Polarized Opinion, Consensual Election: How Preferences for Restrictive Immigration Policies Water Down Class conflict over Redistribution

Why don't we observe more redistributive policies while income inequality is rising? Scholars bring two answers to solve this puzzle. The first focuses on individual preferences and suggests that while inequality has increased for the last 20 years, preferences for redistribution have stayed the same. The second argues that we are living in unequal democracies, where policies are more responsive to the preferences of the richest. This work tests a third way and explores the role of vote choice in unequal responsiveness to preferences for redistribution. I test my argument on twelve western European countries using the Inequality and Politics dataset (IAP), an original comparative survey with data collected in summer 2019. The IAP replicated key questions of the CHES, which allows me to measure individuals' tendency to vote for parties that are less in favor of redistribution than their own position. Results indicate that 1) rich and poor do not share the same redistributive preferences, and 2) when it comes to vote choice, lower and middle income citizens are more likely to vote for a party that is less in favor of redistribution than their own position; 3) a large part of the incongruence is driven by preferences for restrictive immigration policies 4) mainstream right and far right parties are catching voters far beyond their economical position; 5) large cross-country differences suggest that some party-systems might be responsible of the lack of elected parties with pro-redistribution position