Search

There has always been a tension between the economic inequality produced by capitalism and the political equality that is central to the idea of democracy. Though it is commonly assumed – or hoped for – that all citizens can exert equal political influence, such ideals are fragile when some citizens can use large amounts of money to amplify their political voice. Recent research has provided evidence of economic inequality in representation, particularly in the United States, but it has left us with questions about the scope and causes of unequal representation. This dissertation investigates whether and why government policy in established democracies is biased towards the preferences of the rich. Through a range of empirical studies, which combine comparative and single-country analysis, as well as quantitative and qualitative methods, a clear picture of unequal representation emerges. Across advanced democracies, policy is more responsive to the rich than to middle- and low-income citizens. Furthermore, the available evidence suggests that the causes of this unequal representation are multiple, with biases in organized interests, political participation, party politics, and dominant ideologies all likely to play a role. In short, this dissertation expands on our knowledge of where and why economic inequality produces political inequality. It shows that the political system is an important pathway through which economic inequality reproduces and potentially magnifies itself. To all those who care about political equality, this should provide an impetus to further understand how this value is currently undermined and what can be done to level the playing field.

Opposition to European integration does not fit familiar left-right politics in any unequivocal way. Across Western Europe, Euroscepticism is found among both radical left and radical right parties and their voters – a pattern commonly illustrated by the image of a horseshoe, emphasising the similarities between the extremes. But to what extent do attitudes towards ‘Europe’ actually provide common ground for the political left and right? This dissertation studies the applicability of the ‘horseshoe model’ to public opinion in Western Europe. Its theoretical starting point is that Euroscepticism is a multidimensional attitude, the nature and origins of which are actually dependent on – rather than unrelated to – left-right ideology. In four empirical studies, based on survey data covering fifteen Western EU member states and four decades, it shows that the horseshoe only applies to Euroscepticism in its most general sense. However, systematic differences between the left and right are found when studying more specific EU attitudes. Left-wing and right-wing citizens are found to differ not only in their reasons for being Eurosceptic, but also in the type of EU opposition they hold. Thus, this dissertation concludes that rather than being unrelated, ideology is actually a crucial factor in structuring citizens’ Euroscepticism. This refines the common horseshoe understanding of Euroscepticism and the political space.