al (% o o al labo o ce) (modeled ILO es ima e). (SL.UEM.
TOTL.ZS). h ps:// da a. wo ld bank. o g/ indic a o / SL. UEM. TOTL. ZS. Accessed 03-02-2025.
Wo ld Bank. (2024c). In la ion, consume p ices (annual %) (FP.CPI.TOTL.ZG). h ps:// da a. wo ld bank.
o g/ indic a o / FP. CPI. TOTL. ZG. Accessed 03-02-2025.
Wo ld Bank. (2024d). Age dependency a io, old (% o wo king-age popula ion) (SP.POP.DPND.OL).
h ps:// da a. wo ld bank. o g/ indic a o / SP. POP. DPND. OL. Accessed 03-02-2025.
Publishe ’s No e Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in published maps and
ins i u ional a ilia ions.