Community Income Inequality and the Economic Gap in Participation


This paper reveals how community-level income inequality affects political participation. We theorize that local experiences of inequality increase awareness of the unequal distribution of income in the US, provoking political activity, particularly among those with more resources enabling them to act. Using restricted geographic data from the 2012 and 2016 ANES, we show local income inequality increases political participation, especially among the affluent. Using an instrumental variables design, we demonstrate these findings are not the result of reverse causality. Our results reveal the importance of considering both individual- and community-level factors when evaluating political behavior. They also suggest that as income inequality in the US continues to rise, so too will the gap in political participation between the rich and the poor, potentially leading elected officials to be even less responsive to the preferences and needs of the less affluent.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Data Availability

As noted in a footnote above, access to ANES Restricted Data can be obtained at:

Code Availability

All other materials needed to replicate the analyses in this paper are available at


  1. 1.

    Access to ANES Restricted Data can be obtained at: All other materials needed to replicate the analyses in this paper are available at

  2. 2.

    We refer to 06820 as Greenwich and 68135 as Omaha for simplicity, but the demographic characteristics we report pertain to these specific zip codes and not the entirety of the respective cities.

  3. 3.

    In 06830 there are 10,677 housing units, the population is 25,433, and the median household income is $107,086. In 68135 there are 9,634 housing units, the population is 25,875, and the median household income is $106,875.

  4. 4.

    Our study does not test which specific contextual features (e.g., visibility of low-income housing or car ownership) of more or less unequal environments produce this awareness and response—rather we examine how the set of attributes of unequal areas affect political behavior.

  5. 5.

    Yet, Hicks et al. (2016) also find when inequality is particularly stark, support for the party in power begins to decline among those with low and middle incomes. So, if inequality becomes particularly noticeable or significant—perhaps due to high levels of community inequality or a social or political context emphasizing inequality—the political activity of Americans across the income spectrum could increase.

  6. 6.

    This may also help explain why Solt (2008, 2010) identifies decreases in turnout due to state or national level inequality and why some other studies find that various forms of community-level heterogeneity diminish political participation among some groups (Giles and Dantico 1982; Giles et al. 1981; Gimpel and Lay 2005; Huckfeldt 1979; Oliver 1999).

  7. 7.

    More recent research also investigates how county income inequality affects people’s attitudes about inequality (Solt et al. 2016; Solt et al. 2017)—but not levels of political participation.

  8. 8.

    A downside of zip codes is that they vary in size across the country. This will bias us against finding an effect of local inequality on behavior since some people reside in geographically large zip codes where they will be relatively less aware of the inequality surrounding them than those living in more geographically compact zip codes.

  9. 9.

    The Cronbach’s alpha scale of reliability coefficient for the items included in the participation scale is 0.716 for all activities in the 2012 ANES and 0.696 for all activities in the 2016 ANES.

  10. 10.

    The proportion of respondents who reported engaging in each individual form of participation in 2012 and 2016 is displayed in Table A.18 in the Online Supplementary Material (SM).

  11. 11.

    We implemented a ‘crosswalk’ procedure to match ANES zip codes to ZCTAs for the small number of cases where the Census method of generating ZCTAs from census tracts made this necessary (Krieger et al. 2002).

  12. 12.

    For 2012, the measure is aggregated over five surveys from 2008 to 2012. For 2016 the measure is aggregated over five surveys from 2012 to 2016.

  13. 13.

    Specifically, this accounts for the fact that a community with a few very high income individuals, which would result in a higher mean income in the community, could cause both an increase in the Gini coefficient and changes in political participation not necessarily due to increased inequality. For example, communities with a high mean income will have a larger tax base, which may produce different levels of conflict surrounding local public finance than areas with a smaller tax base. Replicating our analyses using median household income instead (Table A.19) produces substantively similar results.

  14. 14.

    Because community inequality could also influence strength of partisanship, in Table A.20 we analyze how inequality affects participation excluding strength of partisanship as a covariate. Our results are substantively unchanged.

  15. 15.

    Details are available in SM Section C.

  16. 16.

    Analyses with data separated by year are available in SM Section D.

  17. 17.

    Change in community inequality over time might also influence participation by drawing residents’ attention to inequality. We evaluate this by testing how the change in community inequality since 2000 shapes participation. The results in SM Table A.21 suggest support for our theory as the coefficient for change in inequality is negative for low income residents but positive for those with higher incomes, suggesting that increasing inequality is associated with higher participation for those with moderate to high incomes. While these results are not statistically significant, perhaps due to the fairly small degree of within-community change in inequality over this time period, they are consistent with our theory.

  18. 18.

    Further confirmation of differences in how community inequality affects participation by individual income is available in the online SM, where we present the results from models that include an interaction between Community Income Inequality and individual income (Table A.22) or individual income quintile (Table A.23). Both interaction terms are statistically significant and positive, and the simple slopes for Community Income Inequality at each income level or income quintile category (predicted following the interaction models) are positive and statistically significant for those with medium–high or high incomes.

  19. 19.

    Furthermore, we reveal in SM Table A.24 that in lower inequality communities, high- and low-income individuals participate at roughly similar rates across most activities (other than voting and discussing politics); they engage in expressions of political voice with roughly similar levels of impact. In contrast, in more unequal areas, affluent individuals participate at much higher rates than low income individuals overall and have substantial advantages in participation in many activities (e.g., contacting the government, donating money, persuading others) that have potentially high levels of impact.

  20. 20.

    More details about the construction of the instrument are available in SM Section A.

  21. 21.

    While the primary test of our hypotheses—displayed in Table 1 and Fig. 1—involves only five models, when evaluating how inequality affects the variety of individual forms of participation across income quintiles, our number of analyses may lead some to wish to see corrections in our measures of statistical significance that account for multiple testing. In SM Table A.25, we display the coefficients and standard errors for community inequality for each participation type and income quintile, as well as indicators of statistical significance using False Discovery Rate (FDR) q values calculated using the Simes method (Newson 2011). This table reveals that after correcting the p values for multiple testing, community income inequality has a significant impact on using Facebook or Twitter, donating money, and signing an online petition among individuals in one of the top two income groups. We find no statistically significant relationships in the other income groups after adjusting the p values. However, that the estimated positive impact of inequality on several forms of participation remains among higher income individuals is consistent with our main theoretical predictions and the conclusions from our primary analyses.

  22. 22.

    To further probe the findings in Fig. 2, we also examine the 2012 and 2016 ANES data separately in SM Section D. The 2012 results largely mirror the results using our pooled data—inequality is associated with higher participation among more affluent individuals. In 2016, the results are more mixed as inequality is positively associated with a few forms of participation even for those in lower income quintiles, is positively associated with fewer forms of participation among the wealthy in 2016 than in 2012, and is in a couple cases associated with less activity in particular forms of participation. We propose that these more mixed results are driven by the different electoral contexts in 2012 and 2016. Specifically, the heightened discussion of economic inequality by candidates across the political spectrum in 2016 may have made inequality more apparent to all Americans—even those who did not live in unequal communities—and may have helped lower income Americans overcome demoralization due to their lower status. We discuss this at greater length in the online SM.

  23. 23.

    The specific differences in our findings may derive from the outcomes we study—existing work has focused on a smaller number of forms of participation, including voting (Solt 2008, 2010) and political discussion and interest (Solt 2008), while we studied many more forms of political engagement, and found inequality increased forms of participation not included in prior studies such as displaying a button or yard sign, contacting government, donating money, and attending a rally or protest. In fact, while our 2012 data shows attempting to persuade others (a form of political discussion) increased with inequality among high income respondents, we also find, consistent with Solt (2008), that it diminished among low income respondents as inequality increased. Less consistent with previous work, our 2016 data does reveal an increase in voting among lower and middle income respondents as community inequality rises.


  1. Abrajano, M., & Hajnal, Z. L. (2015). White backlash: Immigration, race, and American politics. Princeton University Press: Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alvaredo, F., Atkinson, A. B., Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2013). The top 1 percent in international and historical perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives,27(3), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anoll, A. P. (2018). What makes a good neighbor? Race, place, and norms of political participation. American Political Science Review,112(3), 494–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ansolabehere, S., Meredith, M., & Snowberg, E. (2014). Mecro-economic voting: Local information and micro-perceptions of the macro-economy. Economics & Politics,26(3), 380–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anzia, S. F. (2019). When does a group of citizens influence policy? Evidence from senior citizen participation in city politics. The Journal of Politics,81(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Atkinson, A. B., & Morelli, S. (2014). The chartbook of economic inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Avery, J. M. (2015). Does who votes matter? Income bias in voter turnout and economic inequality in the American States from 1980 to 2010. Political Behavior,37(4), 955–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952–1996. American Journal of Political Science,44, 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton University Press: Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Boustan, L., Ferreira, F., Winkler, H., & Zolt, E. M. (2013). The effect of rising income inequality on taxation and public expenditures: Evidence from US municipalities and school districts, 1970–2000. Review of Economics and Statistics,95(4), 1291–1302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brady, H. E. (2003). An analytical perspective on participatory inequality and income inequality. Social Inequality, 667–702

  12. Burbank, M. J. (1997). Explaining contextual effects on vote choice. Political Behavior,19(2), 113–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Burch, T. (2013). Trading democracy for justice: Criminal convictions and the decline of neighbourhood political participation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Button, J. W. (1989). Blacks and social change: Impact of the civil rights movement in southern communities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American Voter. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Carsey, T. M. (1995). The contextual effects of race on white voter behavior: The 1989 New York City mayoral election. The Journal of Politics,57(01), 221–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hendren, N., Jones, M. R., & Porter, S. R. (2018). The opportunity atlas: Mapping the childhood roots of social mobility (No. w25147). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  18. Cho, W. K. T., Gimpel, J. G., & Dyck, J. J. (2006). Residential concentration, political socialization, and voter turnout. Journal of Politics,68(1), 156–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Coffé, H., & Bolzendahl, C. (2010). Same game, different rules? Gender differences in political participation. Sex Roles,62(5–6), 318–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Côté, S., House, J., & Willer, R. (2015). High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,112(52), 15838–15843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cohen, A., Vigoda, E., & Samorly, A. (2001). Analysis of the mediating effect of personal-psychological variables on the relationship between socioeconomic status and political participation: A structural equations framework. Political Psychology,22(4), 727–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Diaz, M.-E. D. (2012). Asian embeddedness and political participation: Social integration and Asian-American voting behavior in the 2000 Presidential Election. Sociological Perspectives,55(1), 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dyck, J. J., & Gimpel, J. G. (2005). Distance, turnout, and the convenience of voting. Social Science Quarterly,86(3), 531–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Enos, R. D. (2016). What the demolition of public housing teaches us about the impact of racial threat on political behavior. American Journal of Political Science,60(1), 123–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Erikson, R. S. (2015). Income inequality and policy responsiveness. Annual Review of Political Science,18, 11–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Estrada-Correa, V., & Johnson, M. (2012). Foreclosure depresses voter turnout: Neighborhood disruption and the 2008 presidential election in California. Social Science Quarterly,93(3), 559–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Franko, W. W. (2013). Political inequality and state policy adoption: Predatory lending, children's health care, and minimum wage. Poverty & Public Policy,5(1), 88–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Franko, W. W. (2017). Understanding public perceptions of growing economic inequality. State Politics & Policy Quarterly,17(3), 319–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gilens, M. (2012). Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton University Press: Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American Politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics,12(3), 564–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Giles, M., & Dantico, M. (1982). Political participation and neighborhood social context revisited. American Journal of Political Science, 144–150.

  33. Giles, M., Wright, G., & Dantico, M. (1981). Social status and political behavior: the impact of residential context. Social Science Quarterly, 453–460.

  34. Gimpel, J. G., & Lay, J. C. (2005). Party identification, local partisan contexts, and the acquisition of participatory attitudes. In A. D. Zuckerman (Ed.), The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior (p. 209). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hainmueller, J., Mummolo, J., & Xu, Y. (2016). How much should we trust estimates from multiplicative interaction models? Simple tools to improve empirical practice. Political Analysis, 1–30.

  36. Hicks, T., Jacobs, A. M., & Matthews, J. S. (2016). Inequality and electoral accountability: Class-biased economic voting in comparative perspective. The Journal of Politics,78(4), 1076–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hill, K. Q., & Leighley, J. E. (1992). The policy consequences of class bias in state electorates. American Journal of Political Science, 351–365.

  38. Huckfeldt, R. (1979). Political participation and the neighborhood social context. American Journal of Political Science, 579–592.

  39. Huckfeldt, R. (1984). Political loyalties and social class ties: The mechanisms of contextual influence. American Journal of Political Science, 399–417.

  40. Huckfeldt, R. (1986). Politics in context: Assimilation and conflict in urban neighborhoods. New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Huckfeldt, R., Plutzer, E., & Sprague, J. (1993). Alternative contexts of political behavior: Churches, neighborhoods, and individuals. The Journal of Politics,55(02), 365–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jardina, A. (2019). White Identity Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Jennings, M. K. (1979). Another look at the life cycle and political participation. American Journal of Political Science,23(4), 755–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Johnson, M., Shively, W. P., & Stein, R. M. (2002). Contextual data and the study of elections and voting behavior: Connecting individuals to environments. Electoral Studies,21(2), 219–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Karadja, M., Mollerstrom, J., & Seim, D. (2017). Richer (and holier) than thou? The effect of relative income improvements on demand for redistribution. Review of Economics and Statistics,99(2), 201–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B. P. (1997). The relationship of income inequality to mortality: Does the choice of indicator matter? Social Science & Medicine,45(7), 1121–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kelley, H. H. (1952). Two functions of reference groups. In G. Swanson, T. Newcomb, & E. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 410–414). New York: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kelly, N. J., & Enns, P. K. (2010). Inequality and the dynamics of public opinion: The self‐reinforcing link between economic inequality and mass preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 54(4), 855–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kenworthy, L., & Smeeding, T. (2013). Country report for the United States. Growing Inequalities and their Impacts in the United States,

  50. Kogan, V., Lavertu, S., & Peskowitz, Z. (2018). Election timing, electorate composition, and policy outcomes: Evidence from school districts. American Journal of Political Science,62(3), 637–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Krieger, N., Waterman, P., Chen, J. T., Soobader, M.-J., Subramanian, S. V., & Carson, R. (2002). Zip code caveat: Bias due to spatiotemporal mismatches between zip codes and US census-defined geographic areas—the public health disparities geocoding project. American Journal of Public Health,92(7), 1100–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a Presidential campaign. Columbia: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Leighley, J. E., & Vedlitz, A. (1999). Race, ethnicity, and political participation: Competing Models And Contrasting Explanations. The Journal of Politics,61(4), 1092–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Luttig, M. (2013). The structure of inequality and Americans’ attitudes toward redistribution. Public Opinion Quarterly,77(3), 811–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lyons, J. (2011). Where you live and who you know: Political environments, social pressures, and partisan stability. American Politics Research.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Michener, J. (2017). People, places, power: Medicaid concentration and local political participation. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law,42(5), 865–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Minkoff, S. L., & Lyons, J. (2019). Living with inequality: Neighborhood income diversity and perceptions of the income gap. American Politics Research,47(2), 329–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Newman, B. J., Johnston, C. D., & Lown, P. L. (2015). False consciousness or class awareness? Local income inequality, personal economic position, and belief in American meritocracy. American Journal of Political Science,59(2), 326–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Newson, R. B. (2011). Frequentist Q-values for multiple-test procedures. The Stata Journal,10(4), 568–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ojeda, C. (2018a). The two income-participation gaps. American Journal of Political Science,62(4), 813–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ojeda, C. (2018b) Income, political participation and the demands of everyday life. Sept. 13 draft. Retrieved March 18, 2019, from

  62. Oliver, E. (1999). The effects of metropolitan economic segregation on local civic participation. American Journal of Political Science, 186–212.

  63. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology,36(4), 859–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Putnam, R. D. (1966). Political attitudes and the local community. American Political Science Review,60(03), 640–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Ritter, M., & Solt, F. (2019). Economic inequality and campaign participation. Social Science Quarterly.

  66. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (2002). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sands, M. L. (2017). Exposure to inequality affects support for redistribution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,114(4), 663–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2012). The Unheavenly chorus: Unequal political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Silver, B. D., Anderson, B. A., & Abramson, P. R. (1986). Who overreports voting? American Political Science Review,80(2), 613–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Solt, F. (2008). Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. American Journal of Political Science,52(1), 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Solt, F. (2010). Does economic inequality depress electoral participation? Testing the Schattschneider hypothesis. Political Behavior,32(2), 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Solt, F., Hu, Y., Hudson, K., Song, J., & Yu, D. E. (2016). Economic inequality and belief in meritocracy in the United States. Research & Politics,3(4), 2053168016672101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Solt, F., Hu, Y., Hudson, K., Song, J., & Yu, D. E. (2017). Economic inequality and class consciousness. The Journal of Politics,79(3), 1079–1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Schram, S. F. (2008). The color of devolution: Race, federalism, and the politics of social control. American Journal of Political Science,52(3), 536–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Stoker, L., & Jennings, M. K. (1995). Life-cycle transitions and political participation: The case of marriage. American Political Science Review,89(02), 421–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Strolovitch, D. (2006). Do interest groups represent the disadvantaged? Advocacy at the intersections of race, class, and gender. Journal of Politics,68(4), 894–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Thal, A. (2017). Class isolation and affluent Americans’ perception of social conditions. Political Behavior,39(2), 401–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Trounstine, J. (2020). The geography of inequality: How land use regulation produces segregation. American Political Science Review, 1–13.

  79. Trump, K. (2018). Income inequality influences perceptions of legitimate income differences. British Journal of Political Science,48, 929–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Trump, K., & White, A. (2018). Does inequality beget inequality? Experimental tests of the prediction that inequality increases system justification motivation. Journal of Experimental Political Science,5(3), 206–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Uslaner, E. M., & Brown, M. (2005). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. American Politics Research,33(6), 868–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Velez, Y. R., & Wong, G. (2017). Assessing contextual measurement strategies. The Journal of Politics,79(3), 1084–1089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Verba, S., Burns, N., & Schlozman, K. L. (1997). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement. The Journal of Politics,59(4), 1051–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Weinberg, D. H. (2011). US neighborhood income inequality in the 2005–2009 period. American Community Survey report

  86. Wright, G. C. (1977). Contextual models of electoral behavior: The southern Wallace vote. American Political Science Review,71(02), 497–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank Christopher Ojeda for helpful comments on this paper.


Not applicable.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Szewczyk.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 860 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Szewczyk, J., Crowder-Meyer, M. Community Income Inequality and the Economic Gap in Participation. Polit Behav (2020).

Download citation


  • Economic inequality
  • Political inequality
  • Political participation
  • Social context