nach oben

Social Justice Research

Erschienen in:

06.07.2021

Political Consequences of Income Inequality: Assessing the Relationship Between Perceived Distributive Fairness and Political Efficacy in Asia

verfasst von: Daewoo Lee, Chae Young Chang, Hyunkang Hur

Erschienen in: Social Justice Research | Ausgabe 3/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

A vast literature suggests that income inequality is a crucial precursor for numerous political outcomes. High-level income inequality can have consequences for people's subjective beliefs about their ability to participate in politics effectively, a concept known as political efficacy. In this research, we explore how individuals' perceptions of income inequality are related to their sense of political efficacy. While previous studies on political outcomes of income inequality have focused on objective, country-level inequality indicators, we focus on subjective perception—how individuals' perceptions of distributive fairness are related to political efficacy. Drawing on data from the fourth wave of the Asian Barometer Survey (ABS) (2014 ~ 2016), we show that the perception of unfair income distribution negatively affects political efficacy. We posit a mediator in the association, namely the individual’s preference for government's redistributive role, as a linking mechanism between the perception of income inequality and political efficacy. Using the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Bayesian multilevel model, we also present how country-level variation in income inequality exerts a moderating effect on the association. Our findings suggest that political efficacy is partially linked to how people perceive (un)fair income distribution and subsequent expectations of the government's role in redistribution.

Vorheriger Artikel The “Economic Battle” Now and Then: (E)valuation Patterns of Distributive Justice in Cuban State-Socialism

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Online Resource 3 provides the OLS regression result for internal efficacy, controlling for individual-level covariates in each country. Note that this does not have to be a multilevel regression since only individuals residing in the same country are included in each regression.

Online Resource 4 provides the OLS regression result for external efficacy, controlling for individual-level covariates, in each country.

Aalberg, T. (2003). Achieving justice: Comparative public opinions on income distribution. Leiden: Brill.

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2006). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. Cambridge University Press.

Alesina, A., & Angeletos, G.-M. (2005). Fairness and redistribution. American Economic Review, 95(4), 960–980. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828054825655CrossRef

Alesina, A., & Glaeser, E. L. (2004). Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: A world of difference. Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Alesina, A., Stantcheva, S., & Teso, E. (2018). Intergenerational mobility and preferences for redistribution. American Economic Review, 108(2), 521–554. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20162015CrossRef

Anderson, C. J., & Singer, M. M. (2008). The sensitive left and the impervious right: Multilevel models and the politics of inequality, ideology, and legitimacy in Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 41(4–5), 564–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414007313113CrossRef

Ansell, B. W., & Samuels, D. J. (2010). Inequality and democratization: A contractarian approach. Comparative Political Studies, 43(12), 1543–1574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414010376915CrossRef

Ansell, B. W., & Samuels, D. J. (2014). Inequality and democratization: An elite-competition approach. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Balch, G. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept “Sense of Political Efficacy.” Political Methodology, 1(2), 1–43.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1CrossRefPubMed

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.CrossRef

Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton University Press.

Boix, C. (2003). Democracy and redistribution. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Borge, L.-E., & Rattsø, J. (2004). Income distribution and tax structure: Empirical test of the Meltzer-Richard hypothesis. European Economic Review, 48(4), 805–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2003.09.003CrossRef

Bucca, M. (2016). Merit and blame in unequal societies: Explaining Latin Americans’ beliefs about wealth and poverty. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 44, 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2016.02.005CrossRef

Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Row, Peterson.

Castillo, J. C. (2012). Is inequality becoming just? Changes in public opinion about economic distribution in Chile. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 31(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-9856.2011.00605.xCrossRef

Campbell, A. L. (2003). How policies make citizens: Senior political activism and the American welfare state. Princeton University Press.CrossRef

Choi, G. (2019). Revisiting the redistribution hypothesis with perceived inequality and redistributive preferences. European Journal of Political Economy, 58, 220–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2018.12.004CrossRef

Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12(3), 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00992337CrossRef

Cruces, G., Perez-Truglia, R., & Tetaz, M. (2013). Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 98, 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.10.009CrossRef

Dimick, M., Rueda, D., & Stegmueller, D. (2018). Models of other-regarding preferences, inequality, and redistribution. Annual Review of Political Science, 21(1), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-091515-030034CrossRef

Dyck, J. J., & Lascher, E. L. (2009). Direct democracy and political efficacy reconsidered. Political Behavior, 31(3), 401–427.CrossRef

Emmenegger, P., Marx, P., & Schraff, D. (2015). Labour market disadvantage, political orientations and voting: How adverse labour market experiences translate into electoral behaviour. Socio-Economic Review, 13(2), 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwv003CrossRef

Finseraas, H. (2009). Income inequality and demand for redistribution: A multilevel analysis of European public opinion. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(1), 94–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2008.00211.xCrossRef

García-Sánchez, E., Osborne, D., Willis, G. B., & Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2020). Attitudes towards redistribution and the interplay between perceptions and beliefs about inequality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12326CrossRef

García-Sánchez, E., Willis, G. B., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Sañudo, J. P., Polo, J. D., & Pérez, E. R. (2018). Perceptions of economic inequality and support for redistribution: The role of existential and utopian standards. Social Justice Research, 31(4), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-018-0317-6CrossRef

Georgiadis, A., & Manning, A. (2012). Spend it like Beckham? Inequality and redistribution in the UK, 1983–2004. Public Choice, 151(3–4), 537–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-010-9758-7CrossRef

Gilens, M. (2005). Inequality and democratic responsiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(5), 778–796. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfi058CrossRef

Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592714001595CrossRef

Gimpelson, V., & Treisman, D. (2018). Misperceiving inequality. Economics & Politics, 30(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.12103CrossRef

Goodin, R., & Dryzek, J. (1980). Rational participation: The politics of relative power. British Journal of Political Science, 10(3), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400002209CrossRef

Goubin, S. (2018). Is inequality a latent construct? An assessment of economic inequality indicators and their relation with social cohesion in Europe. Social Indicators Research, 136(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1522-zCrossRef

Goubin, S. (2020). Economic inequality, perceived responsiveness and political trust. Acta Politica, 55(2), 267–304. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-018-0115-zCrossRef

Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. R. (2012). Inequality and regime change: Democratic transitions and the stability of democratic rule. The American Political Science Review, 106(3), 495–516. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000287CrossRef

Headey, B. (1991). Distributive justice and occupational incomes: Perceptions of justice determine perceptions of fact. The British Journal of Sociology, 42(4), 581. https://doi.org/10.2307/591448CrossRef

Hochschild, J. (2001). Where you stand depends on what you see: Connections among values, perceptions of fact, and political prescriptions. In J. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology (pp. 313–340). Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Houle, C. (2009). Inequality and democracy: Why inequality harms consolidation but does not affect democratization. World Politics, 61(4), 589–622. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043887109990074CrossRef

Imai, K., Keele, L., & Yamamoto, T. (2010). Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science, 25, 51–71.CrossRef

Iversen, T., & Soskice, D. (2006). New Macroeconomics and political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 425–453. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.072004.085858CrossRef

Jensen, C., & van Kersbergen, K. (2017). The politics of inequality. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Jost, J. T. (2019). A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 263–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12297CrossRef

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.xCrossRef

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.xCrossRef

Jost, J. T., Blount, S., Pfeffer, J., & Hunyady, G. (2003). Fair market ideology: Its cognitive-motivational underpinnings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 53–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(03)25002-4CrossRef

Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ddeologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.xCrossRef

Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (2006). The limits of political efficacy: Educating citizens for a democratic society. PS: Political Science and Politics, 39(2), 289–296.

Kaufman, R. R. (2009). The political effects of inequality in Latin America: Some inconvenient facts. Comparative Politics, 41(3), 359–379. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041509x12911362972359CrossRef

Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Peach, J. M., Laurin, K., Friesen, J., Zanna, M. P., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015997CrossRefPubMed

Kenworthy, L., & McCall, L. (2008). Inequality, public opinion and redistribution. Socio-Economic Review, 6(1), 35–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwm006CrossRef

Kuhn, A. (2011). In the eye of the beholder: Subjective inequality measures and individuals’ assessment of market justice. European Journal of Political Economy, 27(4), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2011.06.002CrossRef

Kuhn, A. (2019). The subversive nature of inequality: Subjective inequality perceptions and attitudes to social inequality. European Journal of Political Economy, 59, 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2019.04.004CrossRef

Kumlin, S. (2004). The personal and the political: How personal welfare state experiences affect political trust and ideology, Gothenburg Studies in Politics. University of Gothenburg.CrossRef

Kumlin, S. (2011). Dissatisfied democrats, policy feedback and European welfare states, 1976–2001. In S. Zmerli & M. Hooghe (Eds.), Political trust: Why context matters (pp. 163–186). Colchester: ECPR Press.

Kumlin, S., & Haugsgjerd, A. (2017). The welfare state and political trust: Bringing performance back in. In S. Zmerli & T. van der Meer (Eds.), Handbook on political trust (pp. 285–301). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRef

Kumlin, S., & Rothstein, B. (2005). Making and breaking social capital: The impact of welfare-state institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 38(4), 339–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414004273203CrossRef

Kuziemko, I., Norton, M. I., Saez, E., & Stantcheva, S. (2015). How elastic are rreferences for redistribution? Evidence from randomized survey experiments. American Economic Review, 105(4), 1478–1508. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130360CrossRef

Lee, D., Chang, C. Y., & Hur, H. (2020). Economic performance, income inequality and political trust: New evidence from a cross-national study of 14 Asian countries. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 42(2), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2020.1755873CrossRef

Loveless, M. (2013). The deterioration of democratic political culture: Consequences of the perception of inequality. Social Justice Research, 26(4), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-013-0198-7CrossRef

Loveless, M. (2016). Inequality and support for political engagement in new democracies. Europe-Asia Studies, 68(6), 1003–1019. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2016.1203865CrossRef

Loveless, M., & Whitefield, S. (2011). Being unequal and seeing inequality: Explaining the political significance of social inequality in new market democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 50(2), 239–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01929.xCrossRef

Lübker, M. (2007). Inequality and the demand for redistribution: Are the assumptions of the new growth theory valid? Socio-Economic Review, 5(1), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwl002CrossRef

Lübker, M. (2014). Income inequality, redistribution, and poverty: Contrasting rational choice and behavioral perspectives: Income inequality, redistribution, and poverty. Review of Income and Wealth, 60(1), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12100CrossRef

Lupu, N., & Pontusson, J. (2011). The structure of inequality and the politics of redistribution. The American Political Science Review, 105(2), 316–336. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055411000128CrossRef

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83.CrossRef

Marx, P., & Nguyen, C. (2016). Are the unemployed less politically involved? A comparative study of internal political efficacy. European Sociological Review, 32(5), 634–648. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcw020CrossRef

McCall, L., & Kenworthy, L. (2009). Americans' social policy preferences in the era of rising inequality. Perspectives on Politics, 7(3), 459–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592709990818

McCall, L. (2013). The undeserving rich: American beliefs about inequality, opportunity, and redistribution. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

McCall, L., Burk, D., Laperrière, M., & Richeson, J. A. (2017). Exposure to rising inequality shapes Americans’ opportunity beliefs and policy support. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(36), 9593–9598. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706253114CrossRef

Meltzer, A. H., & Richard, S. F. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 914–927. https://doi.org/10.1086/261013CrossRef

Mettler S. 2005. Soldiers to citizens: The G.I. Bill and the making of the greatest generation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Mettler, S. & Sorelle, M. (2017). Policy feedback theory. In: C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp.103–134). New York: Hachette.

Mettler, S., & Soss, J. (2004). The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592704000623CrossRef

Mijs, J. J. B. (2016). The unfulfillable promise of meritocracy: Three lessons and their implications for justice in education. Social Justice Research, 29(1), 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0228-0CrossRef

Mijs, J. J. (2019). The paradox of inequality: Income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand. Socio-Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwy051.

Miller, W. E., Miller, A. H., & Schneider, E. J. (1980). American National Election Studies data source-book: 1952–1978. Harvard University Press.

Morrell, M. E. (2005). Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior, 27(1), 49–69.CrossRef

Niehues, J. (2014). Subjective perceptions of inequality and redistributive preferences: An international comparison. Cologne Institute for Economic Research. IW-TRENDS Discussion Paper, 2, 1–23.

Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407–1413. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963953CrossRef

Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011). Building a better America-one wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393524CrossRefPubMed

Osberg, L., & Smeeding, T. (2006). “Fair” inequality? Attitudes toward pay differentials: The united states in comparative perspective. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 450–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100305CrossRef

Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes aause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45, 595–628. https://doi.org/10.2307/2950710CrossRef

Rosset, J., Giger, N., & Bernauer, J. (2013). More money, fewer problems? Cross-level effects of economic deprivation on political representation. West European Politics, 36(4), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2013.783353CrossRef

Rothstein, B. (2011). The quality of government: Corruption, social trust, and inequality in international perspective. University of Chicago Press.CrossRef

Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. M. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58(1), 41–72. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2006.0022CrossRef

Sands, M. L. (2017). Exposure to inequality affects support for redistribution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(4), 663–668. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1615010113CrossRef

Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). Party government. Rhinehart and company.

Schmidt-Catran, A. W. (2016). Economic inequality and public demand for redistribution: Combining cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence. Socio-Economic Review, 14(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwu030CrossRef

Schröder, M. (2017). Is income inequality related to tolerance for inequality? Social Justice Research, 30(1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-016-0276-8CrossRef

Shore, J. (2020). How social policy impacts inequalities in political efficacy. Sociology Compass, 14(5), e12784. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12784

Solt, F. (2008). Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00298.xCrossRef

Solt, F. (2010). Does economic inequality depress electoral participation? Testing the Schattschneider Hypothesis. Political Behavior, 32(2), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9106-0CrossRef

Solt, F. (2016). The standardized world income inequality database*. Social Science Quarterly, 97(5), 1267–1281. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12295CrossRef

Soss, J. (1999). Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action. The American Political Science Review, 93(2), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585401CrossRef

Soss, J., Hacker, J. S., & Mettler, S. (Eds.). (2007). Remaking America: Democracy and public policy in an age of inequality. Russell Sage Foundation.

Stegmueller, D. (2013). How many countries for multilevel modeling? A comparison of frequentist and bayesian approaches. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 748–761. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12001CrossRef

Stockemer, D., & Scruggs, L. (2012). Income inequality, development and electoral turnout—New evidence on a burgeoning debate. Electoral Studies, 31, 764–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.06.006CrossRef

Svallfors, S. (1993). Dimensions of inequality: A comparison of attitudes in Sweden and Britain. European Sociological Review, 9(3), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a036681CrossRef

Svallfors, S. (2007). The political sociology of the welfare state: Institutions, social cleavages, and orientations. Stanford University Press.CrossRef

Svallfors, S. (2010). Policy feedback, generational replacement, and attitudes to state intervention: Eastern and Western Germany, 1990–2006. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 119.CrossRef

Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequality. Univ of California Press.CrossRef

Trump, K. (2018). Income inequality influences perceptions of legitimate income differences. British Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 929–952. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123416000326CrossRef

Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038CrossRefPubMed

Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Westview Press.

Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A., & McGraw, K. M. (1985). The influence of perceived injustice on the endorsement of political leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15(8), 700–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985.tb02269.xCrossRef

Uslaner, E. M. (2011). Corruption, the inequality trap and trust in government. In S. Zmerli & M. Hooghe (Eds.), Political trust: Why context matters (pp. 141–162). Colchester: ECPR Press.

Uslaner, E. M. (2017). Political trust, corruption, and inequality. In S. Zmerli & T. van der Meer (Eds.), Handbook on political trust (pp. 302–315). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRef

Uslaner, E. M., & Brown, M. (2005). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. American Politics Research, 33(6), 868–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X04271903CrossRef

Van der Meer, T., & Hakhverdian, A. (2017). Political trust as the evaluation of process and performance: A cross-national study of 42 European countries. Political Studies, 65(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321715607514CrossRef

Verwiebe, R., & Wegener, B. (2000). Social inequality and the perceived income justice gap. Social Justice Research, 13(2), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007545823040CrossRef

Wegener, B. (2000). Political culture and post-communist transition—A social justice approach: Introduction. Social Justice Research, 13(2), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007512305293CrossRef

Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2009). Income inequality and social dysfunction. Annual Review of Sociology, 35(1), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115926CrossRef

Willis, G. B., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., López-Rodríguez, L., & García-Sánchez, E. (2015). Legitimacy moderates the relation between perceived and ideal economic inequalities. Social Justice Research, 28(4), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-015-0253-7CrossRef

Wu, W.-C., & Chang, Y.-T. (2019). Income inequality, distributive unfairness, and support for democracy: Evidence from East Asia and Latin America. Democratization, 26(8), 1475–1492. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1656198CrossRef

Zmerli, S., & Castillo, J. C. (2015). Income inequality, distributive fairness and political trust in Latin America. Social Science Research, 52, 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.02.003CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Political Consequences of Income Inequality: Assessing the Relationship Between Perceived Distributive Fairness and Political Efficacy in Asia
verfasst von: Daewoo Lee
Chae Young Chang
Hyunkang Hur
Publikationsdatum: 06.07.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Social Justice Research / Ausgabe 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0885-7466
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6725
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-021-00371-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2021

The “Economic Battle” Now and Then: (E)valuation Patterns of Distributive Justice in Cuban State-Socialism

Beliefs on Sexual Violence in the Context of System Justification Theory: The Role of Hostile Sexism and Beliefs in Biological Origins of Gender Differences

Getting Ratees to Accept Performance Feedback: A Relational Approach

Legitimacy of Authority and Protest Actions in Response to Collective Disadvantages