This study analyzes how political leaders’ material backgrounds affect redistributive policies in democracies. Building on political socialization theory, we argue that politicians with personal experience of economic hardship are more likely to have sympathetic attitudes toward redistribution than those without such experience, particularly where political constraints are weak. We posit that firsthand knowledge of economic hardship helps political leaders understand why the poor need government redistribution, and leads them to support more generous social welfare policies. Analyzing an original dataset of leaders’ material background in 74 democratic countries between 1980 and 2011, we find that leaders who experienced economic hardship in their youth increase social welfare spending during their tenure, particularly when political constraints are weak. Following prior studies on leaders’ personal experiences and policy outcomes, this study provides a new approach to redistribution and welfare policy.
AlexiadouD (2015) Ideologues, Partisans, and Loyalists: Cabinet Ministers and Social Welfare Reform in Parliamentary Democracies. Comparative Political Studies48: 1051–1086.
2.
AllenJPScruggsL (2004) Political Partisanship and Welfare State Reform in Advanced Industrial Societies. American Journal of Political Science48: 496–512.
3.
AvelinoGBrownDSHunterW (2005) The Effects of Capital Mobility, Trade Openness, and Democracy on Social Spending in Latin America. American Journal of Political Science49: 625–641.
4.
BarcelóJ (2020) Are Western-Educated Leaders Less Prone to Initiate Militarized Disputes?British Journal of Political Science50: 535–566.
5.
BeckNKatzJ (1995) What to Do (and Not to Do) With Time-Series Cross-Section Data. American Political Science Review89: 634–647.
6.
BentonAL (2005) Dissatisfied Democrats or Retrospective Voters? Economic Hardship, Political Institutions, and Voting Behavior in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies38: 417–442.
7.
BesleyTReynal-QuerolM (2011) Do Democracies Select More Educated Leaders?American Political Science Review105: 552–566.
8.
BoixCMillerMKRosatoS (2013) A Complete Data Set of Political Regimes, 1800-2007. Comparative Political Studies46: 1523–1554.
BradyHEVerbaSSchlozmanKL (1995) Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation. American Political Science Review89: 271–294.
11.
BrooksS (2009) Social Protection and Social Solidarity: The Transformation of Social Security Institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BrownDSHunterW (1999) Democracy and Social Spending in Latin America, 1980–92. American Political Science Review93: 779–790.
13.
BrummerK (2016) “Fiasco Prime Ministers”: Leaders’ Beliefs and Personality Traits as Possible Causes for Policy Fiascos. Journal of European Public Policy23: 702–717.
14.
CarnesNLupuN (2015) Rethinking the Comparative Perspective on Class and Representation: Evidence From Latin America. American Journal of Political Science59: 1–18.
15.
CarnesNSadinML (2015) The “Mill Worker’s Son” Heuristic: How Voters Perceive Politicians From Working-Class Families—And How They Really Behave in Office. The Journal of Politics77: 285–298.
16.
ChattopadhyayRDufloE (2004) Women as Policy Makers: Evidence From a Randomized Policy Experiment in India. Econometrica72: 1409–1443.
17.
CrepazMML (2001) Veto Players, Globalization and the Redistributive Capacity of the State: A Panel Study of 15 OECD Countries. Journal of Public Policy21: 1–22.
18.
CruzCKeeferPScartasciniC (2018) Database of Political Institutions 2017. Washington, DC: Numbers for Development, Inter-American Development Bank.
19.
DreherALamlaMJLeinSM, et al. (2009) The Impact of Political Leaders’ Profession and Education on Reforms. Journal of Comparative Economics37: 169–193.
20.
FairfieldTGarayC (2017) Redistribution Under the Right in Latin America: Electoral Competition and Organized Actors in Policymaking. Comparative Political Studies50: 1871–1906.
21.
FoxRLLawlessJL (2014) Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition. American Political Science Review108: 499–519.
22.
GeddesBWrightJFrantzE (2018) How Dictatorships Work: Power, Personalization, and Collapse. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
GiulianoPSpilimbergoA (2014) Growing Up in a Recession. The Review of Economic Studies81: 787–817.
24.
GoemansHEGleditschKSChiozzaG (2009) Introducing Archigos: A Dataset of Political Leaders. Journal of Peace Research46: 269–283.
25.
GohlmannSVaubelR (2007) The Educational and Occupational Background of Central Bankers and Its Effect on Inflation: An Empirical Analysis. European Economic Review51: 925–941.
26.
HaE (2008) Globalization, Veto Players, and Welfare Spending. Comparative Political Studies41: 783–813.
27.
HackerJSRehmPSchlesingerM (2013) The Insecure American: Economic Experiences, Financial Worries, and Policy Attitudes. Perspectives on Politics11: 23–49.
28.
HayoBNeumeierF (2012) Leaders’ Impact on Public Spending Priorities: The Case of the German Laender. Kyklos65: 480–511.
29.
HealyAMalhotraN (2013) Childhood Socialization and Political Attitudes: Evidence From a Natural Experiment. The Journal of Politics75: 1023–1037.
30.
HelgasonAFMérolaV (2017) Employment Insecurity, Incumbent Partisanship, and Voting Behavior in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Political Studies50: 1489–1523.
HibbsDAJr (1977) Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy. American Political Science Review71: 1467–1487.
33.
HicksAMSwankDH (1992) Politics, Institutions, and Welfare Spending in Industrialized Democracies, 1960–82. American Political Science Review86: 658–674.
34.
HymanHH (1959) Political Socialization: A Study in the Psychology of Political Behavior. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
IversenTSoskiceD (2006) Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More Than Others. American Political Science Review100: 165–181.
37.
JenningsMK (1984) The Intergenerational Transfer of Political Ideologies in Eight Western Nations. European Journal of Political Research12: 261–276.
38.
JenningsMKStokerLBowersJ (2009) Politics Across Generations: Family Transmission Reexamined. The Journal of Politics71: 782–799.
39.
JonesBFOlkenBA (2005) Do Leaders Matter? National Leadership and Growth Since World War II. The Quarterly Journal of Economics120: 835–864.
40.
KashmiriSMahajanV (2017) Values That Shape Marketing Decisions: Influence of Chief Executive Officers’ Political Ideologies on Innovation Propensity, Shareholder Value, and Risk. Journal of Marketing Research54: 260–278.
41.
KaufmanRRSegura-UbiergoA (2001) Globalization, Domestic Politics, and Social Spending in Latin America: A Time-Series Cross-Section Analysis, 1973-97. World Politics53: 553–587.
42.
KenworthyLPontussonJ (2005) Rising Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution in Affluent Countries. Perspectives on Politics3: 449–471.
43.
KorpiWPalmeJ (2003) New Politics and Class Politics in the Context of Austerity and Globalization: Welfare State Regress in 18 Countries, 1975–95. American Political Science Review97: 425–446.
44.
KwonH (2002) Advocacy Coalitions and the Politics of Welfare in Korea after the Economic Crisis. Policy & Politics31: 69–83.
45.
LazearEPShawKLStantonCT (2015) The Value of Bosses. Journal of Labor Economics33: 823–861.
46.
LipsetSSolariA (eds) (1967) Elites in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press.
47.
LupuNPontussonJ (2011) The Structure of Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution. American Political Science Review105: 316–336.
48.
ManorJDucketJ (2017) The Significance of Political Leaders for Social Policy Expansion in Brazil, China, India, and South Africa. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics55: 303–327.
49.
MaresICarnesME (2009) Social Policy in Developing Countries. Annual Review of Political Science12: 93–113.
50.
MargalitY (2013) Explaining Social Policy Preferences: Evidence From the Great Recession. American Political Science Review107: 80–103.
51.
MarshallMJaggersK (2014) Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2009. Fairfax, VA: Center for Systemic Peace, George Mason University.
52.
MeltzerARichardSF (1981) A Rational Theory of the Size of Government. Journal of Political Economy89: 914–927.
53.
MoeneKOWallersteinM (2001) Inequality, Social Insurance, and Redistribution. American Political Science Review95: 859–874.
54.
NaumannEBussCBährJ (2016) How Unemployment Experience Affects Support for the Welfare State: A Real Panel Approach. European Sociological Review32: 81–92.
55.
NeelsenSO’DonnellO (2017) Progressive Universalism? The Impact of Targeted Coverage on Health Care Access and Expenditures in Peru. Health Economics26: e179–e203.
56.
NewmanB (2014) My Poor Friend: Financial Distress in One’s Social Network, the Perceived Power of the Rich, and Support for Redistribution. The Journal of Politics76: 126–138.
57.
NickellS (1981) Biases in Dynamic Models With Fixed Effects. Econometrica49: 1417–1426.
58.
NiemiRGSobieszekBI (1977) Political Socialization. Annual Review of Sociology3: 209–233.
59.
NorrisPLovenduskiJ (1995) Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament. New York: Cambridge University Press.
60.
O’GradyT (2018) Careerists Versus Coal-Miners: Welfare Reforms and the Substantive Representation of Social Groups in the British Labour Party. Comparative Political Studies52: 544–578.
61.
OskarssonSDawesCTLindgrenK (2018) It Runs in the Family: A Study of Political Candidacy Among Swedish Adoptees. Political Behavior40: 883–908.
62.
PerssonPZhuravskayaE (2016) The Limits of Career Concerns in Federalism: Evidence From China. Journal of the European Economic Association14: 338–374.
63.
PerssonTTabelliniG (2002) Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
64.
PiersonP (1995) Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
65.
PikettyT (1995) Social Mobility and Redistributive Politics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics110: 551–584.
66.
PistonS (2018) Class Attitudes in America: Sympathy for the Poor, Resentment of the Rich, and Political Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67.
PowersDVCoxJH (1997) Echoes From the Past: The Relationship Between Satisfaction With Economic Reforms and Voting Behavior in Poland. American Political Science Review91: 617–633.
68.
PutnamRD (1976) The Comparative Study of Political Elites. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
69.
RicoGJenningsMK (2016) The Formation of Left-Right Identification: Pathways and Correlates of Parental Influence. Political Psychology37: 237–252.
70.
RossF (2000) “Beyond Left and Right”: The New Partisan Politics of Welfare. Governance13: 155–183.
71.
RudraNHaggardS (2005) Globalization, Democracy, and Effective Welfare Spending in the Developing World. Comparative Political Studies38: 1015–1049.
72.
RueschemeyerD (2008) Review: Democracy and Social Welfare. Contemporary Sociology37: 407–410.
73.
SarkeesMRWaymanF (2010) Resort to War: 1816–2007. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
74.
TavitsMLetkiN (2009) When Left Is Right: Party Ideology and Policy in Post-Communist Europe. American Political Science Review103: 555–569.
75.
ThompsonMR (1995) The Anti-Marcos Struggle: Personalistic Rule and Democratic Transition in the Philippines. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
VerbaSSchlozmanKLBurnsN (2005) Family Ties: Understanding the Intergenerational Transmission of Political Participation. In: ZuckermanAS (ed.) The Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, pp.95–114.
80.
VernerJG (1974) Educational Backgrounds of Latin American Legislators: A Three-Country Analysis. Comparative Politics6: 617–634.
81.
Von Der MehdenFR (1969) Politics of the Developing Nations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
82.
WibbelsE (2006) Dependency Revisited: International Markets, Business Cycles, and Social Spending in the Developing World. International Organization60: 433–468.
Supplementary Material
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.
