Who got what they wanted? Investigating the role of institutional agenda setting, costly policies, and status quo bias as explanations to income based unequal responsiveness

Figures & data

Table 1. Mean levels of policy congruence.

Window (years)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
10th percentile	47.42	46.94	46.94	47.78	47.45	48.14	48.04	48.38	48.08	47.57
50th percentile	49.09	48.51	48.54	49.16	48.98	49.44	49.19	49.41	49.20	48.88
90th percentile	53.86	53.38	53.41	53.72	53.59	54.27	54.17	54.46	54.22	53.98
All citizens	49.87	49.34	49.37	49.97	49.76	50.33	50.16	50.43	50.18	49.84

Notes: N from 933 to 598.

Table 2. The relationship between opinions and policies, bivariate OLS slopes.

Window (years)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
10th percentile	0.004	−0.002	−0.003	0.005	0.002	0.007	0.007	0.007	0.004	−0.002
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
50th percentile	0.006	0.002	0.002	0.008	0.008	0.010	0.009	0.009	0.007	0.003
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
90th percentile	0.015*	0.013*	0.015*	0.022*	0.023*	0.030*	0.031*	0.034*	0.033*	0.030*
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)

Notes: ${}^{\ast }$ denote statistical significance at the 5% level. Heteroscedastic-consistent standard errors in parentheses. Entries are from separate bivariate regressions. N from 933 to 598.

Table 3. The relationship between opinions and policies, multivariate OLS slopes.

Window (years)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
10th percentile	−0.028	−0.037*	−0.050*	−0.037	−0.062*	−0.041	−0.036	−0.036	−0.043	−0.063*
	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
50th percentile	0.002	−0.001	0.006	−0.004	0.013	−0.017	−0.032	−0.038	−0.036	−0.023
	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.03)	(0.03)
90th percentile	0.036*	0.045*	0.050*	0.055*	0.062*	0.078*	0.088*	0.097*	0.100*	0.101*
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Constant	0.075*	0.120*	0.132*	0.109*	0.134*	0.120*	0.127*	0.137*	0.161*	0.192*
	(0.02)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.04)

Notes: ${}^{\ast }$ denote statistical significance at the 5% level. Heteroscedastic-consistent standard errors in parentheses. Entries are from multivariate regressions. N from 933 to 598.

Table 4. Mean levels of policy agenda congruence.

Window (years)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
10th percentile	51.40	50.84	50.07	50.02	50.67	51.01	50.44	49.55	48.92	49.40
50th percentile	51.13	50.39	50.04	50.03	50.52	51.13	50.4	49.60	49.03	49.32
90th percentile	51.16	50.92	50.44	50.25	51.08	51.35	50.72	50.42	49.42	49.88

Notes: N from 933 to 616.

Table 5. The relationship between opinions and discussion in parliament, bivariate OLS slopes.

Window (years)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
10th percentile	0.014	0.008	0.001	−0.001	0.009	0.012	0.007	−0.003	−0.011	−0.005
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
50th percentile	0.011	0.003	0.001	−0.000	0.006	0.012	0.006	−0.003	−0.009	−0.006
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
90th percentile	0.013	0.010	0.004	0.003	0.011	0.014	0.006	0.004	−0.007	−0.002
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.02)	(0.02)

Notes: ${}^{\ast }$ denote statistical significance at the 5% level. Heteroscedastic-consistent standard errors in parentheses. Entries are from separate bivariate regressions. N from 933 to 616.

Table 6. Mean levels of policy congruence for issues that are costly, neutral or beneficial for the state budget.

	Costly proposals		Neutral proposals		Beneficial proposals
Window (years)	4	8	4	8	4	8
10th percentile	45.28	44.36	46.37	47.72	54.75	54.60
50th percentile	45.29	44.29	48.03	49.20	56.62	55.28
90th percentile	51.12	50.79	53.87	55.20	55.83	55.70
n	155	126	492	412	155	125

Figure 1. Mean policy support among income groups for proposals that were implemented or not implemented.