Political commentators and academics have been expressing concerns about threats to democracy in recent years. A new study offers insights into one potential factor contributing to the erosion of democratic norms and institutions: economic inequality.

Published in PNAS, this extensive cross-national statistical study identifies economic inequality as a significant predictor of where and when democracy erodes. Even wealthy and longstanding democracies are at risk if they exhibit high levels of inequality.

Study coauthor University of Chicago Professor Susan Stokes explained that the research team aimed to contextualize the phenomenon of backsliding democracies over time. "One of the things that clearly has happened in recent decades is globalization," said Stokes, who holds the Tiffany and Margaret Blake Distinguished Service Professorship in UChicago's Department of Political Science. "And deregulation has been on the agenda for many countries in different regions of the world. One of the effects of that has been growing income inequality or persistent income inequality."

The researchers observed that leaders who assume office and subsequently undermine their democracies often exploit public grievances, frustration, or nihilism toward "elite" institutions. Their objective was to determine whether unequal economic conditions contribute to political polarization, along with grievances and skepticism about institutions.

The team built upon the work of Melis Laebens from Central European University, who conceptualized democratic backsliding and methods for identifying democratic erosion. Like Laebens, Stokes and her co-author Eli G. Rau from Tecnologico de Monterrey utilized data from the Swedish project Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem Institute) to identify cases of democratic erosion while excluding conventional instances where presidents and prime ministers test executive power limits. They compared income inequality levels in countries experiencing democratic erosion or backsliding with those that have not, finding a strong statistical association between them.

The researchers also examined how income inequality relates to democratic backsliding through increased partisan polarization—a widely recognized cause of democratic backsliding. The more polarized a society becomes, the more likely some segments will overlook attacks on press freedom, judicial independence, and other institutions by leaders.

"Backsliding leaders play on inequality and deepen polarization by encouraging a sense of grievance among the public," Stokes noted. "Feelings of being left behind and alienation from elite institutions—backsliding leaders prey upon all these."

These leaders target various groups as scapegoats for inequality. Left-wing populist backsliders might blame corporations and economic elites, while right-wing ethno-nationalist backsliders could incite grievances against outsiders or immigrants.

Stokes mentioned that their research also considered whether a democracy's age affects its resilience but found no lower risk for older democracies regarding backsliding. The level of institutionalization—or state capacity—was not clearly linked to backsliding either; however, evidence suggested contagion effects: leaders in one backsliding democracy tend to influence others under similar conditions.

While many Americans may perceive unique threats to their democracy, Stokes emphasized understanding this erosion as part of broader historical trends worldwide. "It probably comes as a result...of globalization...deregulation...neoliberalism...and even earlier developments changing party systems—in many countries—in post-war periods," she said."Partly what we're saying here is there are structural factors involved—and if we're concerned about maintaining/improving our democracy—we should keep those things in mind."

Stokes believes considering structural/economic factors underlying political developments sheds new light on economic policy priorities since policies improving income equality could politically strengthen democratic systems too."

###