How does intergenerational social mobility affect support for democracy? Although a large literature examines how personal income and inequality influence regime change and democratic attitudes, there has been little work on social mobility. We employ individual level data from the Afrobarometer and Latinobarometer, covering 33 democracies and nondemocracies, to provide the first analysis of how personal experiences of intergenerational mobility influence support for democracy. We find that mobility predicts democratic attitudes, even controlling for education and current economic situation. We also show that the effect does not run through preferences for redistribution. We instead propose two alternative mechanisms. First, individuals living in democracies credit (or blame) the regime when they experience mobility. Second, upward mobility transforms a range of values, such as personal autonomy and trust, that render individuals more supportive of democracy. Our results present a warning for democracies facing steadily declining social mobility, including the United States.
AbramsonP. (1973). Intergenerational social mobility and partisan preference in Britain and Italy. Comparative Political Studies, 6, 221-234.
2.
AcemoğluD.EgorovG.SoninK. (2018). Social mobility and stability of democracy: Reevaluating de Tocqueville. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133, 1041-1105.
3.
AcemoğluD.RobinsonJ. (2006). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
AlesinaA.La FerraraE. (2005). Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 897-931.
6.
AndrewsD.LeighA. (2009). More inequality, less social mobility. Applied Economics Letter, 16, 1489–1492.
7.
AndersenR. (2012). Support for democracy in cross-national perspective. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30, 389-402.
8.
AnsellB.SamuelsD. (2014). Inequality and democratization: An elite-competition approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BaiY.JiaR. (2016). Elite recruitment and political stability: The impact of the abolition of China’s civil service exam. Econometrica, 84, 677-733.
10.
BaldwinK.HuberJ. (2010). Economic versus cultural differences: Forms of ethnic diversity and public goods provision. American Political Science Review, 104, 644-662.
11.
BarberJ. A. (1971). Social mobility and voting behavior. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
12.
BenabouR.OkE. A. (2001). Social mobility and the demand for redistribution: The POUM hypothesis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 447-487.
13.
BermeoN. (2003). Ordinary people in extraordinary times: The citizenry and the breakdown of democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
BlauP.DuncanO. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York, NY: John Wiley.
15.
BoixC. (2003). Democracy and redistribution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
BoixC.MillerM. K.RosatoS. (2013). A complete data set of political regimes, 1800-2007. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 1523-1554.
17.
BrattonM. (2008). Poor people and democratic citizenship in Africa. In KrishnaA. (Ed.), Poverty, participation, and democracy (pp. 28-64). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18.
BrattonM.MattesR. (2001). Support for democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or instrumental?British Journal of Political Science, 31, 447-474.
19.
BrownD.HunterW. (2004). Democracy and human capital formation: Education spending in Latin America, 1980 to 1997. Comparative Political Studies, 37, 842-864.
20.
BrücknerM.GrünerH. P. (2010). Economic growth and the rise of political extremism: Theory and evidence (CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP7723). London, England: Centre for Economic Policy Research.
21.
ChettyR.GruskyD.HellM.HendrenN.ManducaR.NarangJ. (2016, December). The fading American dream: Trends in absolute income mobility since 1940 (NBER Working Paper No. 22910). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
22.
CiftciS. (2010). Modernization, Islam, or social capital: What explains attitudes toward democracy in the Muslim world?Comparative Political Studies, 43, 1442-1470.
23.
CliffordP.HeathA. (1993). The political consequences of social mobility. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 156, 51-61.
24.
CorakM. (2016). Inequality from generation to generation: The United States in comparison (Discussion Paper No. 9929). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.
25.
CórdovaA.SeligsonM. A. (2010). Economic shocks and democratic vulnerabilities in Latin America and the Caribbean. Latin American Politics and Society, 52, 1-35.
26.
DahlR. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27.
DayM. V.FiskeS. T. (2017). Movin’ on up? How perceptions of social mobility affect our willingness to defend the system. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 267-274.
28.
de BromheadA.EichengreenB.O’RourkeK. (2012, February). Right-wing political extremism in the great depression (NBER Working Paper No. 17871). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
29.
De GraafN. D.NieuwbeertaP.HeathA. (1995). Class mobility and political preferences. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 997-1027.
30.
de TocquevilleA. (2004). Democracy in America. New York, NY: Library of America. (Original work published 1835)
31.
DeutschK. W. (1964). Social mobilization and political development. American Political Science Review, 55, 493-514.
EvansG.WhitefieldS. (1995). The politics and economics of democratic commitment: Support for democracy in transition societies. British Journal of Political Science, 25, 485-514.
34.
FunkeM.SchularickM.TrebeschC. (2016). Going to extremes: Politics after financial crises, 1870–2014. European Economic Review, 88, 227-260.
35.
GalbraithJ. K.KumH. (2003). Inequality and economic growth: A global view based on measures of pay. Cesifo Economic Studies, 49, 527-556.
36.
GeorgeM. C. (2017). Social mobility and support for redistribution: Separating the American dream from policy preferences (Working paper). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
37.
GestJ. (2016). The new minority: White working class politics in an age of immigration and inequality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
GlynnA. N. (2012). The product and difference fallacies for indirect effects. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 257-269.
40.
GrumbachJ. M. (2015). Does the American dream matter for members of congress? Social-class backgrounds and roll-call votes. Political Research Quarterly, 68, 306-323.
41.
HaberS.MenaldoV. (2011). Do natural resources fuel authoritarianism? A reappraisal of the resource curse. American Political Science Review, 105, 1-26.
42.
HalperS. (2010). The Beijing consensus: How China’s authoritarian model will dominate the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Basic Books.
43.
HickenA. (2011). Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 289-310.
44.
HouleC. (2009). Inequality and democracy: Why inequality harms consolidation but does not affect democratization. World Politics, 61, 589-622.
45.
HouleC. (2019). Social mobility and political instability. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63, 85-111.
46.
ImaiK.KeeleL.TingleyD.YamamotoT. (2011). Unpacking the Black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105, 765-789.
47.
InglehartR.WelzelC. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
InglehartR.WelzelC. (2010). Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization and democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 8, 551-567.
49.
JencksC.TachL. (2006). Would equal opportunity mean more mobility? In MorganS.GruskyD.FieldsG. (eds). Mobility and inequality: Frontiers of research from sociology and economics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
50.
JerrinJ.MacmillianL. (2015). Income inequality, intergenerational mobility, and the Great Gatsby curve. Social Forces, 94, 505-533.
51.
KarlT. L. (2000). Economic inequality and democratic instability. Journal of Democracy, 11, 149-156.
52.
KaufmanR. (2009). The political effects of inequality in Latin America: Some inconvenient facts. Comparative Politics, 41, 359-379.
53.
KitscheltH. (1992). The formation of party systems in East Central Europe. Politics and Society, 20, 7-50.
54.
KotzianP. (2010). Public support for liberal democracy. International Political Science Review, 32, 23-41.
55.
KrieckhausJ.SonB.BellingerN. M.WellsJ. (2014). Economic inequality and democratic support. The Journal of Politics, 76, 139-151.
56.
KurlantzickJ. (2014). Democracy in retreat: The revolt of the middle class and the worldwide decline of representative government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
57.
LakeD.BaumM. (2001). The invisible hand of democracy: Political control and the provision of public services. Comparative Political Studies, 34, 587-621.
58.
Latinobarometer. (2000-13). The AmericasBarometer by the Latin American Public Opinion Project. Available at www.LapopSurveys.org
59.
LeventoğluB. (2005). Social mobility and political transitions. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 17, 465-496.
60.
LeventoğluB. (2014). Social mobility, middle class, and political transitions. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58, 825-864.
61.
LinzJ.StepanA. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
62.
LipsetS. M. (1960). Political man: The social bases of politics. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
63.
LipsetS. M.BendixR. (Eds.). (1959). Social mobility in industrial society. London, England: Transaction Publishers.
64.
MagalhaesP. (2014). Government effectiveness and support for democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 53, 77-97.
65.
MarshallM.JaggersK. (2014). Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2009. Fairfax, VA: Center for Systemic Peace, George Mason University.
66.
MattesR.BrattonM. (2007). Learning about democracy in Africa: Awareness, performance, and experience. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 192-217.
67.
MillJ. S. (1991). Considerations on representative government. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1861)
68.
ØstbyG. (2008). Polarization, horizontal inequalities and violent civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 45, 143-162.
69.
PanJ.XuY. (2018). China’s ideological spectrum. The Journal of Politics, 80, 254-273.
70.
ParetoV. (1983). The mind and society. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace. (Original work published 1916)
71.
ParkinF. (1972). Class inequality and political order: Social stratification in capitalist and communist societies. St. Albans, UK: Paladin Books.
72.
PikettyT. (1995). Social mobility and redistributive politics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 551-584.
73.
RooduijnM.BurgoonB. (2018). The paradox of well-being: Do unfavorable socioeconomic and sociocultural contexts deepen or dampen radical left and right voting among the less well-off?Comparative Political Studies, 51, 1720-1753.
74.
RothsteinB.UslanerE. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58, 41-72.
75.
SchedlerA.SarsfieldR. (2007). Democrats with adjectives: Linking direct and indirect measures of democratic support. European Journal of Political Research, 46, 637-659.
76.
SenikC. (2005). Income distribution and well-being: What can we learn from subjective data?Journal of Economic Surveys, 19, 43-63.
77.
ShariffA. F.WiwadD.AkninL. B. (2016). Income mobility breeds tolerance for income inequality: Cross-national and experimental evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 373-380.
78.
SingM. (2010). Explaining mass support for democracy in Hong Kong. Democratization, 17, 175-205.
79.
ThorburnP. (1979). Party, class and mobility: The political preference of men in England and Wales (Doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
80.
United Nations University, World Institute for Development Economics Research. (2005). World income inequality database (Version 2.0a). Available from www.wider.unu.edu
81.
WalkerL. D.KehoeG. (2013). Regime transition and attitude toward regime: The Latin American gender gap in support for democracy. Comparative Politics, 45, 187-205.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
