Blog Post

Income inequality boosted Trump vote

Our early econometric analysis shows that Donald Trump performed more strongly in states with higher income inequality. He also did better in states with a higher share of less-educated, older, US-born and non-Hispanic voters.

By: and Date: November 9, 2016 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

Did the level of income inequity influence voters in the 2016 US presidential election? To answer this question, we analysed the currently available results to uncover the factors influencing Trump’s share of the vote.

Recent surveys and analyses (for example the Bloomberg report here) show that the share of Trump votes was higher in counties with a higher share of white, middle-income, US-born, rural and less-educated voters. In our econometric regressions we control for some of these factors to see if income inequality has additional explanatory power. Using state-level data, we find that in all variants of our regressions income inequality has a positive and statistically significant parameter estimate (see table below). This means that more unequal states were more likely to vote for Trump.

Since voting behaviour is rather persistent in the US, our dependent variable is the change of the share of Republican candidate votes in 2016 compared to the average in the past three elections, (ie the average of the 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections). Some of the explanatory variables are highly correlated, like the share of Hispanic and the share of foreign born population, so we estimated different versions of the model in which we include only one of the highly correlated variables.

We find that a swing towards the Republicans was stronger in states where:

  • Income inequality is higher (measured as the Gini coefficient),
  • The Hispanic share of the population is lower,
  • The foreign-born share of the population is lower,
  • The share of the population that is young (19-44) is lower and the share of older people (45+) is higher,
  • The share of the population with at most a high school degree is higher and the share of the population with at least some college education is lower.

On the other hand, when trying to explain the shift to Donald Trump compared with the previous three Republican candidates, our analysis does not find statistically significant effects from gender and the African-American share of the population.

We will refine our calculations by using county-level data later, but these state-level findings already indicate an important role for income inequality in predicting votes for Trump. In fact, our regression results for the determinants of Trump votes are rather similar to the determinants of ‘leave’ votes in the United Kingdom’s June 2016 Brexit referendum, as one of us analysed here. While our results should be interpreted carefully, not least because both main US presidential candidates have certain characteristics which made them unpopular in the eyes of certain segments of the society, our findings are not against the interpretation that the ‘losers’ of globalisation cast protest votes against the status quo.

trump-and-inequality-table

Notes: The dependent variable is the difference between the share of votes for Donald Trump minus the average share of votes for the Republican candidate in the 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections.  t statistics in parentheses, statistical significance: * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Data collected at 11.00CET on 9/11/2016.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

Is the United States reneging on international financial standards?

The new Fed rule is a material breach of Basel III, a new development as the US had hitherto been the accord’s main champion. This action undermines the global order without being ostensibly justified by narrower considerations of US national interest.

By: Nicolas Véron Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: April 16, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

COVID-19: The self-employed are hardest hit and least supported

Self-employed workers are hardest-hit by COVID-19 lockdowns. Yet they often receive less government support than salaried employees. Is the disparity justified?

By: Julia Anderson Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 8, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

How COVID-19 is laying bare inequality

COVID-19 is laying bare socio-economic inequalities and could exacerbate them in the near future. The virus is a risk factor particularly for those at the lower end of the income distribution, who are vulnerable to the interaction of the shock with income, socio-economic and urban inequalities.

By: Enrico Bergamini Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 31, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

The quality and quantity of work in the age of AI

At this event, the panelists will discuss the implications of Artificial Intelligence on the labour market and the future of work in general.

Speakers: Robert Atkinson, Anna Byhovskaya, Maria Demertzis, Carl Frey and Daniel Samaan Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: February 5, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Explaining the triumph of Trump’s economic recklessness

The Trump administration’s economic policy is a strange cocktail: one part populist trade protectionism and industrial interventionism; one part classic Republican tax cuts skewed to the rich and industry-friendly deregulation; and one part Keynesian fiscal and monetary stimulus. But it's the Keynesian part that delivers the kick.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 29, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

Will Iran disrupt the global economy?

Last Friday, Qassem Soleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ QUDS force, was killed by an American airstrike outside Baghdad airport. The Ayatollah was not pleased and Tehran has promised to retaliate. At the time of recording, the world is still waiting to see how Iran might respond. Some of have speculated that they could disrupt the world’s oil markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz, which acts as a vital artery for around a third of the world’s liquefied natural gas and almost a quarter of the world’s oil. Today, oil prices surpassed $70 and if tension escalates the price is bound to grow. How dependent is the global economy on affordable Middle Eastern fossil fuel? This week, Nicholas Barrett is joined by Maria Demertzis and Niclas Poitiers to discuss how the US-Iran hostilities are affecting global economy.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 6, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Could the U.S. economy be experiencing a hidden tech-driven productivity revolution?

In the last decade, most advanced economies have grown more slowly than before. Slower growth has frequently been seen as a legacy of financial crises, especially that of 2007–2009.

By: Marek Dabrowski Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: January 6, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Understanding populism

Political identity is a group stereotype. As no camp corresponds exactly to our expectations, we choose the one to which we are closest and which is also the most distant from the ideas we reject

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 2, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

The Great Reversal-Causes and implications of the rising corporate concentration in the US

During this event, Thomas Philippon presented his thesis on market concentration and explained the reasons behind the rising corporate market power in the US.

Speakers: Thomas Philippon, Georgios Petropoulos and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: December 11, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

External Publication

Manufacturing employment, international trade, and China

The decline in manufacturing employment is often seen as a major reason for rising inequality, social tensions, and the slump of entire communities. With the rise of national populists and protectionists in recent years, the issue has become even more prominent.

By: Uri Dadush and Abdelaziz Ait Ali Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 28, 2019
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Cross-border, but not national, EU interregional development projects are associated with higher growth

Our calculations reveal that places where EU regional development projects bind together participants from different countries experience higher economic growth. Purely national interregional projects, on the other hand, are not associated with such benefits. The results hold across regions of different levels of income and consider the effects of other growth-determinants. Cross-border projects might bring efficiency gains, unlock synergies and provide knowledge transfers, boosting activity, with gains going beyond the projects’ scope. Cross-border projects could provide perhaps the only rationale for the continued cohesion/regional funding of more developed regions.

By: Zsolt Darvas, Jan Mazza and Catarina Midões Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: October 14, 2019
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Implications of the Japan – United States Mini Trade Agreement

Details of the US-Japan mini-trade deal are lacking but the agreements’ direct impact on the US and Japanese economies is likely to be minuscule. The deal seems to have been made to compensate American farmers – a crucial electoral base of the President – for their losses from the trade war with China.

By: Sybrand Brekelmans and Uri Dadush Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 11, 2019
Load more posts