Divided we abstain: Testing the effect of local income inequality on individual-level turnout using Norwegian administrative panel data

IF 2.9 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Electoral Studies Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102852

{"title":"Divided we abstain: Testing the effect of local income inequality on individual-level turnout using Norwegian administrative panel data","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper investigates the relationship between income inequality and voting by utilizing exceptionally granular data that offer novel insights into local disparities. Existing research documents a larger turnout gap between rich and poor in areas characterized by high income inequality, causing concerns about further underrepresentation for low-income individuals and a larger democratic deficit. While previous studies have focused on inequality at higher aggregation levels, this paper advances the field by employing administrative data with complete income and validated voting records measuring inequality for neighborhoods hosting 1212 residents on average. The longitudinal setup allows rigorous modeling following the same individual in the same context over time. The results suggest that living in a neighborhood where the income difference between rich and poor becomes more pronounced discourages participation in national elections among low-income voters while it boosts participation among the rich, further accentuating the class-based inequality in political voice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424001100/pdfft?md5=7d4e1abefe50ea2eeff597ed7750f738&pid=1-s2.0-S0261379424001100-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424001100","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper investigates the relationship between income inequality and voting by utilizing exceptionally granular data that offer novel insights into local disparities. Existing research documents a larger turnout gap between rich and poor in areas characterized by high income inequality, causing concerns about further underrepresentation for low-income individuals and a larger democratic deficit. While previous studies have focused on inequality at higher aggregation levels, this paper advances the field by employing administrative data with complete income and validated voting records measuring inequality for neighborhoods hosting 1212 residents on average. The longitudinal setup allows rigorous modeling following the same individual in the same context over time. The results suggest that living in a neighborhood where the income difference between rich and poor becomes more pronounced discourages participation in national elections among low-income voters while it boosts participation among the rich, further accentuating the class-based inequality in political voice.

查看原文本刊更多论文

分裂，我们弃权：利用挪威行政面板数据检验地方收入不平等对个人投票率的影响

本文利用特别细化的数据调查了收入不平等与投票之间的关系，这些数据提供了对地方差距的新见解。现有研究表明，在收入高度不平等的地区，贫富之间的投票率差距更大，这引起了人们对低收入者代表权进一步不足和民主赤字扩大的担忧。以往的研究主要关注较高聚合水平上的不平等，而本文则通过采用具有完整收入和有效投票记录的行政数据来衡量平均拥有 1212 名居民的社区的不平等情况，从而推动了这一领域的研究。通过纵向设置，可以对同一环境中的同一个体进行长期的严格建模。结果表明，居住在一个贫富收入差距更加明显的社区，低收入选民不愿意参与全国大选，而富人则更愿意参与，这进一步加剧了政治发言权中基于阶层的不平等。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

3.40

自引率

13.00%

发文量

审稿时长

67 days

期刊介绍： Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.