Do home ownership and house prices impact the shaping of individual perceptions on inequality and belief in meritocracy? We argue that home ownership and rising asset prices increase the salience of an individual’s own relative economic position, which in turn facilitates belief in meritocracy. We expect that, when house prices increase, homeowners are likely to strengthen their belief in meritocracy and defend their position by rationalizing that income distribution in society is fair and that economic success and failure are primarily determined by individual efforts. Our analysis of both a Korean panel survey and a cross-national survey finds strong and robust evidence of the asset price effect. Our findings suggest that the housing price effect on economic ideology is a general pattern, which implies that there are social and political consequences to the asset price effect.
AdlerDAnsellB (2020) Housing and Populism. West European Politics43 (2): 344–365.
2.
AlesinaAFerraraEL (1999) Participation in Heterogeneous Communities. NBER Working Paper Series No. 7155. Available at: https://www.nber.org/papers/w7155 (accessed 20 January 2023).
3.
AlesinaAFerraraEL (2005) Preferences for Redistribution in the Land of Opportunities. Journal of Public Economics89: 897–931.
4.
AlesinaAGlaeserESacerditeB (2001) Why Doesn’t the US Have European-Style Welfare System? NBER Working Paper No. 8524. Available at: https://www.nber.org/papers/w8524 (accessed 20 January 2023).
5.
AlesinaATellaRDMacCullochR (2004) Inequality and Happiness: Are Europeans and American Different?Journal of Public Economics88: 9–10.
6.
AndreSDe WildeC (2016) Home Ownership and Support for Government Redistribution. Comparative European Politics14 (3): 319–348.
7.
AnsellB (2014) The Political Economy of Ownership: Housing Markets and the Welfare State. American Political Science Review108 (2): 383–402.
8.
AnsellB (2019) The Politics of Housing. Annual Review of Political Science22: 165–185.
9.
AnsellBHjorthFNyrupJ, et al. (2022) Sheltering Populists? House Prices and the Support for Populist Parties. The Journal of Politics84 (3): 1263–1283.
10.
BaccaroLPontussonJ (2016) Rethinking Comparative Political Economy: The Growth Model Perspective. Politics & Society44 (2): 175–207.
11.
BartelsLM (2008) Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
BenabouRTiroleJ (2006) Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics121 (2): 699–746.
13.
BusemeyerMIversenT (2020) The Welfare State with Private Alternatives: The Transformation of Popular Support for Social Insurance. The Journal of Politics82 (2): 671–686.
14.
ChoiJ (2021) Apartment Price Gap Widens to Record High Amid Overheated Housing Market. The Korean Herald, 27January. Available at: http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210127000833 (accessed 14 October 2021).
15.
CrouchC (2009) Privatized Keynesianism: An Unacknowledged Policy Regime. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations11: 382–399.
16.
DworkinR (1981) What Is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources. Philosophy & Public Affairs10: 283–345.
17.
FullerGWJohnstonAReganA (2020) Housing Prices and Wealth Inequality in Western Europe. West European Politics43 (2): 297–320.
18.
HainmuellerJMummoloJXuY (2019) How Much Should We Trust Estimates from Multiplicative Interaction Models? Simple Tools to Improve Empirical Practice. Political Analysis27 (2): 163–192.
19.
HallABYoderJ (2022) Does Homeownership Influence Political Behavior? Evidence from Administrative Data. The Journal of Politics84 (1): 351–366.
20.
HochschildJL (1981) What’s Fair? American Beliefs about Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
JostJTPelhamBWSheldonO, et al. (2003) Social Inequality and the Reduction of Ideological Dissonance on Behalf of the System: Evidence of Enhanced System Justification among the Disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology33 (1): 13–36.
22.
KemenyJ (1992) Housing and Social Theory. London: Routledge.
23.
KimHKwonH (2017) Real Estates and the Welfare State: Assets, Debts, and Preferences for Social Policy. Korean Political Science Review51 (1): 261–286 (in Korean).
KluegelJRSmithER (1986) Beliefs about Inequality: Americans’ Views of What Is and What Ought to Be. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
26.
KohlS (2021) Too Much Mortgage Debt? The Effect of Housing Financialization on Housing Supply and Residential Capital Formation. Socio-Economic Review19 (2): 413–440.
27.
KurerT (2020) The Declining Middle: Occupational Change, Social Status, and the Populist Right. Comparative Political Studies53 (10-11): 1798–1835.
28.
LarsenMVHjorthFDinesenPT, et al. (2019) When Do Citizens Respond Politically to the Local Economy? Evidence from Registry Data on Local Housing Markets. American Political Science Review113 (2): 499–516.
29.
MijsJJB (2021) The Paradox of Inequality: Income Inequality and Belief in Meritocracy Go Hand in Hand. Socio-Economic Review19 (1): 7–35.
30.
MijsJJBHoyC (2022) How Information about Inequality Impacts Belief in Meritocracy: Evidence from a Randomized Survey Experiment in Australia, Indonesia and Mexico. Social Problems69: 91–122.
31.
NewmanBJJohnstonCDLownPL (2015) False Consciousness or Class Awareness? Local Income Inequality, Personal Economic Position, and Belief in American Meritocracy. American Journal of Political Science59 (2): 326–340.
32.
OECD/Eurostat (2015) The Value of Land and Its Contribution to Wealth. In: Eurostat-OECD Compilation Guide on Land Estimations. Luxembourg: Eurostat. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264235175-en (accessed 20 January 2023).
33.
PandyJSinhaYParakashA, et al. (1982) Right-Left Ideologies and Attribution of the Causes of Poverty. European Journal of Social Psychology12 (3): 327–331.
34.
PikettyT (2014) Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Boston, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
35.
RoemerJ (1998) Theories of Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
RoemerJETrannoyA (2016) Equality of Opportunity: Theory and Measurement. Journal of Economic Literature54 (4): 1288–1332.
37.
RonaldRKadiJ (2018) The Revival of Private Landlords in Britain’s Post-Homeownership Society. New Political Economy23 (6): 786–803.
38.
RonaldRLennartzCKadiJ (2017) What Ever Happened to Asset-Based Welfare? Shifting Approaches to Housing Wealth and Welfare Security. Policy & Politics45 (2): 173–193.
39.
ScheveKStasavageD (2017) Wealth Inequality and Democracy. Annual Review of Political Science20: 451–468.
SteeleL (2021) Wealth and Preferences for Redistribution: The Effects of Financial Assets and Home Equity in 32 Countries. International Journal of Comparative Sociology61 (5): 331–362.
42.
StiglitzJE (2012) Macroeconomic Fluctuations, Inequality, and Human Development. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities13 (1): 31–58.
43.
StroebelJVavraJ (2019) House Prices, Local Demand, and Retail Prices. Journal of Political Economy127 (3): 1391–1436.
44.
TalhelmTZhangXOishiS, et al. (2014) Large-Scale Psychological Differences within China Explained by Rice Versus Wheat Agriculture. Science344 (6184): 603–608.
WeinerBOsbornDRudolphU (2011) An Attributional Analysis of Reactions to Poverty: The Political Ideology of the Giver and the Perceived Morality of the Receiver. Personal and Social Psychological Review15 (2): 199–213.
47.
WiedemannA (2023) A Social Policy Theory of Everyday Borrowing: On the Role of Welfare States and Credit Regimes. American Journal of Political Science67: 324–341.
48.
YangJ (2017) The Political Economy of the Small Welfare State in South Korea. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
YangM (2018) The Rise of “Gangnam Style”: Manufacturing the Urban Middle Classes in Seoul, 1976–1996. Urban Studies55 (15): 3404–3420.
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.
