Do Group-Based Inequalities Feel More Unjust? Experimental Evidence from Economically Disadvantaged Groups in India, South Africa, and the United States
Accepted at Public Opinion Quarterly, with Lasse E. Leipziger and Laurits F. Aarslew
Macrolevel research find that interethnic inequalities are more likely than interpersonal inequalities to spark political conflict and instability. However, the individual-level mechanisms driving this relationship remain empirically underexamined. We test the central hypothesis that group-based disparities evoke stronger feelings and perceptions of injustice than interpersonal inequalities. Drawing on three preregistered priming experiments among disadvantaged groups in India (n = 1,600), South Africa (n = 1,600), and the United States (n = 3,000), we find limited evidence that intergroup inequality is perceived as more unfair and evokes stronger feelings of injustice than interpersonal inequality. Our findings challenge a prevalent assumption of grievance-based theories and underscore the need for more systematic micro-level investigation.
Mitigating tough times? How material self-interest influences citizens' welfare state behavior. 2025.
American Journal of Political Science (Early View)
It is a long-standing view that citizens support the welfare state because it provides insurance against future income losses. However, existing studies have struggled to isolate the effect of future-oriented material self-interest from normative and political predispositions. Using population-wide, administrative panel data from Denmark, I study citizens' choice to take up government-funded social insurance in times of economic uncertainty: a critical case for material self-interest to be at stake. Using as-if random variation in exposure to signals of unemployment risks, I show that economic uncertainty increases the probability of buying supplementary unemployment insurance coverage. Linking the administrative records to individual-level survey data reveals that exposure to unemployment risk signals increases feelings of job insecurity, further suggesting that economic worries shape citizens' behavior within the welfare state. These findings highlight the role of material self-interest in influencing the welfare state, providing valuable insights for policymakers when designing social insurance policies.
Find the article here
Unequal and Unsupportive: Exposure to poor people weakens support for redistribution among the rich. 2024.
British Journal of Political Science 54(4), with Peter T. Dinesen and Kim Mannemar Sønderskov
Do the rich become more or less supportive of redistribution when exposed to poor people in their local surroundings? Most existing observational studies find that exposure to poor individuals is positively associated with support for redistribution among the well-off, but one prominent field experiment found a negative link. We seek to resolve these divergent findings by employing a design closer to the studies that have found a positive link, but with more causal leverage than these; specifically, a three-wave panel survey linked with fine-grained registry data on local income composition in Denmark. In within-individual models, increased exposure to poor individuals is associated with lower support for redistribution among wealthy individuals. By contrast, between-individual models yield a positive relationship, thus indicating that self-selection based on stable individual characteristics likely explains the predominant finding in previous work.
Find the article here
Danskernes holdning til velfærdsstaten. 2025.
Politica 57(3), with Carsten Jensen
Artiklen diskuterer velfærdsstatslitteraturens forventninger til den universelle velfærdsmodel og borgernes holdninger. En væsentlig pointe er, at det ikke giver mening at tale om velfærdsstaten som én samlet enhed; i stedet bør vi fokusere på de forskellige områder, der tilsammen udgør velfærdsstaten. Hvert område har sin egen logik og unikke holdningsprofil, hvilket påvirker de reformdynamikker, vi kan forestille os på de enkelte områder. Dette relaterer sig også til den sociale kontrakt, der kort sagt handler om, at borgerne skal opleve, at de får værdi for deres skatter; især at velfærdsstaten er der, når de selv får brug for den. Desuden skelner danskerne ofte mellem forskellige samfundsgrupper; ikke alle anses for at have samme ret til velfærd. Selvom danskerne generelt værdsætter deres velfærdsstat, er opbakningen langtfra ubetinget. Samlet set skaber disse faktorer et nuanceret billede, hvor visse samfundsgrupper og velfærdsordninger er mere udsatte for reformer end andre.
Find the article here
Downward Competition: How perceived economic distances reduce support for redistribution to the poor
[invited to revise and resubmit]
Do downward comparisons shape support for redistribution toward the poor? I argue that individuals who identify as middle-income become less supportive of redistribution when they perceive a small economic distance from the poor, as perceived proximity triggers competitive thinking about status and resources. To test this argument, I conduct two nationally representative survey experiments in the United Kingdom (n=3,470) and analyze observational data from 14 democracies. Across studies, I find that support for redistribution to poor people is weakest when respondents feel economically close to the poor but distant from the rich. Moreover, the findings suggest that these patterns are driven by perceived downward economic distance rather than upward distance. Finally, I present preliminary evidence that economic and status-based competition link downward comparisons to redistribution preferences. Together, these results advance our understanding of how social comparison processes shape attitudes toward redistribution and provide valuable insights for policy-makers designing redistributive policies.
Stable Demand and Individual-Level Responsiveness: The Role of Persistent Pessimism in Welfare Opinion Formation
with Carsten Jensen, Martin Vinæs Larsen, and Troels Bøggild
Welfare state opinion research reveals a striking contrast between individual-level and aggregate-level patterns. Micro-level studies show that citizens adjust their policy preferences when exposed to policy-relevant information, yet aggregate public opinion remains remarkably stable, even amid elite warnings about fiscal sustainability of the welfare state. We explain this stability by arguing that welfare state preferences are structured by persistent pessimism: systematic underestimation of benefit generosity combined with asymmetric updating when citizens encounter corrective information. When misperceptions are corrected, pessimists modestly reduce their support for expansion, while optimists who overestimated generosity respond more strongly in the opposite direction. These asymmetric adjustments offset one another, generating meaningful individual-level change but little net movement in the aggregate. We demonstrate these dynamics using a randomized correction experiment with 15,000 Danish citizens paired with a difference-in-differences design. Our article shows how individual responsiveness can coexist with stable expansionist aggregates, complicating efforts to recalibrate social policy.
Greater Generosity, Diminished Demands: Increased Policy Benefits Temper Individuals Demand for Social Policy Expansion
Does the size of policy benefits shape individuals' policy preferences? A large feedback literature documents a stabilizing dynamic between public policies and political attitudes, but whether policy generosity amplifies or tempers individual-level demand for further expansion remains theoretically contested and empirically unresolved. I exploit an age-based discontinuity in Danish policy, where unemployment assistance sharply increases at age 30, to generate causally credible variation in individualized benefit generosity levels. I leverage this discontinuity by fielding a large-scale survey (n = 31,000) that provides accurate, individualized information about benefit entitlements, and apply a regression discontinuity design. The results show that becoming eligible for higher unemployment benefits reduces support for further policy expansion---a negative effect observed across multiple dimensions of social policy preferences. These findings provide unique micro-level evidence for the ``public as thermostat'' model: more generous social policies cause individuals to temper their demands for further policy expansions.
It's the (relative local) economy, stupid: Local income position is robustly linked to subjective well-being
with Peter T. Dinesen, and Kim Mannemark Sønderskov