Economists and political scientists have debated for decades whether democratic systems correct economic inequality through electoral competition and policy reform. A study led by Alexander Horn of the University of Konstanz provides one of the most comprehensive answers yet and revealed surprising patterns across advanced democracies.
Why Political Parties Rarely Challenge Inequality
Data from 50 Years of Political Manifestos Shows How Political Agenda Turns Quiet While Economic Divides Deepen
Background
The research, published in American Political Science Review in August 2025, examined more than 850,000 statements from election manifestos in 12 OECD countries between 1970 and 2020. Using online crowdcoding, it distinguished economic equality references from broader notions of equality, providing unprecedented clarity on party responsiveness.
Lead researcher Alexander Horn worked alongside researchers Martin Haselmayer of Hochschule Campus Wien and University of Vienna, and K. Jonathan Klüser of the University of Zurich. Their goal was to address gaps in existing research and determine why persistent economic inequality often fails to provoke a political response in democratic societies.
The researchers were motivated by this question: if democracy empowers citizens equally, why does economic inequality remain entrenched in many advanced countries? Earlier studies tended to exaggerate responsiveness by conflating mentions of civil equality with economic redistribution. The new dataset and methodology aimed to correct this distortion.
Both levels of inequality and changes over time were assessed. This distinction mattered greatly because high levels of inequality might appear politically normalized, while sudden increases could create electoral salience. With a half-century of comparative data, the research team was able to test these assumptions with far greater precision than before.
Main Findings
The findings show that political parties rarely respond strongly to inequality, even when it grows dramatically. Left-wing or progressive-leaning parties, though more sensitive to the problem, still underemphasize it compared to expectations. Right-wing parties or conservatives are largely unresponsive, regardless of context or severity. Below are further details:
• Focus on Increases, Not Levels: Parties showed more attention when inequality increased rather than when it merely remained high. Static inequality became normalized politically. Only when disparities grew rapidly did parties display greater emphasis on redistribution or economic equality in their official commitments.
• Median Decline Responsiveness: Inequality affecting median and lower-income groups triggered more responses than inequality driven solely by gains among top earners. When middle and lower classes fell further behind, parties, particularly those on the left, became more likely to address redistribution in manifestos.
• Right-Wing Nonresponsiveness: Right-wing parties were consistently nonresponsive to inequality, whether measured by levels or increases. They did not address inequality even when the median or poorer segments were most affected. Their manifestos systematically avoided direct discussion of redistribution policies.
• Conditional Left-Wing Attention: Left-wing parties had some responsiveness, but their attention was conditional and limited. They raised inequality only when it visibly impacted broader electorates. Even then, responses were less frequent and less detailed than expected based on ideological commitments to redistribution.
• Weak Corrective Power of Democracy: The results suggest that democratic systems do not automatically correct economic inequality. Structural features, meritocratic beliefs, and visibility biases all restrict parties from emphasizing inequality, which explains how unequal societies can remain stable over long periods of time.
Takeaways
The study concluded that several structural distortions prevent parties from strongly engaging with inequality. The richest are less visible in public debate, making their wealth accumulation politically invisible. Meanwhile, poorer groups face organizational and mobilization barriers, and many voters accept inequality as a product of merit and performance.
Significant implications for democratic accountability have been identified. If parties do not react to rising inequality, particularly when top earners pull away, the imbalance can become entrenched. Democracy in practice may inadvertently perpetuate inequality rather than serving as an effective corrective mechanism for economic disparities.
Moreover, by carefully separating types of equality and using rigorous methods, the study and its findings provide salient evidence that economic inequality persists not only due to economic forces or macroeconomic factors but also due to political silence. The findings highlight the urgent need for renewed public debate and civic mobilization around inequality.
FURTHER READING AND REFERENCE
- Horn, A., Haselmayer, M., and Klüser, K. J. 2025. “Why Inequalities Persist: Parties’ Non-Responses to Economic Inequality, 1970-2020.” American Political Science Review, 1-19. DOI: 1017/s0003055425100907