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

References

• Achen, C. H. (1977). Measuring representation: Perils of the correlation coefficient. American Journal of Political Science, 21(4), 805–815. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110737
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2017). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Adams, J., & Ezrow, L. (2009). Who do European parties represent? How Western European parties represent the policy preferences of opinion leaders. The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608090130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelova, M., Bäck, H., Müller, W. C., & Strobl, D. (2018). Veto player theory and reform making in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 57(2), 282–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejpr.2018.57.issue-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels, L. M. (2009). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bartels, L. M. (2021). Measuring political inequality. [Unpublished paper].
   Google Scholar
• Bashir, O. S. (2015). Testing inferences about American politics: A review of the ‘Oligarchy’ result. Research & Politics, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015608896
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Leech, B. L., & Kimball, D. C. (2009). Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., Green-Pedersen, C., & Jones, B. D. (2006). Comparative studies of policy agendas. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(7), 959–974. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760600923805
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2010). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bernauer, J., Giger, N., & Rosset, J. (2015). Mind the gap: Do proportional electoral systems foster a more equal representation of women and men, poor and rich?. International Political Science Review, 36(1), 78–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512113498830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binzer Hobolt, S., & Klemmemsen, R. (2005). Responsive government? Public opinion and government policy preferences in Britain and Denmark. Political Studies, 53(2), 379–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00534.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binzer Hobolt, S., & Klemmensen, R. (2008). Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 41(3), 309–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006297169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). How frames can undermine support for scientific adaptations: Politicization and the status-quo bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nft044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boonen, J., Pedersen, E. F., & Hooghe, M. (2017). The effect of political sophistication and party identification on voter–party congruence. A comparative analysis of 30 countries. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 27(3), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2016.1273226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowman, J. (2020). Do the affluent override average Americans? Measuring policy disagreement and unequal influence. Social Science Quarterly, 101(3), 1018–1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.v101.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branham, J. A., Soroka, S. N., & Wlezien, C. (2017). When do the rich win?. Political Science Quarterly, 132(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12577
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, C., & Manza, J. (2006). Why do welfare states persist?. The Journal of Politics, 68(4), 816–827. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00472.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, C., & Manza, J. (2008). Why welfare states persist: The importance of public opinion in democracies. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brunner, E., Ross, S. L., & Washington, E. (2013). Does less income mean less representation?. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(2), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.5.2.53
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burstein, P. (2006). Why estimates of the impact of public opinion on public Policy are too high: Empirical and theoretical implications. Social Forces, 84(4), 2273–2289. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elkjaer, M. A., & Iversen, T. (2020). The political representation of economic interests: Subversion of democracy or middle-class supremacy?. World Politics, 72(2), 254–290. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887119000224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elkjær, M. A. (2020). What drives unequal policy responsiveness? Assessing the role of informational asymmetries in economic policy-making. Comparative Political Studies, 53(14), 2213–2245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020912282
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsässer, L., Hense, S., & Schäfer, A. (2020). Not just money: Unequal responsiveness in egalitarian democracies. Journal of European Public Policy, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1801804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enns, P. K. (2015). Reconsidering the middle: A reply to martin gilens. Perspectives on Politics, 13(4), 1072–1074. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592715002339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enns, P. K., Kelly, N. J., Morgan, J., Volscho, T., & Witko, C. (2014). Conditional status quo bias and top income shares: How US political institutions have benefited the rich. The Journal of Politics, 76(2), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613001321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erikson, R. S. (2015). Income inequality and policy responsiveness. Annual Review of Political Science, 18, 111–29. https://doi.org/10.1146/polisci.2015.18.issue-1
   Google Scholar
• Erikson, R. S., MacKuen, M. B., & Stimson, J. A. (2002). The macro polity. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Esaiasson, P., & Holmberg, S. (1996). Representation from above: Members of parliament and representative democracy in Sweden. Dartmouth Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Flavin, P. (2012). Income inequality and policy representation in the American states. American Politics Research, 40(1), 29–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X11416920
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flavin, P., & Franko, W. W (2017). Government's unequal attentiveness to citizens' political priorities. Policy Studies Journal, 45(4), 659–687. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.v45.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giger, N., Rosset, J., & Bernauer, J. (2012). The poor political representation of the poor in a comparative perspective. Representation, 48(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2012.653238
   Google Scholar
• Gilens, M. (2005). Inequality and democratic responsiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(5), 778–796. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfi058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilens, M. (2012). Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilens, M. (2015). The insufficiency of ‘democracy by coincidence’: A response to Peter K. Enns. Perspectives on Politics, 13(4), 1065–1071. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592715002327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilens, M. (2016). Simulating representation: The devil's in the detail. Research and Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168016654720
   Google Scholar
• 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/S1537592714001595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godefroid, M.-E., Plattfaut, R., & Niehaves, B. (2022). How to measure the status quo bias? A review of current literature. Management Review Quarterly, 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00283-8
   Google Scholar
• Griffin, J. D., & Newman, B. (2005). Are voters better represented?. The Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1206–1227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00357.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin, J. D., & Newman, B. (2007). The unequal representation of Latinos and Whites. The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1032–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00605.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossmann, M., Mahmood, Z., & Isaac, W. (2021). Political parties, interest groups, and unequal class influence in American policy. The Journal of Politics, 83(4), 1706–1720. https://doi.org/10.1086/711900
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guntermann, E., & Persson, M. (2021). Issue voting and government responsiveness to policy preferences. Political Behavior, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09716-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakhverdian, A. (2010). Political representation and its mechanisms: A dynamic left–right approach for the United Kingdom, 1976–2006. British Journal of Political Science, 40(4), 835–856. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712341000013X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmberg, S. (1997). Dynamic opinion representation. Scandinavian Political Studies, 20(3), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/scps.1997.20.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Homola, J. (2019). Are parties equally responsive to women and men?. British Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 957–975. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Immergut, E. M. (1990). Institutions, veto points, and policy results: A comparative analysis of health care. Journal of Public Policy, 10(4), 391–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00006061
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, L. R., & Page, B. I. (2005). Who influences US foreign policy?. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540505152X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown Boston.
   Google Scholar
• Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2012). The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00537.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lax, J. R., Phillips, J. H., & Zelizer, A. (2019). The party or the purse? Unequal representation in the US senate. American Political Science Review, 113(4), 917–940. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupu, N., & Tirado Castro, A. (2022). Unequal policy responsiveness in Spain. Socio-Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwac040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupu, N., & Warner, Z. (2022a). Affluence and congruence: Unequal representation around the world. The Journal of Politics, 84(1), 276–290. https://doi.org/10.1086/714930
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupu, N., & Warner, Z. (2022b). Why are the affluent better represented around the world?. European Journal of Political Research, 61, 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12440
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathisen, R. B. (2022). Affluence and influence in a social democracy. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422000739
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathisen, R., Schakel, W., Hense, S., Elsässer, L., Persson, M., & Pontusson, H. J. (2021). Unequal responsiveness and government partisanship in northwest Europe. Working paper.
   Google Scholar
• McKay, A. (2012). Negative lobbying and policy outcomes. American Politics Research, 40(1), 116–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X11413435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendelberg, T. (2018). From the folk theory to symbolic politics: Toward a more realistic understanding of voter behavior. Critical Review, 30(1–2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2018.1448515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1963). Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review, 57(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monroe, A. D. (1979). Consistency between public preferences and national policy decisions. American Politics Quarterly, 7(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X7900700101
   Google Scholar
• Monroe, A. D. (1998). Public opinion and public policy, 1980–1993. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1086/297828
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 77(1), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson, M. (2021). From opinions to policies: Examining the links between citizens, representatives, and policy change. Electoral Studies, 74, 102413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102413
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, Y., & Ensink, S. J. (2015). Differential responsiveness in Europe: The effects of preference difference and electoral participation. West European Politics, 38(3), 577–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.973260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, G. B. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, A., Binderkrantz, A. S., & Klüver, H. (2021). Organised interests in the media and policy congruence: The contingent impact of the status quo. European Journal of Political Research, 60(4), 975–993. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejpr.v60.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, A., Reher, S., & Toshkov, D. (2019). The opinion-policy nexus in Europe and the role of political institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 58(2), 412–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejpr.2019.58.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reher, S. (2018). Gender and opinion–policy congruence in Europe. European Political Science Review, 10(4), 613–635. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773918000140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhodes, J. H., & Schaffner, B. F. (2017). Testing models of unequal representation: Democratic populists and republican oligarchs?. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 12(2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00016077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rigby, E., & Wright, G. C. (2013). Political parties and representation of the poor in the American states. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 552–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.2013.57.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogowski, R., & Kayser, M. A. (2002). Majoritarian electoral systems and consumer power: Price-level evidence from the OECD countries. American Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 526–539. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088397
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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/10.1080/01402382.2013.783353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosset, J., & Kurella, A.-S. (2021). The electoral roots of unequal representation. A spatial modelling approach to party systems and voting in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 60, 785–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564
   Google Scholar
• Schakel, W. (2021). Unequal policy responsiveness in the Netherlands. Socio-Economic Review, 19(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwz018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schakel, W., Burgoon, B., & Hakhverdian, A. (2020). Real but unequal representation in welfare state reform. Politics & Society, 48(1), 131–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329219897984
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schakel, W., & Hakhverdian, A. (2018). Ideological congruence and socio-economic inequality. European Political Science Review, 10(3), 441–465. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773918000036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soroka, S. N., & Wlezien, C. (2005). Opinion and policy dynamics: Public preferences and public expenditure in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 665–689. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123405000347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soroka, S., & Wlezien, C. (2008). On the limits to inequality in representation. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41(2), 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096508080505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soroka, S. N., & Wlezien, C. (2010). Degrees of democracy: Politics, public opinion, and policy. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stimson, J. A., MacKuen, M. B., & Erikson, R. S. (1995). Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 543–565. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toshkov, D., Mäder, L., & Rasmussen, A. (2020). Party government and policy responsiveness. Evidence from three parliamentary democracies. Journal of Public Policy, 40(2), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X18000417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ura, J. D., & Ellis, C. R. (2008). Income, preferences, and the dynamics of policy responsiveness. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41(4), 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909650808102X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, T. (2020). Discreet inequality: How party agendas embrace privileged interests. Comparative Political Studies, 53(10–11), 1767–1797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020912286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlezien, C. (1995). The public as thermostat: Dynamics of preferences for spending. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 981–1000. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111666
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlezien, C. (2017). Public opinion and policy representation: On conceptualization, measurement, and interpretation. Policy Studies Journal, 45(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.v45.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlezien, C., & Soroka, S. N. (2007). The relationship between public opinion and policy. In R. J. Dalton & H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 799–817). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar