Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Inequality and Political Consensus

  • 139 Accesses

  • 5 Citations


This paper develops a model of political consensus in order to explain the missing link between inequality and political redistribution. Political consensus is an implicit agreement not to vote for extreme policy proposals. We show that such an agreement may play an efficiency-enhancing role. Voters anticipate that voting for extremist parties increases policy uncertainty in the future. A political consensus among voters reduces policy uncertainty because self-interested politicians propose non-discriminatory policies. We study how much inequality can be sustained in a democracy and how the limits to redistribution vary with initial inequality. The bounds of the set of political equilibria may react in a fundamentally different manner to changes in exogenous variables than do the policy variables in the one-dimensional, one-shot game. More initial inequality need not lead to more redistribution from the rich to the poor. The maximum amount of redistribution decreases with inequality if (and only if) agents are sufficiently patient. In this case inequality is politically self-sustaining.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Alesina A., Angeletos G.M. (2005) Fairness and redistribution: US versus Europe. American Economic Review 95: 913–935

  2. Alesina A., La Ferrara E. (2005) Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. Journal of Public Economics 89: 897–931

  3. Alesina A., Rodrik D. (1994) Distributive politics and economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 109: 465–490

  4. Artale A., Grüner H.P. (2000) A model of stability and persistence in a democracy. Games and Economic Behavior 33: 20–40

  5. Benabou R. (2000) Unequal societies: income distribution and the social contract. American Economic Review 90: 96–129

  6. Bertola G. (1993) Market structure and income distribution in endogenous growth models. American Economic Review 83: 1184–1199

  7. Besley T., Coate S. (1998) Sources of inefficiency in a representative democracy: a dynamic analysis. American Economic Review 88: 139–156

  8. Clarke G.R.G. (1995) More evidence on income distribution and growth. Journal of Development Economics 47(2): 403–427

  9. Corneo G., Grüner H.P. (2000) Social limits to redistribution. American Economic Review 90: 1491–1507

  10. Corneo G., Grüner H.P. (2002) Individual preferences for political redistribution. Journal of Public Economics 83: 83–107

  11. Coughlin P. (1986) Elections and income redistribution. Public Choice 50: 27–91

  12. Dasgupta P., Maskin E. (1986) The existence of equilibrium in discontinious games, I: theory. Review of Economic Studies 53: 1–26

  13. Duggan J., Fey M. (2006) Repeated Downsian Electoral competition. International Journal of Game Theory 35: 39–69

  14. Epple D., Riordan M.H. (1987) Cooperation and punishment under repeated majority voting. Public Choice 55: 41–73

  15. Grüner H.P. (2003) Redistribution as a selection device. Journal of Economic Theory 108: 194–216

  16. Grüner H.P., Schils R. (2007) The political Economy of Wealth and Interest. Economic Journal 117(523): 1403–1422

  17. Kramer G. (1977) A dynamical model of political equilibrium. Journal of Economic Theory 16: 310–334

  18. Mas-Colell A., Whinston M.D., Green J.R. (1995) Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford

  19. Mc Kelvey R.D. (1987) General conditions for global intransitivities in formal voting models. Econometrica 47: 1085–1112

  20. Meltzer A.H., Richards S.F. (1981) A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy 89: 914–927

  21. Mueller D. (1990) Public Choice II. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press

  22. Ordeshook P.C. (1980) Political disequilibrium and scientific inquiry, comment on Riker (1980). American Political Science Review 74: 447–450

  23. Ordeshook P.C. (1988) Game Theory and Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

  24. Perotti R. (1992) Income distribution, politics and growth. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 82: 311–316

  25. Perotti R. (1993) Political equilibrium, income distribution, and growth, Proof of Lemma 8. Review of Economic Studies 60: 755–776

  26. Perotti R. (1996) Democracy, income distribution and growth: what the data say. Journal of Economic Growth 1: 149–187

  27. Persson T., Tabellini G. (1994) Is inequality harmful for growth?. American Economic Review 84: 600–621

  28. Piketty T. (1995) Social mobility and redistributive politics. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110: 551–584

  29. Rae D. (1980) An alimeter for Mr. Escher’s stairway. comment on Riker (1980). American Political Science Review 74: 451–458

  30. Riker W.H. (1980) Implications from the disequilibrium of majority rule for the study of institutions. American Political Science Review 74: 432–446

  31. Roemer, T. (1975), Individual welfare, majority voting, and the properties of a linear income tax, Journal of Public Economics 163–185.

  32. Roemer J.E. (1998) Why the poor do not expropriate the rich: an old argument in a new garb. Journal of Public Economics 70: 399–424

  33. Roberts, K. (1977), Voting over income tax schedules, Journal of Public Economics 329–340.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Hans Peter Grüner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grüner, H.P. Inequality and Political Consensus. Theory Decis 67, 239–265 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-008-9096-0

Download citation


  • Inequality
  • Representative democracy
  • Political consensus
  • Policy uncertainty
  • Comparative statics in political economy

JEL Classification

  • C72
  • D31
  • D70
  • D72