In_equality Podcast

Hosts:

Marius R. Busemeyer – Professor of Comparative Political Economy at the University of Konstanz and Speaker of the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”.

Gabriele Spilker – Professor of International Politics – Global Inequality at the University of Konstanz and Co-Speaker of the Cluster.

Guest:
Jonathan Mijs – Associate Professor of Sociology at Boston University. His research focuses on perceptions of inequality, meritocracy, and how beliefs about success and deservingness shape attitudes toward social inequality. He received his PhD from Harvard University in 2017.

Episode Overview
Does hard work really determine who succeeds in life? In this episode, Marius R. Busemeyer and Gabriele Spilker speak with Jonathan Mijs about the promises and pitfalls of meritocracy, why people continue to believe in it despite growing inequality, and how these beliefs shape our understanding of fairness and social justice. The conversation explores how meritocratic ideals can reinforce existing inequalities, why economic segregation makes inequality harder to recognize, and how politics and popular culture sustain the belief that everyone can succeed through talent and effort alone.

Episode Highlights

Meritocracy: Fairness or False Promise?

• Meritocracy promises rewards based on talent and effort rather than inherited privilege.
• Family background and unequal opportunities challenge the idea of a level playing field.
• Focusing exclusively on merit can undermine other principles of justice, such as equality, equity, and need.

Why Do We Believe in Meritocracy?

• Belief in meritocracy remains widespread even as economic inequality increases.
• Social and economic segregation can make structural inequalities less visible.
• Political narratives and popular culture reinforce the idea that success depends on individual effort.

Can We Rethink Meritocracy?

• Meritocratic beliefs can both fuel political discontent and legitimize existing inequalities.
• More inclusive public spaces can help bridge social and economic divides.
• Balancing merit with other principles of justice and challenging dominant narratives of success may contribute to a fairer society.

Links & Further Reading

More about the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality

Learn more about Jonathan Mijs

Further readings:

• Mijs, J. (2021). The paradox of inequality: income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand. Socio-Economic Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, January 2021, Pages 7–35. 
• Mijs, J. and Usmani, A. (2024). How Segregation Ruins Inference: A Sociological Simulation of the Inequality Equilibrium. Social Forces, Volume 103, Issue 1, September 2024, Pages 45–65. 
• Vaughan, M., Oppel, A., Mijs, J., Kerr, S. (2026). How to tell better creative stories about wealth and inequality. LSE Inequalities Blog.
• Contact: [email protected]

New episodes every first Wednesday of the month – subscribe and stay tuned!

Hosts

Marius R. Busemeyer, Professor für Vergleichende Politische Ökonomie an der Universität Konstanz und Sprecher des Exzellenzclusters „The Politics of Inequality“.

Gabriele Spilker, Professorin für Internationale Politik – Globale Ungleichheit an der Universität Konstanz und Co-Sprecherin des Exzellenzclusters.

Zu Gast ist Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln, Präsidentin des Wissenschaftszentrums Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB) und Professorin für Makroökonomie an der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt.

Episodenüberblick

In dieser Folge sprechen die Hosts mit Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln über Ungleichheiten im Wissenschaftssystem. Im Mittelpunkt stehen geschlechtsspezifische Unterschiede entlang akademischer Karrierewege sowie das Phänomen der „leaky pipeline“, bei dem Frauen auf dem Weg zu Führungspositionen und Professuren zunehmend unterrepräsentiert sind. Darüber hinaus präsentiert Fuchs-Schündeln neue Forschungsergebnisse zu Förderentscheidungen des European Research Council. 

Episoden-Highlights

Ungleichheiten im Wissenschaftssystem

• Trotz eines hohen Frauenanteils im Studium und bei der Promotion sinkt die Repräsentation von Frauen auf dem Weg zur Professur. 
• Diversität ist essentiell für den Erkenntnisgewinn, da die eigene Erfahrung Forschungsfragen prägen. 
• Ohne die Perspektiven von Frauen bleiben gesellschaftlich relevante Themen in der Forschung oft unbeachtet.

Ungleichheit bei der Forschungsförderung:

·       Die Analyse von 37.000 Anträgen zur Forschungsförderung beim European Research Council zeigt nur kleine geschlechterbezogene Effekte bei der Bewertung der Anträge.

·       Deutlich stärker wirken Gemeinsamkeiten der Nationalität zwischen Antragstellenden und Gutachtenden. Gutachter*innen bewerten Anträge aus dem eigenen Land tendenziell besser.

Diversität und Wissenschaftspolitik

• Um Frauen dauerhaft in der Wissenschaft zu halten, muss die Politik das Wissenschaftssystem strukturell reformieren.
• Rollenvorbilder sind essentiell, um jungen Frauen zu vermitteln, dass Karrieren in der Wissenschaft auch mit Kindern, möglich sind.
• Da akademische Gremien divers besetzt sein sollen, werden die wenigen Professorinnen überproportional häufig für Gremienarbeit angefragt. Diese „Service-Falle“ kann Wissenschaftlerinnen wertvolle Zeit für die eigene Forschung entziehen.

Links & Weiterführende Literatur

• Mehr über den Exzellenzcluster „The Politics of Inequality“: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality

Weiterführende Informationen:
 

• Fuchs-Schündeln, N.: „Homophily in Grant Evaluations“ Talk In_equality Colloquium Series. Cluster of Excellence „The Politics of Inequality“, 24 June 2026. 
• Fuchs-Schündeln, N. & Holub, F. (2026): Homophily in grant evaluations. Nature Human Behaviour. 
• Fuchs-Schündeln, F., Kübler, D. & Palermo Kuss A. H. (2026): Blinde Flecken in der Polykrise: Mehr Diversität führt zu einer solideren Wirtschaftspolitik. Wirtschaftsdienst. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik. Heft 8, 2026. 
• Friebel, G., Fuchs-Schündeln, N. & Weinberger, A. (2021): Statusbericht zum Frauenanteil in der Volkswirtschaftslehre an deutschen Universitäten. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik. Band 22, Heft 2.

Kontakt: [email protected]

Neue Folgen immer am ersten Mittwoch im Monat – jetzt abonnieren!

Hosts:
Marius R. Busemeyer – Professor of Comparative Political Economy at the University of Konstanz and Speaker of the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”.
Gabriele Spilker – Professor of International Politics – Global Inequality at the University of Konstanz and Co-Speaker of the Cluster.

Guest:
Herman Van De Werfhorst – Professor of Sociology at the European University Institute in Florence. His research focuses on educational inequality, social mobility, and comparative education systems. He previously served as founding director of the Amsterdam Centre for Inequality Studies.

Episode Overview

How much does family background shape educational opportunities? In this episode, Marius R. Busemeyer and Gabriele Spilker speak with Herman Van De Werfhorst about the causes of educational inequality, why it persists across generations, and what governments can do to create fairer education systems. The conversation explores how socioeconomic background influences educational achievement and attainment, why early tracking often reinforces inequality, and whether there is really a trade-off between educational excellence and equal opportunities.

Episode Highlights

What Drives Educational Inequality?

• Educational outcomes are strongly shaped by family background, expectations, and available resources.
• Differences emerge through both academic performance and educational choices.
• Cultural and social resources often matter as much as financial ones.

Tracking, Testing, and Opportunity

• Early tracking tends to increase educational inequality.
• Standardized testing can reduce bias and improve equal opportunities.
• Flexible education systems allow students to develop their potential over time.

Can Education Systems Become Fairer?

• Countries differ in how strongly educational institutions reproduce inequality.
• Political decisions and institutional reforms play a crucial role.
• Research suggests that greater equality of opportunity does not come at the expense of educational performance.

Links & Further Reading

• More about the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality

Further readings:
 

• Birkelund, J. F., & Van De Werfhorst, H. G. (2022): Long-term labor market returns to upper secondary school track choice: Leveraging idiosyncratic variation in peers’ choices. Social Science Research, 102, 102629. 
• Van De Werfhorst, H. G. (2024): Is Meritocracy Not So Bad After All? Educational Expansion and Intergenerational Mobility in 40 Countries. American Sociological Review, 89(6), 1181–1213. 
• Van De Werfhorst, H., ten Dam, G., Geven, S., Huijsmans, T., Mennes, H., Mulder, L., van Slageren, J., & Van der Meer, T. (2025): Track Differences in Civic and Democratic Engagement During Secondary Education: A New Panel Study From the Netherlands. The British Journal of Sociology, 76(5), 
• Contact: [email protected]

New episodes every first Wednesday of the month – subscribe and stay tuned!

Hosts

Marius R. Busemeyer: Professor für Vergleichende Politische Ökonomie an der Universität Konstanz und Sprecher des Exzellenzclusters „The Politics of Inequality“.

Gabriele Spilker: Professorin für Internationale Politik und Globale Ungleichheit an der Universität Konstanz und Co-Sprecherin des Exzellenzclusters.

Gäste

Evelyne Hübscher:  Professorin am Department of Public Policy der Central European University in Wien und Senior Research Fellow am Exzellenzcluster „The Politics of Inequality“.

Thomas Sattler: Professor für Internationale Beziehungen an der Universität Genf und Senior Research Fellow am Exzellenzcluster „The Politics of Inequality“.

Episodenüberblick

In dieser Folge des „In_equality“-Podcasts sprechen Marius R. Busemeyer und Gabriele Spilker mit unseren aktuellen Senior Research Fellows über ihre Forschung zur Austeritätspolitik und deren Auswirkungen auf Wahlverhalten und politische Polarisierung. Hübscher und Sattler erklären, wie Austeritätspolitik definiert wird, warum Regierungen in Industrienationen häufiger Sozialausgaben kürzen, anstatt Steuern zu erhöhen, und welche Bevölkerungsgruppen und Regionen besonders stark auf solche Maßnahmen reagieren. Außerdem diskutieren sie, warum Austerität oft die politischen Ränder stärkt und welche Rolle der Zeitpunkt, zu dem diese Maßnahmen eingeführt werden, spielt.

Episoden-Highlights

Was bedeutet Austeritätspolitik?

· Austerität bezeichnet bewusste politische Maßnahmen zur Verringerung staatlicher Haushaltsdefizite

· Sparpolitik kann sowohl Ausgabenkürzungen als auch Steuererhöhungen beinhalten, wobei Sozialausgaben häufig Ziel von Kürzungen sind

· Mehrwertsteuererhöhungen treffen einkommensschwächere Haushalte überdurchschnittlich stark

Austeritätspolitik als politische Gratwanderung

· Austerität ist für Regierungen häufig eine politische Gratwanderung zwischen Sparpolitik und politischer Stabilität

· Die politischen Folgen hängen von Zeitpunkt und Ausgestaltung der Sparmaßnahmen ab

· Wiederholte Sparmaßnahmen führen häufiger zu Wahlenthaltung und stärken politische Parteien an den Rändern des Parteiensystems

Individuelle Wahrnehmung von Sparmaßnahmen

· Einstellungen zur Sparpolitik werden durch politische Narrative und mediale Berichterstattung geprägt

· Es besteht eine Diskrepanz zwischen den Einstellungen zu Sparmaßnahmen und zur Schuldenpolitik

· Sparpolitik bleibt politisch schwer vermittelbar

Links & Weiterführende Literatur

• Mehr über den Exzellenzcluster „The Politics of Inequality“: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality
• Weiterführende Literatur:

o   Hübscher, E., & Sattler, T. (2026). Austerity and Populism. Annual Review of Political Science, 29.

o   Hübscher, E., Sattler, T., & Wagner, M. (2023). Does austerity cause polarization?. British Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 1170-1188.

o   Hübscher, E., Sattler, T. & Wagner, M. (2021). Voter Responses to Fiscal Austerity. British Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 1751-1760.

o   Hübscher, E., & Sattler, T. (2017). Fiscal Consolidation under Electoral Risk. European Journal of Political Research, 56(1), 151-168.

• Kontakt: [email protected]

Neue Folgen erscheinen immer am ersten Mittwoch im Monat – jetzt abonnieren!

Hosts:
Marius R. Busemeyer – Professor of Comparative Political Economy at the University of Konstanz and Speaker of the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”.
Gabriele Spilker – Professor of International Politics and Global Inequality at the University of Konstanz and Co-Speaker of the Cluster.

Guest:
Anke Hoeffler – Professor of Development Research at the University of Konstanz and member of the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”. She is also a member of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina and was awarded an Alexander von Humboldt Professorship in 2019. Her research focuses on economic development, conflict, and violence.

Episode Overview
What can be worse than war? In this episode, Marius R. Busemeyer and Gabriele Spilker speak with Anke Hoeffler about her new book “Worse Than War”, co-authored with James D. Fearon. Hoeffler argues that the violence most people experience does not take place on battlefields, but often at home: intimate partner violence, violence against children, homicide, assault, and suicide account for a major share of the global burden of violence. The conversation explores how such violence can be measured, why its costs are so unequally distributed, and which policies can help prevent it.

Episode Highlights

The “War at Home”

· While war dominates the news, many women and children experience violence in everyday life and behind closed doors.

· The most common form of violence against women globally is intimate partner violence. For children, it is physical punishment by parents.

· War can increase violence in society, but much interpersonal violence occurs independently of armed conflict.

Measuring the Costs of Violence

· Violence at home is difficult to measure because victims often do not report it to the police.

· Victimisation surveys ask people directly about specific acts of violence.

· Hoeffler distinguishes between tangible costs, such as healthcare and productivity losses, and intangible costs, such as suffering and welfare loss.

· The global cost of measurable violence is estimated at around 34 trillion US dollars per year — about 4,000 dollars per person.

What Can Be Done?

· Hoeffler argues that violence is not simply a matter of culture and can change through law, norms, and policy.

· Reducing access to weapons, especially firearms, can lower harm from homicide and suicide.

· Policies that reduce alcohol abuse can also reduce violence, particularly intimate partner violence and public assaults.

· External actors cannot impose change, but they can support local NGOs, social movements, and reform champions.

Links & Further Reading

More about the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality

Further readings:

o   Hoeffler, A. and Fearon, J. D. (2026): Worse Than War. The Global Costs of Violence. Princeton University Press.

o   Hoeffler, A. (2018). Security and development: Shifting the focus to interpersonal violence. The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, 13(1). 

o   Hoeffler, A. (2017). What are the costs of violence? Politics, Philosophy & Economics ; pp. 422-445.

Contact: [email protected]

New episodes every first Wednesday of the month – subscribe and stay tuned!

Hosts:
Marius R. Busemeyer – Professor of Comparative Political Economy at the University of Konstanz and Speaker of the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”.
Gabriele Spilker – Professor of International Politics at the University of Konstanz and Co-Speaker of the Cluster.

Guest:
Pieter Vanhuysse – Professor of Political Economy and Public Policy at the University of Southern Denmark and affiliated with the Danish Institute for Advanced Studies. His research connects political science, economics, sociology, and political demography.

Episode Overview
What does demography have to do with inequality? In this episode, Marius R. Busemeyer and Gabriele Spilker speak with Pieter Vanhuysse about welfare states, intergenerational transfers, and inequalities between parents and non-parents.

Vanhuysse argues that welfare states are not only “Robin Hood” institutions redistributing between rich and poor. To a larger extent, they function as “piggy banks”: systems that redistribute resources across the life course. The episode explores why raising children creates public benefits for society, while many costs remain private.

Episode Highlights

Welfare States as Piggy Banks

· Across 22 European countries, most net welfare-state benefits are explained by age and life-cycle dynamics rather than class redistribution.

· Working-age people finance pensions, healthcare, long-term care, education, and family policies.

· Upward transfers are largely socialized; downward transfers to children remain more privatized.

Children, Care, and Public Goods

· Children become future workers, taxpayers, carers, and parents — making them a public good, not just a private choice.

· Raising children requires public support, private money transfers, and unpaid time transfers.

· Unpaid care and household work are often the largest, but least visible, parental contribution.

Parents and Non-Parents

· Looking only at taxes and benefits, parents appear to contribute less than non-parents.

· Once private money and time transfers are included, the picture reverses: parents contribute more than two and a half times as much.

· Vanhuysse describes this as an invisible “metaphorical tax on parenthood”.

Fertility, Family Policy, and Crisis

· Even family-friendly Nordic welfare states are experiencing declining fertility rates.

· Young adults face uncertainty, housing pressure, climate anxiety, war, digitalization, and economic insecurity.

· Marginal reforms may not match the scale of the challenge.

Policy Implications

· Supporting parents requires looking beyond classical family policy.

· Societies need to value reproduction and care work alongside production and paid employment.

· Welfare states must better recognize time, care, and generational responsibility.

Links & Further Reading

More about the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality

Further readings:

o Vanhuysse, P. (2024): Debunking The ‘Stork Theory’: Why Do Low-Fertility Societies Tax Their Own Reproduction? Institute for Family Studies, Octobre 8, 2024. 

o Vanhuysse, P. (2024): The New Nordic Paradox: How Family-Friendly Welfare States Burden Parents The Most. Institute for Family Studies, Octobre 23, 2024.

o Vanhuysse, P., Medgyesi, M., Gál, R.(2023): Taxing reproduction: the full transfer cost of rearing children. in Europe. R Soc Open Sci. 1 October 2023; 10 (10): 230759.

o Vanhuysse P., Medgyesi M., Gal R. I. (2021): Welfare states as lifecycle redistribution machines: Decomposing the roles of age and socio-economic status shows that European tax-and-benefit systems primarily redistribute across age groups. PLoS ONE 16(8): e0255760. 

Contact: [email protected]

New episodes every first Wednesday of the month – subscribe and stay tuned!

Hosts:
Marius R. Busemeyer – Professor of Comparative Political Economy at the University of Konstanz and Speaker of the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”.

Gabriele Spilker – Professor of International Politics at the University of Konstanz and Co-Speaker of the Cluster.

Guests:
Researchers from the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”, presenting key findings from projects on perceptions of inequality, workplace integration, political elites, and climate-related inequalities.

Overview

What have cluster researchers learned about the political causes and consequences of inequality in the Cluster’s first funding phase? In this special live episode, researchers present short insights from several major Cluster projects. The conversation shows how inequality is perceived, negotiated, and politicized — in surveys, workplaces, firms, parliaments, and climate-affected communities.

Across the projects, one message stands out: inequality is not only about objective distributions of income, risk, or opportunity. It is also shaped by perceptions, institutions, political contexts, and ideas of fairness.

Highlights

· The Inequality Barometer – Marius R. Busemeyer: Perceptions matter: people often misperceive their own position in the income distribution, and these biases can shape political attitudes and voting behavior.

· Automation and Conflict within Firms: The German Way – Sebastian Findeisen
Automation does not automatically increase inequality — in Germany, firms with works councils often adopted technological change while providing job security and a fairer distribution of productivity gains.

· Integration at Work – Florian Kunze: Political polarization can spill over into the workplace: migrant apprentices experience more social undermining in regions with stronger right-wing voting, negatively affecting their work satisfaction and exhaustion.

· Political Elites and Inequality: Information, Heuristics and Policy – Maj-Britt Sterba: Politicians’ perceptions of inequality shape their support for redistribution — and legislators are often more ideologically polarized than citizens.

· Perceptions of Wage Inequality – Thomas Hinz: Whether workers perceive their wages as fair depends strongly on absolute wage levels; relative comparisons matter mostly once basic material security is ensured.

· Climate Inequalities in the Global South: from Perceptions to Protest – Gabriele Spilker: Climate change-induced environmental events and the related inequalities do not necessarily lead to protest; rather, environmental mobilization is most likely when degradation is severe, persistent, or linked to concrete health risks.

Key Takeaways

Objective factors are not the only game in town: Whether people support redistribution, accept automation, feel fairly paid, or mobilize against environmental harm depends on how inequality is perceived and interpreted.

Institutions matter too: works councils, firms, political parties, and local communities can either reinforce or help mitigate the political consequences of inequality.

The episode highlights the Cluster’s broad interdisciplinary approach — combining surveys, experiments, administrative data, fieldwork, and new datasets to understand inequality across different contexts.

Links & Further Reading

More about the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality

· In_equality Conference 2026: https://inequality-conference.de

· Download the slides here: https://t1p.de/n8x55

Contact: [email protected]

New episodes every first Wednesday of the month – subscribe and stay tuned!

Hosts: 

· Marius R. Busemeyer – Professor für Vergleichende Politische Ökonomie an der Universität Konstanz und Sprecher des Exzellenzclusters „The Politics of Inequality“.

· Gabriele Spilker – Professorin für Globale Ungleichheit an der Universität Konstanz und Co-Sprecherin des Clusters.

Gast:

Steffen Mau – Professor für Makrosoziologie an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin und Direktor am Max-Planck-Institut Politik und Sozialwissenschaft in Göttingen.; forscht u. a. zu Ungleichheit, Transformation und gesellschaftlichen Konflikten. Zudem ist er der Gewinner des In_equality Research Award 2026. 

Episodenüberblick

Ist unsere Gesellschaft wirklich so stark polarisiert, wie es öffentliche Debatten oft suggerieren? In dieser Folge sprechen Gabriele Spilker und Marius R. Busemeyer mit dem Soziologen Steffen Mau über Wahrnehmung und Realität gesellschaftlicher Spaltung. Ausgangspunkt ist Maus Buch „Triggerpunkte“, in dem er zeigt, dass viele Konflikte weniger tief sind als angenommen – und warum sie uns dennoch so zugespitzt erscheinen. Es geht um Ungleichheit, Migration, Diversität und Klimapolitik – und um die Frage, wie Politik mit gesellschaftlichen Spannungen umgehen kann.

Episoden-Highlights

• Was bedeutet Polarisierung?
• Wahrnehmung vs. Realität
• Vier Konfliktfelder („Triggerpunkte“)

Mau unterscheidet vier zentrale Arenen gesellschaftlicher Konflikte: 

• „oben–unten“ (ökonomische Ungleichheiten) - wenig Polarisierung – Kritik ist in fast allen sozialen Gruppen verbreitet.
• „innen–außen“ (Migration) - mehr Konflikt, aber auch hier keine klaren „Lager“ entlang von Klassen.
• „wir–sie“ (Diversität) - oft hoher Grundkonsens, bei gleichzeitigen Spannungen auf symbolischer Ebene.
• „heute–morgen“ (Klimapolitik) - entwickelt sich zunehmend zu einer sozialen Gerechtigkeitsfrage.
• Besonders brisant: Ungleichheit wird von vielen als großes Problem gesehen – politisch aber vergleichsweise wenig verhandelt.
• Einstellungen vs. Wahlverhalten
• Ost-West-Unterschiede neu gedacht

Links & Quellen

Mehr zum Exzellenzcluster „The Politics of Inequality“: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality

Weiterführende Literatur:

• Lux, T., Mau, S., Jacobi, A. (2021). Neue Ungleichheitsfragen, neue Cleavages? Ein internationaler Vergleich der Einstellungen in vier Ungleichheitsfeldern. Berliner Journal für Soziologie. Vol. 32, S. 173-212. 
• Mau, S., Lux, T., Heide, J. (2024). Ost- und Westdeutsche für immer? Zu Wahrnehmungen von Unterschieden und Konflikten zwischen Ost- und Westdeutschen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 76(1):1-23. 
• Mau, S., Lux, T., Westheuser, L. (2023). Triggerpunkte. Konsens und Konflikt in der Gegenwartsgesellschaft. Suhrkamp Verlag.
• Kontakt: [email protected]

Neue Folgen immer am ersten Mittwoch im Monat – jetzt abonnieren!

Hosts:
Marius R. Busemeyer – Professor of Comparative Political Economy at the University of Konstanz and Speaker of the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”.
Gabriele Spilker – Professor of International Politics at the University of Konstanz and Co-Speaker of the Cluster.

Guest:
David Rueda – Professor of Comparative Politics at the University of Oxford and Fellow at Nuffield College; Senior Fellow at the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”. His research focuses on the political economy of redistribution, unions and social democracy, and perceptions of fairness and deservingness.

Episode Overview

Is inequality always seen as unfair? Or do people sometimes consider it justified? In this episode, Marius R. Busemeyer and Gabriele Spilker speak with David Rueda about fairness, meritocracy, and the political foundations of redistribution.

Drawing on large-scale surveys and innovative lab experiments, Rueda shows that support for redistribution is not driven by income alone. While material self-interest matters, perceptions of fairness and deservingness play a crucial role in shaping attitudes toward taxation, welfare, and inequality. The episode also explores how concerns about crime, insecurity, and social order intersect with redistributive politics — and whether investing in redistribution may ultimately be more effective than investing in punishment.

Episode Highlights

Fairness, Merit, and Self-Interest

• Inequality is more likely to be accepted when it is perceived as the outcome of effort and merit rather than luck.
• Support for redistribution reflects both material self-interest and normative beliefs about fairness.

Information and Inequality Perceptions

• Survey experiments show that informing citizens about high levels of inequality increases support for redistribution among the poor.
• Among the rich, the same information increases polarization: some become less supportive, others more supportive.

What Happens in the Lab?

• Participants perform a real effort task and earn income, which is then subject to taxation and redistribution with real monetary consequences.
• Procedural fairness matters: affluent participants are more supportive of redistribution when the poor have worked but were disadvantaged by luck.

Redistribution vs. Policing

• In a second stage, participants can invest either in redistribution or in policing to deter theft.
• When the rich underinvest in redistribution, they later spend more on policing.

Implications for Welfare State Politics

• Support for redistribution among the poor is relatively stable; shifts among the rich are crucial.
• Perceptions of work, merit, and deservingness strongly shape affluent voters’ preferences.

Links & Further Reading

More about the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality

· Further information: 

o   Fetscher, V. and Rueda, D. (2023): “For Richer and for Poorer: Income, Perceptions of Inequality and Support for Redistribution”. Preprint. 

o   Rueda, D. and Stegmueller, D. (2019): “Who Wants What? Redistribution Preferences in Comparative Perspective”. Cambridge University Press.

o   In_equality Colloquium with David Rueda: “Crime or redistribution: Fairness, effort and income”. 8 Octobre 2024. 

Contact: [email protected]

New episodes every first Wednesday of the month – subscribe and stay tuned!

Hosts:
Marius R. Busemeyer – Professor für Vergleichende Politische Ökonomie an der Universität Konstanz und Sprecher des Exzellenzclusters „The Politics of Inequality“.
Gabriele Spilker – Professorin für Globale Ungleichheit an der Universität Konstanz und Co-Sprecherin des Clusters. 

Gast:
Sebastian Koos – Professor für Soziologie an der Universität Konstanz und Inhaber der Clusterprofessur „Social Movements“; er forscht u. a. zu sozialen Bewegungen und Nachhaltigkeit.

Episodenüberblick
Wie politisch ist unser Einkaufszettel? Und was unterscheidet „nachhaltigen“ von „politischem“ Konsum? In dieser Live-Folge – aufgenommen im Rahmen der Nachhaltigkeitstage an der Universität Konstanz – sprechen Gabriele Spilker und Marius R. Busemeyer mit dem Soziologen Sebastian Koos über Boykotte, Fair-Trade-Märkte, das Lieferkettengesetz und die Frage, ob Konsumentscheidungen tatsächlich gesellschaftlichen Wandel anstoßen können.

Episoden-Highlights

Politischer vs. nachhaltiger Konsum

· Politischer Konsum: Kaufen oder Nichtkaufen als Mittel, um Unternehmen zu belohnen oder zu bestrafen (instrumentell, strategisch).

· Nachhaltiger Konsum: Konsum so gestalten, dass ökologische und soziale Folgen möglichst gering bleiben.

· Wichtigster Punkt: „Der nachhaltigste Konsum ist der, den man sich spart.“

Ungleichheitsdimension

· Anders als bei Wahlen gilt nicht „one person, one vote“, sondern wer sich beteiligen kann hängt direkt von Kaufkraft, Wissen und Zeit ab.

· Aus einer Gerechtigkeitsperspektive ist politischer Konsum daher ambivalent.

Wer konsumiert politisch oder nachhaltig?

· Politischer/ethischer Konsum ist voraussetzungsvoll: Bildung ist ein zentraler Faktor (Information, Labels, Wissen).

· Einkommen und Klassenlage spielen mit hinein: Nachhaltiger Konsum kann Status ausdrücken – ist aber selten nur Status oder nur Moral.

· Geschlechterunterschiede: Frauen zeigen häufiger „positives Kaufen“, Boykotts sind etwas ausgeglichener verteilt.

· „Ethischer Konsum“ bedeutet je nach sozialer Lage Unterschiedliches – von Zertifikaten bis zu „gesund und sparsam für die Familie sorgen“.

Wirksamkeit und Grenzen

· Forschungslage zu Boykotts: gemischte Effekte – manchmal negativ, manchmal kaum messbar, manchmal sogar positiver PR-Effekt.

· Häufig entscheidend: Reputation (Naming & Shaming) statt reine Umsatzverluste.

Links & Quellen

• Mehr zum Exzellenzcluster „The Politics of Inequality“: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality
• Weiterführende Literatur: 
  • Bartley, T., Koos, S., Samel, H., Setrini, G., & Summers, N. (2015). Looking behind the label: Global industries and the conscientious consumer. Indiana University Press.
  • Koos, S. (2021). Moralising markets, marketizing morality. The fair trade movement, product labeling and the emergence of ethical consumerism in Europe. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 33(2), 168-192.
  • Koos, S. (2012). What drives political consumption in Europe? A multi-level analysis on individual characteristics, opportunity structures and globalization. Acta sociologica, 55(1), 37-57.
• Kontakt: [email protected]

Neue Folgen immer am ersten Mittwoch im Monat – jetzt abonnieren!