Increasingly polarized? Inequality, prosperity, and perceived socioeconomic conflict in advanced economies (1987-2019)

Eu opean Sociological Re iew, 2025, 00, 1–18
h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/es /jca 052
Ad ance access publica ion 24 No embe 2025
O iginal A icle
Inc easingly pola ized? Inequali y, p ospe i y,
and pe cei ed socioeconomic con lic in ad anced
economies (1987–2019)
C is ian Má quez Romo
*
, Simon Biens man and Ma kus Gangl
Ins i u e o Sociology, Goe he-Uni e si y F ank u , F ank u am Main 60323, Ge many
*
Co esponding au ho . Email: [email p o ec ed]
P e ious s udies sugges ha in mo e unequal socie ies, people pe cei e s onge an agonis ic ela ions be ween opposing
socioeconomic g oups. Gi en ha income inequali y and social pola iza ion ha e bo h been on he ise in mos Wes e n
democ acies, we expand on his body o wo k by in es iga ing whe he changes in mac oeconomic undamen als ha e
igge ed changes in pe cei ed socioeconomic con lic . To assess his p oposi ion, we i hyb id mul ile el models using ime-
se ies c oss-sec ional da a om 26 coun ies spanning o e h ee decades (1987–2019). Ou e idence shows ha ising
economic p ospe i y does no educe he le el o pe cei ed con lic once income inequali y is accoun ed o . In con as ,
g owing inequali y is obus ly associa ed wi h inc eased salience o pe cei ed socioeconomic con lic . Findings indica e a
socio opic wi hin e ec o income inequali y, ne o changes in economic p ospe i y and accoun ing o con ex ual
con ounde s and indi idual-le el composi ional e ec s. Ou esul s u he sugges ha income inequali y exace ba es class-
based pola iza ion in con lic pe cep ions: i inc eases pe cei ed con lic ac oss all g oups—excep he uppe -middle class.
Al e na i e model speci ica ions and ex ensi e obus ness checks lend addi ional suppo o ou a gumen ha he dis ibu ion
o economic esou ces has a di ec impac on he salience o socioeconomic con lic pe cep ions.
Recei ed: Decembe 2024; e ised: July 2025; accep ed: Oc obe 2025
© The Au ho (s) 2025. Published by Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion-NonComme cial License (h ps://
c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which pe mi s non-comme cial e-use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided
he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed. Fo comme cial e-use, please con ac [email p o ec ed] o ep in s and ansla ion igh s o ep in s.
All o he pe missions can be ob ained h ough ou Righ sLink se ice ia he Pe missions link on he a icle page on ou si e— o u he in-
o ma ion please con ac [email p o ec ed].
In oduc ion
Ea ly on, Lipse (1959) a gued ha he le el and dis i-
bu ion o economic esou ces shape bo h he deg ee o
socie al di ision and i s abili y o manage con lic s
h ough poli ical means. Simila ly, Dah endo (1967)
iden i ied he ins i u ionaliza ion o class con lic as a
key mechanism o con aining he po en ially dis up-
i e e ec s o dis ibu i e ensions and class an agon-
ism, a p ocess ha con ibu ed o he o ma ion o
pa y sys ems and wel a e s a es du ing he ea ly 20 h
cen u y. Agains he backd op o mid-20 h-cen u y
economic g ow h and ising p ospe i y, deba es in he
1980s began o ques ion whe he class had los i s pol-
i ical ele ance (e.g., Pakulski and Wa e s, 1997; Beck,
2007). Ye , wi h g owing inequali y in ad anced econ-
omies du ing ecen decades (A kinson, 2015; Zucman,
2019), he salience o dis ibu ional con lic s has ee-
me ged (Ke bo, 2012; He el and Schöneck, 2019).
Exis ing esea ch emphasizes bo h pe sis en and is-
ing le els o pe cei ed con lic as causes o conce n, no
leas because pe cei ed socioeconomic con lic is e-
ga ded as a key indica o o social cohesion. High le els
o socioeconomic con lic can e ode us , uel in e nal
dispu es such as c ime and ci il un es , and exace ba e
poli ical pola iza ion (Hsieh and Pugh, 1993; Ro hs ein
and Uslane , 2005; Delhey and Keck, 2008; Ba en and
Mumme, 2013). These conce ns a e inc easingly p ess-
ing gi en he ise o an i-libe al mo emen s and pa ies
ha challenge es ablished mechanisms o he ule-
based esolu ion o con lic s (Foa and Mounk, 2016;
P zewo ski, 2019; Fukuyama, Dann and Magaloni,
2025). Ul ima ely, i democ a ic suppo depends on
ci izens’ belie in he sys em’s capaci y o channel and
peace ully esol e social and poli ical issues, inc easing
pe cei ed socioeconomic con lic may signal he e o-
sion o undamen al democ a ic consensus (Lipse ,
1959).
Downloaded om h ps://academic.oup.com/es /ad ance-a icle/doi/10.1093/es /jca 052/8341093 by gues on 25 No embe 2025
Agains his backg ound, we examine whe he mac o-
economic undamen als a ec pe cei ed socioeconomic
con lic by ocusing on he ela ionship be ween econom-
ic p ospe i y, income inequali y, and pe cei ed socio-
economic con lic . Ou ocus lies on he subjec i e
salience o con lic s be ween economically opposing so-
cial g oups ( an D unen, Sp uy and an
D oogenb oeck, 2021), i.e., among g oups ha di e in
hei socioeconomic s a us, as opposed o o he ypes o
an agonis ic ela ions, such as hose pe aining o a ib-
u es such as gende , age, o e hnici y (c . Delhey and
Keck, 2008). P e ious s udies ha e shown ha pe cei ed
socioeconomic con lic ends o be highe in mo e un-
equal socie ies, and ha inequali y be ween social classes
is consis en ly associa ed wi h di e ences in pe cei ed
socioeconomic con lic (e.g., Janicka, 2002; Zagó ski,
2006; Ke , 2014; He el and Schöneck, 2019; an
D unen, Sp uy and an D oogenb oeck, 2021). Ye , ex-
is ing esea ch elies almos exclusi ely on ei he
indi idual-le el d i e s o c oss-sec ional designs. As a
esul , we s ill lack he empi ical e idence ha allows us
o d aw i m conclusions abou whe he shi s in income
inequali y and economic p ospe i y ha e igge ed
changes in pe cei ed socioeconomic con lic .
To add ess his gap, we use a compa a i e longi u-
dinal design, analyzing epea ed c oss-sec ional da a
om he In e na ional Social Su ey P og am (ISSP)
o 26 coun ies o e h ee decades (1987–2019). Ou
s udy con ibu es in h ee ways: Fi s , in line wi h ea l-
ie c oss-sec ional s udies, indings om andom e ec s
wi hin-be ween models show ha economic p ospe i y
does no subs an i ely dec ease pe cei ed socio-
economic con lic when es ing he join e ec s o p os-
pe i y and income inequali y (e.g., Ande sen and
Cu is, 2012; E ans and Kelley, 2017). Second, we
p o ide obus e idence o a socio opic e ec o o e -
ime changes in inequali y on socioeconomic con lic
pe cep ions. Tha is, as inequali y ises wi hin coun-
ies, ci izens’ con lic pe cep ions inc ease, i espec i e
o hei socioeconomic posi ion o o he demog aphic
cha ac e is ics. Thi d, we ind ha inequali y in ensi ies
he di e gence in con lic pe cep ions be ween opposing
socioeconomic g oups: while hose in less ad an aged
socioeconomic posi ions a e e iden ly esponsi e o
g owing inequali y, con lic pe cep ions among he
mos ad an aged ci izens appea la gely insula ed
om shi s in mac oeconomic inequali y. These esul s
align wi h a g owing body o e idence indica ing ha
he wo se-o a e compa a i ely mo e exposed o he
social–psychological e ec s igge ed by ising inequal-
i y o e he las decades. Ex ensi e obus ness checks
u he ein o ce he idea ha he une en dis ibu ion
o economic esou ces wi hin a coun y has a di ec im-
pac on he salience, and pola iza ion, o socioeconom-
ic con lic pe cep ions.
In he ollowing, we elabo a e on he heo e ical a -
gumen s linking mac oeconomic undamen als o he
salience o pe cei ed con lic , e iew he exis ing li e a-
u e, and de ail he da a and me hodology. We hen p e-
sen ou indings and discuss hei implica ions.
Theo y and p e ious esea ch
Democ a ic heo y has long emphasized he impo ance
o a ce ain le el o economic de elopmen o sus ain-
ing democ acy. Lipse ’s (1959) seminal wo k, as well as
se e al impo an con ibu ions ha ollowed (see
Diamond, 1992; P zewo ski and Limongi, 1997;
Wuche p ennig and Deu sch, 2009), a gued ha he
p o ision o minimum ma e ial secu i y and li ing
s anda ds ende s he ques ion o who holds powe
less exis en ial, educing he incen i e o seek absolu e
powe and enabling peace ul ansi ions be ween go -
e nmen s. La e on, de eloping a mo e nuanced pe -
spec i e on egime change, Boix (2003) emphasized
he impo ance o he dis ibu ional consequences o
di e en poli ical egimes, ad ancing he no ion o
democ acy as an ins i u ional equilib ium designed o
con ain he po en ially dis up i e e ec s o dis ibu i e
con lic .
These pe spec i es also align wi h Dah endo ’s
(1967)no ion o he ins i u ionaliza ion o class con-
lic s, sugges ing ha while he o ma ion o c oss-class
coali ions is essen ial o main aining poli ical and ins i-
u ional equilib ium, economic changes condi ion he
in ensi y o social and poli ical con lic s. As hese con-
lic s a e o en di ides ega ding he dis ibu ion o eco-
nomic esou ces, hey can ei he mi iga e o exace ba e
s uc u al di isions wi hin socie y. Indeed, pe iods o
economic malaise can ha e impo an social and poli -
ical implica ions, igge ing c i ical junc u es du ing
which he legi imacy o he exis ing ‘social con ac ’
can be e isi ed o called in o ques ion (Hassel, 2009;
K iesi, 2016; Liesbe and Ma ks, 2018).
A leas since Ma x (2010 [1904]), i has been a key
p emise and hus a ecu en poin o deba e whe he
mac oeconomic undamen als in luence he o m and
he in ensi y o socie al con lic . While Lipse and
Rokkan (1967) iden i ied class- ela ed con lic s as one
undamen al clea age ha was ins i u ionalized in
pa y sys ems and he concomi an de elopmen o wel-
a e s a es in he ea ly 20 h cen u y, schola ly deba es in
he 1980s e ol ed a ound he ques ion o whe he
class had ceased o be a poli ically ele an ca ego y.
The pe iod o apid and widesp ead economic g ow h
and inc easing p ospe i y in he mid- wen ie h cen u y
led pos -mode n heo is s o hypo hesize ha class
would cease o be he dominan basis o social iden i-
ica ion and poli ical con lic (Pakulski and Wa e s,
1997; Beck, 2007). O he schola s ha e u he
2 MÁRQUEZ ROMO, BIENSTMAN AND GANGL
Downloaded om h ps://academic.oup.com/es /ad ance-a icle/doi/10.1093/es /jca 052/8341093 by gues on 25 No embe 2025
highligh ed he impo ance o new, non- adi ional dis-
ibu ional con lic s o social cohesion, shi ing he sa-
lience o socioeconomic con lic owa d o he
non-class-based di isions (e.g., Cla k and Lipse ,
1991; Beck, 1992; Kikkawa, 2000; Kings on, 2000).
The cen al ene is ha by aising o e all s anda ds o
li ing, sus ained economic g ow h in pos -indus ial
Wes e n socie ies has led o signi ican social–s uc u al
and cul u al changes. These changes ha e diminished
hie a chical di e en ia ion and class awa eness, inc eas-
ing he salience o new ‘ho izon al’ di ides —including
ecological conce ns and pos ma e ialis alues, as well
as clea ages based on e hnici y (immig an s s. na i e),
gende , and gene a ion (e.g., Hond ich and Caplow,
1994; Ingleha , 1997; Beck, 2007; Delhey and Keck,
2008). The gene al expec a ion de i ed om his body
o li e a u e is ha ising economic p ospe i y dec eases
pe cei ed socioeconomic con lic (H1).
Howe e , economic g ow h is no he only mac o-
economic ac o shaping socioeconomic con lic . Key
in his ega d is he end owa d g owing inequali y
in mos Wes e n democ acies du ing he las decades
(A kinson, 2015; Zucman, 2019), which has enewed
in e es in whe he mac oeconomic ac o s a e eshap-
ing con lic s owa d dis ibu ional issues. F om
Iceland’s ‘Po s and Pans Re olu ion’ in 2008, o
Chile’s social uphea al in 2019, massi e demons a-
ions (which o en ha e in hei co e a c i ique o he in-
c ease in social inequali ies, see Ke bo, 2012) sugges
con lic s a ound dis ibu ional issues migh be e-
e up ing (Be nbu g, 2016; Cox, González and Le
Foulon, 2023).
By now, a g owing body o esea ch links income in-
equali y o a ious nega i e social ou comes, including
(men al) heal h, democ a ic o ien a ions, and social
us (e.g., Wilkinson and Picke , 2009, 2019;
Bu ick and Oishi, 2017; Ba am, 2022, 2025). A
he hea o his esea ch is he idea ha income in-
equali y leads o g ea e social s a i ica ion, igge ing
awa eness o s a us dis inc ions and inc easing he sali-
ence o socioeconomic dispa i ies. Consis en wi h so-
cial psychology esea ch emphasizing ha indi iduals
a e embedded in a ‘‘socio-ecology’’ ha shapes how
hey pe cei e hemsel es and o he s (e.g., Pe e s and
Je en, 2023: 524; Je en and Pe e s, 2019; see also
Mans ead, Eas e b ook and Kuppens, 2020), his
body o wo k sugges s ha inequali y may in ensi y
socioeconomic g oup con lic s by enhancing bo h he
alence and salience o ma e ial di e ences.
Indeed, some s udies sugges ha in high-inequali y
con ex s, people a e mo e likely o signal s a us di e -
ences and engage in s a us-d i en consump ion (i.e.,
consuming goods ha ha e symbolic s a us alue, like
designe b ands, expensi e jewel y, o luxu y clo hing;
Walasek and B own, 2015; B icke , K immel and
Ramcha an, 2021; Pybus e al., 2022; Wang e al.,
2022). By inc easing indi iduals’ awa eness o
socioeconomic g oup dispa i ies, exposu e o
inequali y can also ansmi in o ma ion (o al e
iews) abou hese g oups, ein o cing class-based s e -
eo ypes and dis inc ions (Du an e and Fiske, 2017;
Tanji piyanond, Je en and Pe e s, 2022). Fo example,
Gallego (2016) inds ha la ge gaps be ween he ich
and he poo inc ease nega i e associa ions owa d
hose loca ed a he opposi e end o he income dis ibu-
ion. When ma e ial di e ences be ween social g oups
lead o inc easingly di e gen social condi ions, socio-
economic posi ion ends o become a key indica o o
whe e one is loca ed in e ms o s a us o social ank
(Walasek, Bha ia and B own, 2018; Wilkinson and
Picke , 2019: 23).
In high-inequali y con ex s, whe e class di e ences
a e mo e clea ly ma ked, he ela ionship be ween in-
come and class awa eness ends o be s onge ia a
con as e ec (A onson, 1999; Ande sen and Cu is,
2012). As income inequali y g ows, so does he dis ance
be ween opposing socioeconomic g oups, esul ing in
g ea e con as s, a pola iza ion o he income dis ibu-
ion, and mo e oppo uni ies o nega i e compa isons
(Has ings, 2019; Sachweh and S hame , 2019). By
shaping he con en o in e g oup con lic s and ueling
class-based social ca ego iza ion, hese s udies sugges
ha inequali y enhances hie a chical di e en ia ion, in-
c easing he salience o an agonis ic ela ions be ween
opposing socioeconomic g oups. Based on his ame-
wo k, we expec ising inequali y o inc ease pe cei ed
socioeconomic con lic (H2).
The wo hypo heses de eloped so a sugges ha
changes in income inequali y and economic p ospe i y
should ha e opposi e e ec s on pe cei ed socio-
economic con lic . To he bes o ou knowledge, he
only longi udinal e idence o he ela ionship be ween
inequali y and pe cei ed socioeconomic con lic comes
om Ke (2014). Using a ixed e ec s app oach o
s udy edis ibu ion demands and he accep ance o
wage di e en ials, his s udy inds ha changes in in-
come inequali y a e posi i ely associa ed wi h he
i em ‘con lic be ween he ich and poo ’. In he cu en
s udy, we assess whe he bo h ising economic p ospe -
i y and income inequali y shape he salience o pe -
cei ed con lic o e a longe ime span, elying on a
la en and mo e comp ehensi e dimension o socio-
economic con lic . Mo eo e , acknowledging he im-
po ance o whe e one alls in he income dis ibu ion,
we u he assess whe he g owing inequali y has ig-
ge ed pola iza ion in pe cei ed socioeconomic con lic .
Ex an schola ship o e s di e en expec a ions
abou how inequali y should a ec di e en socio-
economic g oups. Fi s , a key line o esea ch on he
consequences o inequali y a gues ha , o e all,
INCREASINGLY POLARIZED? 3
Downloaded om h ps://academic.oup.com/es /ad ance-a icle/doi/10.1093/es /jca 052/8341093 by gues on 25 No embe 2025
equali y is ‘be e o e e yone’ (Wilkinson and Picke ,
2009, 2019; Bu ick and Oishi, 2017). Gi en ha ‘la -
ge income di e ences ac oss a socie y imme se e e y-
one mo e deeply in issues o s a us compe i ion and
insecu i y’ (Wilkinson and Picke , 2019: xxi), inequal-
i y is expec ed o a ec mo e and less ad an aged indi-
iduals alike. Due o i s ha m ul consequences ha
inc ease social dys unc ions a ec ing impo an social
indica o s such as heal h, happiness o c ime, some
s udies o e empi ical e idence showing ha income
inequali y can also a ec indi iduals wi h highe socio-
economic posi ions (e.g., Sub amanian and Kawachi,
2006; Dimick, Rueda and S egmuelle , 2016; Rueda
and S egmuelle , 2016; Sachweh and S hame , 2019;
Rome o-Vidal, 2021). The e o e, he expec a ion de-
i ed om his line o a gumen is ha ising inequali y
inc eases pe cei ed con lic among all socioeconomic
g oups (H3a).
By con as , an al e na i e body o wo k emphasizes
ha indi iduals wi h lowe economic posi ions a e
compa a i ely mo e sensi i e o changes in ela i e
socioeconomic s a us (e.g., Gallego, 2016). I people’s
awa eness o hei posi ion in he economic hie a chy
is o med by compa ing hemsel es o o he g oups
om hei social en i onmen , o he wo se o , he co-
habi a ion and in e ac ion wi h hose who a e be e o
can become a cons an eminde o hei own posi ion
o ela i e economic dep i a ion (e.g., Runciman,
1966; Has ings, 2019). Income inequali y can inc ease
he salience o economic compa isons among indi idu-
als, pola izing public belie s ac oss income-based lines
(e.g., Ande sen and Cu is, 2012; Newman, Johns on
and Lown, 2015). As ela i e socioeconomic s a us be-
comes inc easingly impo an in shaping people’s di -
e en ial expe iences in e e yday in e ac ions,
indi iduals wi h highe socioeconomic posi ions will
end o ha e he be e end o he majo i y o in e ac-
ions hey a e exposed o. And when esou ce di e en-
ials g ow, la ge socioeconomic esou ce di e ences
will only il he balance u he owa ds he be e -o .
While indi iduals wi h lowe socioeconomic posi ions
can expe ience ma e ial di icul ies and simul aneously
wi ness how o he s a e sys ema ically ou -compe ing
hem—expe iencing he social–psychological e ec s o
ela i e disad an age—be e -o g oups can be mo e
psychologically and economically insula ed om
changes in income inequali y. The e o e, he social–
psychological e ec s o ela i e disad an age and he
eeling o con lic a e expec ed o g ow among he
wo se-o and ha e li le o no e ec among he be e -
o . Based on hese conside a ions, we expec con lic
pe cep ions o become inc easingly di e gen wi h
g owing income inequali y, and ha hese changes a -
ec indi iduals om lowe socioeconomic posi ions
ela i ely mo e s ongly (H3b).
Da a and me hods
Da a
Ou ocus on he con ex ual e ec o economic p ospe -
i y and income inequali y and i s mode a ing impac on
indi idual-le el ela ionships equi es a c oss-na ional
compa a i e esea ch design. We d aw on mic oda a
om i e ounds o he In e na ional Social Su ey
P og am’s (ISSP) (2024) Social Inequali y module
(1987, 1992, 1999, 2009, and 2019) in combina ion
wi h coun y-le el indica o s om di e en sou ces
(see Supplemen a y Table A1, Supplemen a y
ma e ials). Gi en ou ocus on he longi udinal associ-
a ion be ween mac o-le el a iables and con lic pe -
cep ions, we es ic ou sample o esponden s abo e
he age o 18, e aining only coun ies ha pa icipa ed
a leas wice and ha e non-ze o a ia ion in inequal-
i y.
1
A e lis wise dele ion o missing alues, ou
main analy ical sample con ains 87658 esponden s in
90 coun y-yea s and 26 coun ies. Table 1 shows he
numbe o obse a ions by coun y and yea included
in he analysis.
Dependen a iable
Ou dependen a iable is measu ed using a ques ion
ha asks esponden s o a e he le el o con lic hey
pe cei e be ween di e en socioeconomic g oups:
‘poo people and ich people’, ‘wo king class and mid-
dle class’, and ‘managemen and wo ke s’. This i em
has been alida ed in p e ious s udies ha measu e pe -
cei ed socioeconomic con lic (PSC) (e.g., Delhey and
Keck, 2008; Schöneck, 2017; He el and Schöneck,
2019). Answe s o he h ee ques ions we e eco ded
on a ou -poin scale (1 ‘Ve y s ong con lic s’, 2
‘S ong con lic s’, 3 ‘No e y s ong con lic s’, 4
‘The e a e no con lic s’). To acili a e subs an i e in e -
p e a ion, we e e sed he i ems so ha highe alues in-
dica e g ea e PSC and escaled hem o ange om 0 o
3. Subsequen ly, by aking he mean o all alid e-
sponses, we combined he h ee i ems and cons uc ed
an index p obing esponden s’ pe cep ion o socio-
economic con lic (α=0.753). Desc ip i e s a is ics o
ou dependen a iable can be seen in he
Supplemen a y Appendix (Supplemen a y Table A1,
Supplemen a y ma e ials).
Independen a iables
The main ocus o ou esea ch lies on he ela ionship
be ween mac oeconomic changes and people’s pe cep-
ion o socioeconomic con lic . Hence, ou independen
a iables a e income inequali y and economic p ospe -
i y. To measu e income inequali y, we ely on he Gini
coe icien o disposable income om he S anda dized
Wo ld Inequali y Da abase (Sol , 2020). Fo economic
p ospe i y, we use he g oss domes ic p oduc (GDP)
4 MÁRQUEZ ROMO, BIENSTMAN AND GANGL
Downloaded om h ps://academic.oup.com/es /ad ance-a icle/doi/10.1093/es /jca 052/8341093 by gues on 25 No embe 2025
pe capi a measu e p o ided by he Maddison P ojec
Da abase (Bol and an Zanden, 2025), exp essed as
a loga i hm wi h base 2.
2
In addi ional analyses, we
also subs i u e GDP o median ne household equi al-
ized income, ob ained om he Luxembou g Income
S udy (LIS) and he O ganiza ion o Economic Co-op-
e a ion and De elopmen (OECD), as well as o me-
dian household equi alized income es ima es om he
ISSP. All coun y-le el a iables a e measu ed one
yea p io o he su ey ound.
Ou p ima y indica o o indi idual socioeconomic
posi ion is Oesch’s (2006) i e-class schema. This meas-
u e dis inguishes be ween unskilled wo ke s, skilled
wo ke s, small business owne s, lowe -g ade sala ia ,
and highe -g ade sala ia .
3
The Oesch classes a e con-
s uc ed o di e en ia e occupa ional classes e ically –
in e ms o hei ela i e ad an age in employmen
ela ions – and ho izon ally – in e ms o hei wo k logic
(Oesch, 2006). We op o he i e-class schema ins ead
o a mo e di e en ia ed e sion mainly o echnical ea-
sons, as only his educed schema can be cons uc ed o
some o he coun ies in he ea lies ISSP ounds (see
Oesch and Vigna, 2022). The i e-class schema ne e he-
less se es ou pu pose since i di e s om mo e ine-
g ained e sions mos ly in he deg ee o ho izon al
di e en ia ion.
Con ol a iables
A he indi idual le el, we employ con ols o age, gen-
de , and labo o ce s a us (paid wo k, unemployed,
and o he s no in he labo o ce), as p io esea ch sug-
ges s hese cha ac e is ics a e o en ela ed o indi idual
di e ences in PSC (e.g., Janicka, 2002; Zagó ski, 2006;
an D unen, Sp uy and an D oogenb oeck, 2021).
Table 1 Numbe o esponden s by coun y and yea
Coun y 1987 1992 1999 2009 2019 To al
Aus alia 1,302 1,247 752 1,173 632 5,106
Aus ia 755 746 366 632 1,014 3,513
Bulga ia — — 798 489 981 2,268
Canada — 618 719 — — 1,337
Chile — — 826 1,050 679 2,555
Czech Republic — 561 1,376 767 1,146 3,850
F ance — — 1,359 2,271 1,311 4,941
Ge many 717 2,245 667 1,053 1,035 5,717
Hunga y 2,343 1,110 834 736 — 5,023
Is ael — — — 774 925 1,699
I aly 606 605 — 665 507 2,383
Japan — — 812 614 907 2,333
La ia — — 741 684 — 1,425
New Zealand — 742 717 620 906 2,985
No way — 1,077 911 1,186 1,083 4,257
Philippines — — 853 1,056 3,872 5,781
Poland — 1,459 545 965 — 2,969
Po ugal — — 968 520 — 1,488
Russia — 1,251 645 1,151 1,377 4,424
Slo akia — 313 824 842 — 1,979
Slo enia — 574 692 536 787 2,589
Spain — — 789 532 — 1,321
Sweden — — 794 892 1,349 3,035
Swi ze land 725 — — 788 2,300 3,813
Uni ed Kingdom 1,006 878 681 796 1,269 4,630
Uni ed S a es 1,353 1,053 977 1,365 1,489 6,237
To al (Subjec s) 8,807 14,479 18,646 22,157 23,569 87,658
To al (Coun ies) 8 15 23 25 19 26
INCREASINGLY POLARIZED? 5
Downloaded om h ps://academic.oup.com/es /ad ance-a icle/doi/10.1093/es /jca 052/8341093 by gues on 25 No embe 2025

Addi ionally, a coun y’s le el o income inequali y and
economic p ospe i y is likely o be in luenced by i s so-
ciodemog aphic composi ion. Al hough his concludes
he lis o a iables included in ou main speci ica ion,
we also p esen models con olling o yea s o educa-
ion
4
and household income. Wi h espec o income,
he ISSP cumula i e da ase includes only a ela i e
measu e ha di e en ia es be ween low, middle, and
high household incomes based on he dis ibu ions o
he o iginal unde lying a iables. We ins ead op o a
newly ha monized measu e o equi alized household
income, exp essed in 2010 pu chasing powe pa i ies
and adjus ed o in la ion using he consume p ice in-
dex.
5
Finally, we also p esen models including ne mi-
g a ion and unemploymen a es as addi ional
coun y-yea con ol a iables. Bo h indica o s a e
d awn om he Wo ld De elopmen Indica o s (WDI,
2024). Ne mig a ion a es a e ans o med o measu e
he o al numbe o immig an s minus emig an s pe
10.000 inhabi an s (popula ion size ob ained om
Coppedge e al., 2025).
6
Unemploymen is measu ed
as he pe cen o he o al labo o ce.
7
Desc ip i e s a-
is ics o all a iables included in he analyses a e
shown in Supplemen a y Table A1 in he
Supplemen a y Appendix.
Analy ical s a egy
The cumula ion o ISSP da a can be cha ac e ized as
compa a i e longi udinal su ey da a (CLSD, see
Fai b o he , 2014). CLSD include newly su eyed indi-
iduals nes ed in su ey wa es, which a e in u n nes ed
in coun ies. Besides he need o accoun o his clus e -
ing in o de o ob ain mo e app op ia e in e ences, us-
ing epea ed obse a ions o coun ies o e a pe iod o
o e hi y yea s o e s a unique oppo uni y o assess
coun y-le el e ec s by employing me hods ha le e -
age he longi udinal ea u es o he ISSP.
To analyze CLSD, he Random E ec s Wi hin and
Be ween (REWB) speci ica ion o mul ile el models
has become a alued me hod because i enables he
simul aneous es ima ion o e ec s be ween coun ies
(i.e., c oss-sec ional) and wi hin coun ies o e ime
(i.e., longi udinal). Employing he REWB model in
ou analyses allows us o mo e beyond he c oss-
sec ional ela ionships ha mos p e ious s udies ha e
elied on in o de o assess he wi hin-coun y associ-
a ion be ween economic p ospe i y, income inequali y,
and pe cei ed socioeconomic con lic . In he REWB
speci ica ion, con ex ual e ec s a e decomposed in o
hei be ween and wi hin componen s by demeaning
all coun y-yea le el a iables. The esul ing be ween
e ec will hus cap u e he ela ionship be ween he
ou come a iable and o e all le els in he p edic o ,
whe eas he wi hin e ec cap u es he ela ionship be-
ween changes in he p edic o and changes in he
ou come. By demeaning he explana o y a iables, he
wi hin es ima es o he REWB model a e equi alen o
hose ob ained om a s anda d Fixed E ec s model
and hus equally bene i om weake assump ions e-
ga ding unobse ed co a ia es (see Fi ebaugh, Wa ne
and Massoglia, 2013). Speci ically, he wi hin es ima es
ob ained om ei he REWB o Fixed E ec s eg ession
models a e ee om he in luence o any ime-cons an
coun y cha ac e is ics, minimizing he isk o omi ed
a iable bias.
Wi h hese p elimina ies, he main h ea o gi ing
ou es ima es a causal in e p e a ion s ems om
be ween-coun y di e ences ha change o e ime, an
issue we add ess wi h a se ies o sensi i i y analyses o
bols e he c edibili y o ou esul s. O cou se, one im-
po an implica ion o using CLSD is ha wi hin es i-
ma es a e no a ailable a he indi idual le el, and he
po en ial o include addi ional co a ia es is limi ed by
hei a ailabili y in he ISSP. Fo ha eason, we a e
mo e cau ious in ex ending a causal in e p e a ion o
he impac o social class on pe cei ed socioeconomic
con lic and he mode a ing ole o income inequali y.
In he subsequen analysis, we i a se ies o REWB
models wi h coun y and coun y-yea andom in e -
cep s o simul aneously model he be ween and wi hin
ela ionship be ween economic con ex s and pe cei ed
socioeconomic con lic — es ic ing causal in e p e a-
ions o he wi hin e m o he easons desc ibed abo e.
In o de o examine he pola izing e ec o income in-
equali y, we i a se ies o c oss-le el in e ac ion models
o examine he mode a ing impac o income inequali y
on he ela ionship be ween social class and PSC. He e, i
is o be no ed ha , while he wi hin es ima es o con ex -
ual e ec s a e ne o unobse ed he e ogenei y be ween
coun ies, he same is no ue o c oss-le el in e ac ion
e ec s (see Giesselmann and Schmid -Ca an, 2019).
The e o e, o p ope ly accoun o be ween-coun y un-
obse ed he e ogenei y in he in e ac ion e ec s, we em-
ploy he coun y Fixed E ec s and Slopes speci ica ion
(cFES). This amoun s o a eg ession including no
only he co a ia es and in e ac ion e ms o in e es (as
well as coun y and pe iod ixed e ec s and clus e ed
s anda d e o s by coun y and coun y-yea s), bu
also addi ional in e ac ions be ween coun y dummies
and all e ms included in he in e ac ion. In o he wo ds,
on op o he in e ac ion be ween social class and he de-
meaned Gini coe icien , he cFES also includes in e ac-
ions be ween he coun y dummies and bo h he social
class and inequali y e ms. Finally, we no e ha we
will ollow con en ional s a is ical p ac ice and epo
s anda d e o s and s a is ical signi icance le els o
all pa ame e es ima es om ou eg ession models.
We see hese as indica o s o he inhe en unce ain y
o ou coe icien es ima es, bu a he same ime ac-
knowledge he schola ly deba e a ound p io i izing
6 MÁRQUEZ ROMO, BIENSTMAN AND GANGL
Downloaded om h ps://academic.oup.com/es /ad ance-a icle/doi/10.1093/es /jca 052/8341093 by gues on 25 No embe 2025
subs an i e e ec sizes o e s a is ical signi icance
(see Be na di, Chakhaia and Leopold, 2017), pa icula -
ly in c oss-na ionally compa a i e esea ch, whe e nei-
he coun ies no coun y-yea s ep esen a andom
sample om a supe popula ion o socie ies (see Lucas,
2014, o a mo e de ailed discussion). In ou subsequen
p esen a ion o esul s, we will p ima ily emphasize e -
ec sizes when desc ibing ou esul s, while p o iding
ull anspa ency in epo ing ou es ima es o allow
eade s o judge he e idence ha we p esen agains
he scien i ic c i e ia ha she o he may bes see i .
8
Resul s
Explo a o y analysis
We begin ou analysis wi h an explo a ion o he bi a i-
a e ela ionship be ween he le el and dis ibu ion o eco-
nomic esou ces and he le el o PSC. While panel A in
Figu e 1 plo s he coun y means (ac oss all a ailable
Figu e 1 Bi a ia e be ween-co ela ions
INCREASINGLY POLARIZED? 7
Downloaded om h ps://academic.oup.com/es /ad ance-a icle/doi/10.1093/es /jca 052/8341093 by gues on 25 No embe 2025
wa es) o logged GDP pe capi a and PSC, panel B shows
he same o he Gini coe icien . Focusing on di e ences
ac oss coun ies, he e is a clea nega i e associa ion be-
ween economic p ospe i y and he a e age le els o
PSC. By con as , coun ies wi h highe inequali y exhibi
highe le els o PSC. Shi ing owa ds a longi udinal pe -
spec i e, he wo panels in Figu e 2 plo he coun y-yea
de ia ions om he o e all coun y mean on economic
p ospe i y (A), income inequali y (B), and PSC. While
hese igu es a e in line wi h he gene al expec a ions
ega ding how changes in mac oeconomic cha ac e is ics
should a ec changes in PSC, he ela ionships o e ime
di e no ably om hose ac oss coun ies. While bo h
ypes o a ia ion sugges a nega i e associa ion be ween
economic p ospe i y and PSC, and a posi i e associa ion
be ween income inequali y and PSC, he longi udinal as-
socia ions appea much weake . The e o e, o assess
whe he hese ela ionships a e obus o he inclusion
o indi idual and con ex ual-le el con ols, he nex sec-
ion p esen s he mul i a ia e esul s.
Figu e 2 Bi a ia e wi hin-co ela ions
8 MÁRQUEZ ROMO, BIENSTMAN AND GANGL
Downloaded om h ps://academic.oup.com/es /ad ance-a icle/doi/10.1093/es /jca 052/8341093 by gues on 25 No embe 2025
Table 2 The e ec o economic p ospe i y and income inequali y on PSC
M1 M2 M3 M4
Lowe -g ade se ice class 0.049*** 0.027*** 0.027***
(0.007) (0.007) (0.007)
Small business owne s 0.066*** 0.013 0.013
(0.008) (0.009) (0.009)
Skilled wo ke s 0.101*** 0.051*** 0.053***
(0.006) (0.007) (0.007)
Unskilled wo ke s 0.138*** 0.072*** 0.071***
(0.007) (0.008) (0.008)
HH equi . income −0.049*** −0.049***
(0.002) (0.002)
Yea s o educa ion −0.006*** −0.006***
(0.001) (0.001)
Gini index (BE) 0.017*0.017*0.017*0.017*
(0.007) (0.007) (0.007) (0.008)
Gini index (WE) 0.023** 0.023** 0.022** 0.017
a
(0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009)
Log GDP/capi a (BE) −0.074 −0.061 −0.062 −0.075
(0.053) (0.052) (0.052) (0.077)
Log GDP/capi a (WE) −0.004 −0.001 0.050 0.111
(0.074) (0.073) (0.072) (0.082)
Unemploymen a e (BE) −0.006
(0.015)
Unemploymen a e (WE) 0.010
(0.009)
Ne mig a ion (BE) 0.000
(0.002)
Ne mig a ion (WE) 0.001
a
(0.000)
In e cep 1.909*1.748*1.890*2.160
a
(0.855) (0.851) (0.840) (1.227)
Pe iod FE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Indi idual con ols No Yes Yes Yes
Akaike in o ma ion c i e ion (AIC) 161074.459 160099.460 159546.941 143626.297
Bayesian in o ma ion c i e ion (BIC) 161187.033 160287.084 159753.327 143858.179
Log likelihood −80525.229 −80029.730 −79751.471 −71788.148
Va (coun y-yea ) 0.012 0.012 0.011 0.011
Va (coun y) 0.033 0.033 0.032 0.038
Va (indi idual) 0.366 0.362 0.359 0.359
N coun ies 26 26 26 26
N coun y-yea s 90 90 90 82
N esponden s 87,658 87,658 87,658 78,851
No es: Models con ol o gende , age, and labo o ce s a us.
a
p<0.10.
*P<0.05.
**P<0.01.
***P<0.001.
INCREASINGLY POLARIZED? 9
Downloaded om h ps://academic.oup.com/es /ad ance-a icle/doi/10.1093/es /jca 052/8341093 by gues on 25 No embe 2025
Sociology, he XVII Spanish Cong ess o Poli ical
Science and Adminis a ion, and he 2024 ECSR
Gene al Con e ence. We hank all pa icipan s,
Claudia T aini, S en Ehmes, Ilde onso
Ma qués-Pe ales, Maca ena A es, as well as he edi o s
and h ee anonymous e iewe s o hei help ul com-
men s. We also hank Sa a Huebe , Emi Zeco ic,
and S elios Nakos o aluable esea ch assis ance in
he p ojec .
Supplemen a y da a
Supplemen a y da a a e a ailable a ESR online.
Funding
This esea ch is pa o he POLAR p ojec ha has e-
cei ed unding om he Eu opean Resea ch Council
(ERC) unde he Eu opean Union’s Ho izon 2020 e-
sea ch and inno a ion p og amme (G an Ag eemen
No 833196).
Open access unding agency s a emen
Open access publica ion is suppo ed by Goe he
Uni e si y F ank u am Main.
Da a a ailabili y
A eplica ion package o his a icle is a ailable a OSF
(DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/WZ4RS).
Re e ences
Ande sen, R. and Cu is, J. (2012). The pola izing e ec o eco-
nomic inequali y on class iden i ica ion: e idence om 44
coun ies. Resea ch in Social S a i ica ion and Mobili y,
30, 129–141.
A onson, E. (1999). The Social Animal. New Yo k: Wo h.
A kinson, A. B. (2015). Inequali y. Wha Can Be Done?
Camb idge: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
Azzollini, L. e al. (2025). A which le el does unemploymen a -
ec poli ical us ? A mul ile el analysis ac oss Eu ope.
Social Indica o s Resea ch, 177, 1213–1287.
Ba els, L. M. (2018). Unequal Democ acy: The Poli ical
Economy o he new Gilded age. P ince on, NJ: P ince on
Uni e si y P ess.
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,
184–200.
Ba am, D. (2025). Does inequali y unde mine li e sa is ac ion?
E ec i e iden i ica ion o coun y-le el con ols o a longi u-
dinal in es iga ion. Eu opean Sociological Re iew, jca 014.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/es /jca 014
Ba en, J. and Mumme, C. (2013). Does inequali y lead o ci il
wa s? A global long- e m s udy using an h opome ic
indica o s (1816–1999). Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical
Economy, 32, 56–79.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Socie y: Towa ds a new Mode ni y.
London: Sage.
Beck, U. (2007). Beyond class and na ion: e aming social in-
equali ies in a globalizing wo ld. The B i ish Jou nal o
Sociology, 58, 679–705.
Bel on, W. J., Oyele e, R. U. and Huq, Y. (2018). Di e si y and
social capi al in he U.S: a ale o con lic , con ac o o al
mis us ? Re iew o Economics and Ins i u ions, 9, 1–39.
Be na di, F., Chakhaia, L. and Leopold, L. (2017). ‘Sing me a
song wi h social signi icance’: he (mis) use o s a is ical sig-
ni icance es ing in Eu opean sociological esea ch.
Eu opean Sociological Re iew, 33, 1–15.
Be nbu g, J. G. (2016). Economic C isis and Mass P o es : The
Po s and Pans Re olu ion in Iceland. London: Rou ledge.
Biens man, S., Zeco ic, E. and Gangl, M. (2025). Income a iables
o he ISSP. POLAR Wo king Pape #10. F ank u : Goe he
Uni e si y. h ps://doi.o g/10.17605/OSF.IO/WZ4RS
Boix, C. (2003). Democ acy and Redis ibu ion. Camb idge:
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Bol , J. and an Zanden, J. L. (2025). Maddison-s yle es ima es
o he e olu ion o he wo ld economy: a new 2023 upda e.
Jou nal o Economic Su eys, 39, 631–671. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1111/joes.12618
B icke , J., K immel, J. and Ramcha an, R. (2021). Signaling
s a us: he impac o ela i e income on household con-
sump ion and inancial decisions. Managemen Science,
67, 1993–2009.
Bu ick, N. R. and Oishi, S. (2017). The psychological conse-
quences o income inequali y. Social and Pe sonali y
Psychology Compass, 11, e12304.
Cla k, T. N. and Lipse , S. M. (1991). A e social classes dying?
In e na ional Sociology, 6, 397–410.
Coppedge, M. e al. (2025). “V-Dem [Coun y-Yea /Coun y-
Da e] Da ase 15” Va ie ies o Democ acy (V-Dem)
P ojec . h ps://doi.o g/10.23696/ demds25
Cox, L., González, R. and Le Foulon, C. (2023). The 2019
Chilean social uphea al: a desc ip i e app oach. Jou nal
o Poli ics in La in Ame ica, 16, 68–89.
Dah endo , R. (1967). Con lic A e Class: New Pe spec i es
on he Theo y o Social and Poli ical Con lic . London:
Logmans.
Delhey, J. and Keck, W. (2008). The pe cep ion o g oup con-
lic s. In J. Albe , T. Fahey and C. Sa aceno (Eds.),
Handbook o Quali y o Li e in he Enla ged Eu opean
Union. Mil on Pa k: Rou ledge, pp. 328–352.
Diamond, L. (1992). Economic de elopmen and democ acy e-
conside ed. The Ame ican Beha io al Scien is , 35,
450–499.
Dimick, M., Rueda, D. and S egmuelle D. (2016). The al uis ic
ich? Inequali y and o he - ega ding p e e ences o edis i-
bu ion. Qua e ly Jou nal o Poli ical Science, 11, 385–439.
Du an e, F. and Fiske, S. T. (2017). How social-class s e eo ypes
main ain inequali y. Cu en opinion in psychology, 18,
43–48.
E ans, M. D. R. and Kelley, J. (2017). Communism, capi alism,
and images o class: e ec s o e e ence g oups, eali y, and
egime in 43 na ions and 110,000 indi iduals, 1987–2009.
16 MÁRQUEZ ROMO, BIENSTMAN AND GANGL
Downloaded om h ps://academic.oup.com/es /ad ance-a icle/doi/10.1093/es /jca 052/8341093 by gues on 25 No embe 2025

C oss-cul u al Resea ch: O icial Jou nal o he Socie y o
C oss-Cul u al Resea ch, 51, 315–359.
Fai b o he , M. (2014). Two mul ile el modeling echniques o
analyzing compa a i e longi udinal su ey da ase s.
Poli ical Science Resea ch and Me hods, 2, 119–140.
Fi ebaugh, G., Wa ne , C. and Massoglia, M. (2013). Fixed e -
ec s, andom e ec s, and hyb id models o causal analysis.
In S. Mo gan (Ed.), Handbook o Causal Analysis o Social
Resea ch. Handbooks o Sociology and Social Resea ch.
Do d ech : Sp inge , pp. 113–132.
Foa, R. S. and Mounk, Y. (2016). The dange o deconsolida-
ion: he democ a ic disconnec . Jou nal o Democ acy,
27, 5–17.
Fukuyama, F., Dann, C. and Magaloni, B. (2025). Deli e ing o
democ acy: why esul s ma e . Jou nal o Democ acy, 36,
5–19.
Gallego, A. (2016). Inequali y and he e osion o us among
he poo : expe imen al e idence. Socio-Economic Re iew,
14, 443–460.
Ges huizen, M., Van De Mee , T. and Scheepe s, P. (2009).
E hnic di e si y and social capi al in Eu ope: es s o
Pu nam’s hesis in Eu opean coun ies. Scandina ian
Poli ical S udies, 32, 121–142.
Gius ozzi, C. and Gangl, M. (2021). Unemploymen and poli -
ical us ac oss 24 Wes e n democ acies: E idence on a wel-
a e s a e pa adox. Ac a Sociologica, 64, 255–273.
ISSP Resea ch G oup. (2024). In e na ional Social Su ey
P og am: Social Inequali y IV Cumula ion (ZA8790;
Ve sion 1.0.0) [Da a se ]. GESIS, Cologne. h ps://doi.o g/
10.4232/1.14226
Hassel, A. (2009). Reconside ing he social con ac a e he c i-
sis. In Ma ke and S a e in Eu opean Social Democ acy.
Be lin: F ied ich-Ebe -S i ung, pp. 1–12.
Has ings, O. P. (2019). Who eels i ? Income inequali y, ela i e
dep i a ion, and inancial sa is ac ion in U.S. S a es, 1973–
2012. Resea ch in Social S a i ica ion and Mobili y, 60,
1–15.
He el, F. R. and Schöneck, N. M. (2019). Con lic pe cep ions
ac oss 27 OECD coun ies: he oles o socioeconomic in-
equali y and collec i e s a i ica ion belie s. Ac a
Sociologica, 65, 231–249.
Hond ich, K. O. and Caplow, T. (1994). 8 Con lic s and con lic
egula ion. In S. Langlois (Ed.), Con e gence o
Di e gence? Compa ing Recen Social T ends in
Indus ial Socie ies. Mon eal: McGill-Queen’s Uni e si y
P ess, pp. 225–246.
Hsieh, C. and Pugh, M. D. (1993). Po e y, income inequali y,
and iolen c ime: a me a-analysis o ecen Agg ega e
da a s udies. C iminal Jus ice Re iew, 18, 182–202.
Ingleha , R. (1997). Mode niza ion and Pos mode niza ion:
Cul u al, Economic, and Poli ical Change in 43 Socie ies.
P ince on: P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
ISSP Resea ch G oup. (2024). In e na ional Social Su ey
P og am: Social Inequali y IV Cumula ion (ZA8790;
Ve sion 1.0.0) [Da a se ]. GESIS, Cologne. h ps://doi.o g/
10.4232/1.14226
Janicka, K. (2002). Dynamics o social con lic pe cep ion: di-
mensions and ela ions. In K. M. Słomczynski (Ed.), Social
S uc u e: Changes and Linkages: The Ad anced Phase o
he Pos -Communis T ansi ion in Poland. Wa saw: IFiS
Publishe s, pp. 221–230.
Je en, J. and Pe e s, K. (Eds.) 2019. The Social Psychology o
Inequali y. Cham: Sp inge .
Jos , J. T., Goya-Tocche o, D. and Kay, A. C. (2024). The
psychology o le - igh poli ical pola iza ion; and an ex-
pe imen al in e en ion o cu bing pa isan animosi y
and suppo o an idemoc a ic iolence. The ANNALS o
he Ame ican Academy o Poli ical and Social Science,
708, 46–63.
Ke bo, H. R. (2012). Social S a i ica ion and Inequali y: Class
Con lic in His o ical, Compa a i e, and Global
Pe spec i e. New Yo k: McG aw-Hill.
Ke , W. R. (2014). Income inequali y and social p e e ences o
edis ibu ion and compensa ion di e en ials. Jou nal o
Mone a y Economics, 66, 62–78.
Kikkawa, T. (2000). Changes in he de e minan s o class iden-
i ica ion in Japan. In e na ional Jou nal o Sociology, 30,
34–51.
Kings on, P. W. (2000). The Classless Socie y. S an o d:
S an o d Uni e si y P ess.
K iesi, H. (2016). Poli ical mobiliza ion in imes o c ises: he e-
la ionship be ween economic and poli ical c ises. In M.
Giugni and M. G asso (Eds.), Aus e i y and P o es .
Popula Con en ion in Times o Economic C isis. London:
Rou ledge, pp. 19–33.
Liesbe , H. and Ma ks, G. (2018). Clea age heo y mee s
Eu ope’s c ises: Lipse , Rokkan, and he ansna ional
clea age. Jou nal o Eu opean Public Policy, 25, 109–135.
Lipse , S. M. (1959). Some social equisi es o democ acy: eco-
nomic de elopmen and poli ical legi imacy. The
Ame ican Poli ical Science Re iew, 53, 69–105.
Lipse , S. M. and Rokkan, S. (1967). Clea age s uc u es, pa y
sys ems and o e alignmen s: an In oduc ion. In S. M.
Lipse and S. Rokkan (Eds.), Pa y Sys ems and Vo e
Alignmen s: C oss-Na ional Pe spec i es. New Yo k: F ee
P ess, pp. 1–64.
Lucas, S. R. (2014). An incon enien da ase : bias and inapp o-
p ia e in e ence wi h he mul ile el model. Quali y &
Quan i y: In e na ional Jou nal o Me hodology, 48,
1619–1649.
Mans ead, A. S. R., Eas e b ook, M. J. and Kuppens, T. (2020).
The socioecology o social class. Cu en Opinion in
Psychology, 32, 95–99.
Ma x, K. (2010). [1904]. A Con ibu ion o he C i ique o
Poli ical Economy. New Yo k: Palg a e Macmillan.
McLa en, L. (2012). Immig a ion and us in poli ics in B i ain.
B i ish Jou nal o Poli ical Science, 42, 163–185.
Mocan, H. N. (1999). S uc u al unemploymen , cyclical un-
employmen , and income inequali y. The Re iew o
Economics and S a is ics, 81, 122–134.
Mon ebello, R., Spi e i, J. and on B ockdo , P. (2023). T ade
unions and income inequali y: e idence om a panel o
Eu opean coun ies. In e na ional Labou Re iew, 162,
481–503.
Newman, B. J., Johns on, C. D. and Lown, P. L. (2015). False
consciousness o class awa eness? Local income inequali y,
pe sonal economic posi ion, and belie in Ame ican me i oc-
acy. Ame ican Jou nal o Poli ical Science, 59, 326–340.
INCREASINGLY POLARIZED? 17
Downloaded om h ps://academic.oup.com/es /ad ance-a icle/doi/10.1093/es /jca 052/8341093 by gues on 25 No embe 2025
Oesch, D. (2006). Coming o g ips wi h a changing class s uc-
u e: an analysis o employmen s a i ica ion in B i ain,
Ge many, Sweden and Swi ze land. In e na ional
Sociology: Jou nal o he In e na ional Sociological
Associa ion, 21, 263–288.
Oesch, D. and Vigna, N. (2022). A decline in he social s a us o
he wo king class? Con lic ing e idence o 8 Wes e n coun-
ies, 1987–2017. Compa a i e Poli ical S udies, 55,
1130–1157.
Øs by, G. (2008). Pola iza ion, ho izon al inequali ies and io-
len ci il con lic . Jou nal o Peace Resea ch, 45, 143–162.
Pakulski, J. and Wa e s, M. (1997). The dea h o class. Capi al
& Class, 21, 192–193.
Pe e s, K. and Je en, J. (2023). How li ing in economically un-
equal socie ies shapes ou minds and ou social li es. B i ish
Jou nal o Psychology, 114, 515–531.
Piazza, J. A. (2023). Poli ical pola iza ion and poli ical iolence.
Secu i y S udies, 32, 476–504.
P zewo ski, A. (2019). C ises o Democ acy. Camb idge:
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
P zewo ski, A. and Limongi, F. (1997). Mode niza ion: heo ies
and ac s. Wo ld Poli ics, 49, 155–183.
Pu nam, R. D. (2007). E plu ibus Unum: di e si y and commu-
ni y in he wen y- i s cen u y he 2006 Johan Sky e P ize
Lec u e. Scandina ian Poli ical S udies, 30, 137–174.
Pybus, K. e al. (2022). Income inequali y, s a us consump ion
and s a us anxie y: an explo a o y e iew o implica ions
o sus ainabili y and di ec ions o u u e esea ch. Social
Sciences & Humani ies Open, 6, 100353.
Ringq is , J. (2021). How do union membe ship, union densi y
and ins i u ionaliza ion a ec pe cep ions o con lic be-
ween managemen and wo ke s? Eu opean Jou nal o
Indus ial Rela ions, 27, 131–148.
Rome o-Vidal, X. (2021). The mac o poli y e isi ed: he in e -
play be ween public opinion, policy and economics in
Eu opean democ acies—chap e 1. In oduc ion.
Lünebu g: Leuphana Uni e si y o Lünebu g (PhD hesis).
Ro hs ein, B. and Uslane , E. M. (2005). All o all: equali y,
co up ion, and social us . Wo ld Poli ics, 58, 41–72.
Rueda, D. and S egmuelle , D. (2016). The ex e nali ies o in-
equali y: ea o c ime and p e e ences o edis ibu ion in
Wes e n Eu ope. Ame ican Jou nal o Poli ical Science,
60, 472–489.
Runciman, W. G. (1966). Rela i e Dep i a ion and Social
Jus ice. Be keley: Uni e si y o Cali o nia P ess.
Sachweh, P. and S hame , E. (2019). Why do he a luen ind in-
equali y inc easingly unjus ? Changing inequali y and jus -
ice pe cep ions in Ge many, 1994–2014. Eu opean
Sociological Re iew, 35, 651–668.
Schöneck, N. M. (2017). De e minan en de Wah nehmung so-
ziale Kon lik e. Objek i e und subjek i e Fak o en im
Lände e gleich. Geschlossene Gesellscha en. 38.
Kong ess de Deu schen Gesellscha ü Soziologie, 38,
1–13.
Sol , F. (2020). Measu ing income inequali y ac oss coun ies
and o e ime: he s anda dized wo ld income inequali y
da abase. Social Science Qua e ly, 101, 1183–1199.
Sub amanian, S. V. and Kawachi, I. (2006). Whose heal h is a -
ec ed by income inequali y? A mul ile el in e ac ion ana-
lysis o con empo aneous and lagged e ec s o s a e
income inequali y on indi idual sel - a ed heal h in he
Uni ed S a es. Heal h & place, 12, 141–156.
Tanji piyanond, P., Je en, J. and Pe e s, K. (2022). How eco-
nomic inequali y shapes social class s e eo yping. Jou nal
o Expe imen al Social Psychology, 98, 104248.
an D unen, Y., Sp uy , B. and an D oogenb oeck, F. (2021).
The salience o pe cei ed socie al con lic in Eu ope: a 27
coun y s udy on he de elopmen o a measu e o gene al-
ized con lic hinking. Social Indica o s Resea ch, 158,
595–635.
Walasek, L., Bha ia, S. and B own, G. D. (2018). Posi ional
goods and he social ank hypo hesis: income inequali y a -
ec s online cha e abou high-and low-s a us b ands on
wi e . Jou nal o Consume Psychology: The O icial
Jou nal o he Socie y o Consume Psychology, 28,
138–148.
Walasek, L. and B own, G. D. (2015). Income inequali y and
s a us seeking: sea ching o posi ional goods in unequal
US s a es. Psychological Science, 26, 527–533.
Wang, Y. e al. (2022). The e ec s o subjec i e socioeconomic
s a us on conspicuous consump ion. Jou nal o Applied
Social Psychology, 52, 522–531.
Wilkinson, R. G. and Picke , K. E. (2009). Income inequali y
and social dys unc ion. Annual e iew o Sociology, 35,
493–511.
Wilkinson, R. and Picke , K. (2019). The Inne Le el. how
Mo e Equal Socie ies Reduce S ess, Res o e Sani y and
Imp o e E e yone’s Well-Being. London: Penguin Books
L d.
Wo ld De elopmen Indica o s. (2024). Washing on, DC: The
Wo ld Bank. h ps://da abank.wo ldbank.o g/sou ce/wo ld-
de elopmen -indica o s (May 20, 2024).
Wuche p ennig, J. and Deu sch, F. (2009). Mode niza ion and
democ acy: heo ies and e idence e isi ed. Li ing
Re iews in Democ acy, 1, 1–9.
Xu, P., Ga and, J. C. and Zhu, L. (2016). Impo ed inequali y?
Immig a ion and income inequali y in he Ame ican s a es.
S a e Poli ics & Policy Qua e ly, 16, 147–171.
Zagó ski, K. (2006). The pe cep ion o social con lic s and a i-
udes o democ acy. In e na ional Jou nal o Sociology, 36,
3–34.
Zucman, G. (2019). Global weal h inequali y. Annual Re iew
o Economics, 11, 109–138.
18 MÁRQUEZ ROMO, BIENSTMAN AND GANGL
Downloaded om h ps://academic.oup.com/es /ad ance-a icle/doi/10.1093/es /jca 052/8341093 by gues on 25 No embe 2025