The Polls—Trends

Abstract

Income redistribution and changes in redistributive policies are highly contested issues that often have a bearing on societal debate and electoral competition. Using European Social Survey data, we trace trends in public attitudes toward income redistribution in 18 European countries from 2002 to 2019, a time period which included the Great Recession, the 2015 migrant crisis, and an increase in income inequality. Although attitudes toward income redistribution were relatively stable, trends presented by countries grouped by welfare regime display considerable variation both among countries and among welfare regimes. We also trace trends in public support for redistribution by income groups and gauge the strength of belief in meritocracy and egalitarianism. The level of redistribution support among middle-income residents is similar to redistribution support of low-income residents, most notably in post-communist and social-democratic regimes. While egalitarianism is most widespread in the Mediterranean regime, meritocracy is most common in liberal and conservative regimes.

Introduction

Income redistribution, defined as income transfers from some individuals to others, aims to mitigate disposable income inequality in a society. Policies related to income distribution, including the level, structure, and progressivity of government taxation, and the size and structure of transfers, vary significantly among countries. Change in redistribution policies are some of the most highly contested issues, constituting a primary concern for many voters and influencing electoral competition. The Great Recession (Pontusson and Weisstanner 2018), immigration (Burgoon et al. 2012), and the increase in income inequality in most European countries over the past 20 to 30 years (OECD 2008; Bonesmo Fredriksen 2012; Blanchet, Chancel, and Gethin 2020) may have affected public support for income redistribution. However, trends in public support for income redistribution in Europe have been given little attention, and studies on this topic have focused on the United States (Weaver, Shapiro, and Jacobs 1995; Shaw and Shapiro 2002; Shaw and Gaffey 2012).

Using European Social Survey (ESS) data from 18 countries, the main aim of this paper is to identify trends in support for income redistribution in Europe between 2002 and 2019. In this heterogeneous group of countries, income redistribution is framed and contested differently depending on the level of income inequality, the actual degree of income redistribution, and the welfare regime’s broader configuration. As countries may be classified into welfare regimes based on their income redistribution policies, a secondary aim of this paper is to explore if attitudes toward income redistribution in countries having a given welfare regime follow the same trajectory, and if attitudes vary from one welfare regime to another. Apart from exploring trends by welfare regime, this paper aims to identify trends in public support for income redistribution by household income. These analyses allow us to study the extent to which income affects attitudes toward income redistribution in various welfare regimes.

Welfare regime typologies are based on broad social policy configurations. We build on Esping-Andersen’s (1990) influential typology (which distinguishes conservative, social-democratic and liberal regimes), extend it by the southern/Mediterranean regime type (Ferrera 1996) and the post-communist welfare states (Fenger 2007), and group the analyzed countries into these five regime types based on the classification of Deeming and Jones (2015). In our analysis, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are conservative welfare regimes; Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden are social-democratic regimes; the United Kingdom and Ireland are liberal regimes; Spain and Portugal are Mediterranean regimes; and the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia are post-communist regimes. This grouping of countries allows us to observe attitudes toward redistribution under the “regime hypothesis,” which postulates a national-level association between redistributive policies and public welfare attitudes (Jaeger 2005, 2009; Larsen 2008; Schmidt-Catran 2016).

This paper opens by presenting the overall trends in support for income redistribution by welfare regime over the past twenty years. After this, it examines trends in redistribution support by individual country, and then by income group. Finally, it identifies trends in beliefs in meritocracy and egalitarianism, values important for understanding attitudes toward income redistribution.

Overall Support for Redistribution between 2002 and 2019

ESS, a biennial cross-national survey, is the leading source of comparative data on attitudes toward income redistribution in Europe. ESS administered the same question in all participating countries for each of nine rounds. This makes ESS the most suitable dataset for analyzing trends in attitudes toward redistribution in Europe. Our analysis covers only those countries that fielded at least eight ESS rounds.

The support for redistribution is captured by reported agreement with the following statement: “The government should take measures to reduce differences in income levels.”¹ While this question is widely used, the interpretation of answers is not straightforward. Some respondents may understand it as how generous a nation's redistributive scheme ought to be (i.e., absolute redistribution support). However, other respondents may perceive it as a question about change from a current situation (i.e., relative redistribution support). Following the distinction between absolute and relative preferences formulated by the thermostatic model of public opinion responsiveness (Soroka and Wlezien 2010), the debate is to what extent this item measures absolute and relative redistribution support. We do not set out to adjudicate between these two interpretations but merely acknowledge the item as measuring “redistribution support” because the agreement with the statement represents a positive attitude toward redistribution. However, caution is required when reading the results because the answers come from a heterogeneous group of welfare regimes and countries. The answers are thus likely to be influenced by existing redistributive policies, institutions, and socio-economic context.

Starting with the general trends, figure 1 shows the total ESS average share of respondents and average shares of respondents grouped by regime affiliation who favor income redistribution between 2002 and 2019.² Support for income redistribution is quite stable in most welfare regimes, with a slight increase between 2008–2009 and 2012–2013. The highest longitudinal redistribution support is seen in the Mediterranean regime, followed by the post-communist countries. The conservative welfare regime shows a similar trend to Mediterranean countries, only the share of respondents supporting redistribution is steadily around 17 percentage points lower. Support for income redistribution in the liberal regime dropped slightly between 2002–2003 and 2006–2007 and gradually rose to 69 percent in 2012–2013. The liberal, conservative, and post-communist regimes converged to the total European average in the last ESS round (2018–2019). This convergence highlights Mediterranean countries as outliers due to their high support for income redistribution and social-democratic countries due to their support for income redistribution being consistently lowest among all the welfare regimes considered (although Denmark, as an outlier within the social-democratic regime, drags the mean of this regime downwards).³ Liberal regime countries have the highest levels of market income inequality and, along with Mediterranean countries, also have the highest levels of disposable income inequality. On the other hand, social-democratic regime countries have the lowest inequality of disposable incomes (cf. figure A2).

Figure 1.

Average percent support for income redistribution in Europe by welfare regime. EUROPEAN SOCIAL SURVEY (Using this card, please say to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. The government should take measures to reduce differences in income levels.) The vertical axis reports the percentage of respondents who agree strongly or agree with the statement. Regime-round means are unweighted averages based on redistribution support in the corresponding countries. The percentages in the legend represent the average support for income redistribution within the given welfare regime, that is, each of these means is calculated from the nine available observations (ESS rounds).

As mentioned above, some respondents may understand the item as a question regarding a change in redistribution from the status quo, which may be reflected by between-welfare regime differences. For example, the social-democratic regime has the lowest average agreement with the statement presented by this item. At the same time, disposable income inequalities are relatively low, and public social expenditures (as a percentage of GDP) are the highest among all welfare regimes (cf. figure A3). On the other hand, the post-communist countries are highly pro-redistributive, while the size of the welfare state is relatively small. In other words, welfare regimes that redistribute a high proportion of national incomes via tax and transfer systems are characterized by low relative redistribution support. In contrast, regimes with low redistribution are characterized by high relative redistribution support.

Figure 2 shows that levels of redistribution support vary among countries within some welfare regimes more than others. Denmark consistently has the lowest levels of support for government redistribution, which makes it an outlier within the social-democratic regime. Denmark’s low support for redistribution may be explained by the already existing high level of redistribution (cf. figure A3). In the vast majority of European countries, redistribution support is stable. The starkest deviations from this stable trend are the growth in redistribution support in Germany over time and the significant fluctuation of this support in the Czech Republic and Estonia. The Czech Republic is also the post-communist country with the lowest proportion of respondents supporting redistribution. In the Czech Republic, where disposable income inequality is very low, aggregate redistribution support negatively correlates with the business cycle, as redistribution support is the highest in periods of declining GDP and high unemployment (Linek and Petrúšek 2020). Along with Portugal, redistribution support is also very high in Hungary and Slovenia. On the other hand, respondents in the Netherlands and United Kingdom show relatively low redistribution support.

Figure 2.

Percent support for income redistribution in Europe (by five welfare regime types). The vertical axis reports the proportion of respondents who agree strongly or agree with the statement. The percentages in the legend represent the average support for income redistribution within the given country, that is, each of these means is calculated from the eight or nine available observations.

Support for Redistribution by Income Group

Figures 3 – 7 present the proportions of respondents who support income redistribution within three income categories. In gray are the percentage-point differences in redistribution support between the low-income and high-income groups, which may be used as an indicator of the strength of the relationship between income and redistribution support. Theories of welfare attitudes centered on economic self-interest (i.e., the median-voter hypothesis, the theory of homo economicus, social exchange theory) predict a negative relationship between income and support for redistribution (Fong 2001; Alesina and Giuliano 2011; Schmidt-Catran 2016; Kevins et al. 2018). The results presented in figure 3 – 7 show that the differences in support between low-income and high-income residents are positive, and the strength of these relationships varies across countries, and within some welfare regimes more than others.

Figure 3.

Percent support for income redistribution by income group: conservative regime. The gray numbers are percentage-point differences in redistribution support between the low-income and high-income groups (i.e., % low income - % high income). This note also applies to figures 4 – 7.

With their almost unanimous public support for redistribution, Portugal and Hungary exhibit almost no differences in pro-redistributive attitudes among income categories. On the other hand, the differences in redistribution support between the low-income and high-income groups amount to up to 30 percentage points in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Estonia, and the Czech Republic. The remaining countries are situated between these two extremes.

The lowest redistribution support among respondents from the top income quintile is in Denmark (around 30 percent), the Netherlands and the Czech Republic (varying around 40 percent), and Switzerland and the United Kingdom (around 45 percent). After 2008, support for income redistribution by top-income residents grew in Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.

Given the theoretical argument that the relative income distance between middle-income people and the poor, on the one hand, and middle-income people and the rich, on the other hand, influences redistribution support among middle-income classes (Lupu and Pontusson 2011), we also examine whether those with middle income tend to align with those with low income in their support for redistribution or are more in line with those with high income. In most of the countries analyzed, those with middle income have very similar levels of redistribution support as those with low income. This tendency is most pronounced in post-communist countries (except for the Czech Republic) and social-democratic countries. After discounting countries where public support for redistribution is unanimous, the data suggest that in no European country do those with middle income align with those with high income in their lower levels of redistribution support.

Beliefs about Distributive Justice and Inequality

Attitudes toward redistribution are also driven by individual beliefs and societal norms (Rehm 2016, pp. 13–17). Accordingly, this section focuses on survey measures of beliefs about distributive justice and inequality. We are constrained by data availability, as items concerning these key concepts were only part of the ESS Welfare Attitudes module fielded in 2008–2009 and 2016–2017.

Meritocracy justifies unequal income distribution by arguing that income should reflect individual efforts, contributions, and merits. At the individual level, people believing in meritocracy are expected to hold negative views about government income redistribution. Consequently, countries with a higher proportion of people who believe in meritocracy should tend to have lower levels of support for redistribution.

Figure 8 shows the proportion of people believing in meritocracy for each country grouped by welfare regime. As expected, in the liberal regime, emphasizing equal opportunity and equity (Arts and Gelissen 2001), belief in meritocracy is most widely held and relatively stable. Meritocracy is also a widely held belief in the conservative regime, and there is very low variation among the conservative countries and the two ESS rounds. The Mediterranean regime shows a slightly lower average level of belief in meritocracy in the fourth ESS round than the conservative regime. However, both Spain and Portugal witnessed a significant drop in belief in meritocracy between the two waves. The two remaining regimes are characterized by significant variation among countries within these regimes. Denmark, with its very high level of belief in meritocracy, and Finland, with its very low level of belief in meritocracy, represent the borderline cases in the social-democratic regime. The Czech Republic, Estonia, and Poland have very high levels of belief in rewarding talents and efforts in economic outcomes. On the other hand, the narrative of individual effort justifying large income differences has very low support in Slovenia and Hungary.

Figure 8.

Percent endorse belief in meritocracy in Europe (by five welfare regime types). EUROPEAN SOCIAL SURVEY (Using this card, please say how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Large differences in people’s incomes are acceptable to properly reward differences in talents and efforts.) The number at the top of a bar is the percentage of respondents who agree strongly or agree with the statement.

Economic egalitarianism advocates that economic outcomes should be distributed equally among members of society. Therefore, people with egalitarian beliefs are expected to hold positive views about government redistribution. Figure 9 shows, for each country grouped by regime type, the proportion of respondents who believe that a fair society is egalitarian. Overall, the liberal regime, that is, the regime for which belief in meritocracy is most widely held, has a relatively low proportion of egalitarians. On the other hand, the Mediterranean regime has the highest proportion of egalitarians among all five welfare regimes. This inverse ranking of the Mediterranean regime on beliefs in meritocracy and egalitarianism is in line with its highest support for redistribution among all five welfare regimes. The three remaining regimes have similar average proportions (between 57 percent and 59 percent) of egalitarians. With only a third of the population supporting the equal distribution of economic outcomes, Denmark represents a significant outlier within the social-democratic regime. With its exceptionally high tax revenue, high redistribution, and resulting low inequality of disposable incomes, Danes seem to crave less government redistribution and more meritocracy in determining the distribution of disposable income.

Figure 9.

Percent endorse belief in egalitarianism in Europe (by five welfare regime types). EUROPEAN SOCIAL SURVEY (Using this card, please say how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. For a society to be fair, differences in people’s standard of living should be small.) The number at the top of a bar is the percentage of respondents who agree strongly or agree with the statement.

Conclusion

Analysis of ESS data from the period 2002–2019 shows relatively stable support for income redistribution. Grouping countries by their broad social policy configurations helped us analyze the levels and trends in support for income redistribution within the framework of the “regime hypothesis,” which argues that regime membership should explain between-country differences in attitudes. While we observe relatively stable aggregate support for income redistribution in most welfare regimes, with a slight increase between 2008–2009 and 2012–2013, there is considerable variation among welfare regimes.

Additionally, support for income redistribution was analyzed by income group. The strength of this association varies between countries and within welfare regimes. The data provide very little support for the structure of inequality argument of Lupu and Pontusson (2011), since in no country does the level of redistribution support among those with a middle income align with the lower level of redistribution support among those with a high income. Middle-income residents show a similar level of redistribution support to that of low-income residents, most evidently in post-communist and social-democratic regimes. Furthermore, our findings have implications for cross-national research because the data suggest that analysts should consider including random slopes for income when modeling redistribution support in Europe.

The final section of this paper shows that belief in meritocracy is most widespread among countries of liberal and conservative regimes. While having the highest proportion of egalitarians, the proportion of meritocrats in Spain and Portugal dropped significantly between the two waves (2008–2009 and 2016–2017), which may have been a consequence of the Great Recession in 2009.

Appendix

Data Sources, Sampling, and Response Rates

 

Response rates for the main questionnaire and other information were retrieved from national survey documentation reports. European Social Surveys involved national samples of persons aged 15 and over resident within private households, regardless of their nationality, citizenship, language, or legal status. The surveys involved random probability sampling with a minimum target response rate of 70 percent. Surveys were conducted via face-to-face CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) or PAPI (paper and pencil interview). Appropriate national languages based on rigorous translation protocols were used. For some country-rounds, fieldwork dates span several months and cross two calendar years. For these country-rounds, the year reported in the figures is the year in which most interviews were conducted.

European Social Survey Round 1 (2002–2003): Belgium (ISPO, Department of Sociology and Leuven and CLEO—University of Liege, Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique, Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), 01.08.03—30.09.03: PAPI, 59.2 percent; Czech Republic (STEM, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic), 24.11.02—09.03.03: PAPI, 43.3 percent; Denmark (SFI—Survey, Danish Social Science Research Council), 28.10.02—19.06.03: CAPI, 67.6 percent; Finland (Statistics Finland, Academy of Finland), 09.09.02—10.12.02: CAPI, 73.2 percent; France (Institut de Sondage Lavialle, Ministère de la Recherche), 15.09.03—15.12.03: CAPI, 43.1 percent; Germany (infas Institut für angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), 20.11.02—16.05.03, CAPI: 55.7 percent; Hungary (TÁRKI Social Research Centre, Hungarian Academy of Sciences), 29.10.02—26.11.02, PAPI: 69.9 percent; Ireland (Economic and Social Research Institute, Higher Education Authority and Institute for the Study of Social Change), 11.12.02—12.04.03, PAPI: 64.5 percent; Netherlands (Gfk Panel Services, Dutch Science Foundation, Social and Cultural Planning Office), 01.09.02—24.02.03, CAPI: 67.9 percent; Norway (Statistics Norway—Division for sample surveys, The Research Council of Norway), 16.09.02—17.01.03, CAPI: 65.0 percent; Poland (Center for Social Survey Research, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences Polish Committee for Scientific Research (KBN) Institute of Philosophy and Sociology Polish Academy of Sciences Foundation), 30.09.02—19.12.02, PAPI: 73.2 percent; Portugal (TNS Euroteste, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia) 26.09.02—20.01.03, PAPI: 68.8 percent; Slovenia (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Public Opinion and Mass Communication Research Center, Ministry of Education Science and Sport, Ministry of Labour Family and Social Affairs, Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development, and Government Office for European Affairs), 17.10.02—30.11.02, PAPI: 70.5 percent; Spain (DEMOSCOPIA, Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, and Departament d'Universitats Recerca i Societat de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya), 19.11.02—20.02.03, PAPI: 53.2 percent; Sweden (Statistics Sweden, SCB Vetenskapsrådet, Riksbankens jubileumsfond, FAS), 23.09.02 - 20.12.02, CAPI: 69.5 percent; Switzerland (M.I.S. Trend SA, Lusanne, Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung), 09.09.02—08.02.03, CAPI: 33.5 percent; United Kingdom (National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), Central Survey Unit of the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, Economic and Social Research Council), 24.09.02—04.02.03, CAPI: 55.5 percent.

European Social Survey Round 2 (2004–2005): Belgium (ISPO, Department of Sociology and Leuven and CLEO—University of Liege, Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique, Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), 04.10.04—31.01.05, CAPI: 61.2 percent; Czech Republic (SC&C, Grant Agency of the Czech Republic), 01.10.04—13.12.04, PAPI: 55.3 percent; Denmark (SFI—Survey, Danish Social Science Research Council, 09.10.04—31.01.05, CAPI: 64.2 percent; Estonia (Statistical Office of Estonia, Estonian Science Foundation, Tartu University), 30.09.04—19.01.05, PAPI: 79.1 percent; Finland (Statistics Finland, Academy of Finland (Suomen Akatemia), 20.09.04—17.12.04, CAPI: 70.7 percent; France (Institut de Sondage Lavialle, ACI ‘Terrains, Techniques et Théories’, Minsitère de la Recherche, PPF de l'Université de Caen), 27.11.04—04.03.05, CAPI: 43.6 percent; Germany (infas Institut für angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), 26.08.04—16.01.05, CAPI: 51.0 percent; Hungary (TÁRKI Social Research Centre, Hungarian Academy of Sciences—Institute of Political Science), 02.04.05—31.05.05, PAPI: 65.9 percent; Ireland (Economic and Social Research Institute, Irish Research Council for the Humanities & Social Sciences), 18.01.05—20.06.05, PAPI: 62.5 percent; Netherlands (Gfk Panel Services, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands), 11.09.04—19.02.05, CAPI: 64.3 percent; Norway (Statistics Norway—Division for sample surveys, The Research Council of Norway), 15.09.04—15.01.05, CAPI: 66.2 percent; Poland (Center for Social Survey Research, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, State Committee for Scientific Research), 10.10.04—22.12.04, PAPI: 73.7 percent; Portugal (TNS Euroteste, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia), 15.10.04—17.03.05, PAPI: 71.2 percent; Slovenia (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Public Opinion and Mass Communication Research Center, Ministry of Education Science and Sport, Ministry of Labour Family and Social Affairs, Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development, and Government Office for European Affairs), 18.10.04—30.11.04, PAPI: 70.2 percent; Spain (TNS DEMOSCOPIA, Madrid Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, 27.09.04—31.01.05, CAPI: 54.9 percent; Sweden (SCB, Vetenskapsrådet, Riksbankens jubileumsfond, FAS), 29.09.04—19.01.05, CAPI: 65.4 percent; Switzerland (M.I.S. Trend SA, Swiss National Science Foundation), 15.09.04—28.02.05, CAPI: 48.6 percent; United Kingdom (BMRB Economic and Social Research Council), 27.09.04—16.03.05, CAPI: 50.6 percent.

European Social Survey Round 3 (2006–2007): Belgium (TNS Dimarso, Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique, Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), 23.10.06—19.02.07, CAPI: 61.0 percent; Denmark (SFI—Survey, Danish Social Science Research Council),19.09.06—02.05.07, CAPI: 50.8 percent; Estonia (Saar Poll OÜ, Ministry of Education and Research, Ministry of Social Affairs), 25.10.06—21.05.07, PAPI: 65.0 percent; Finland (Statistics Finland, Academy of Finland), 18.09.06—20.12.06, CAPI: 64.4 percent); France (Institut de Sondage Lavialle, Comité de concertation pour les données en sciences sociales, Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, 19.09.06—07.04.07, CAPI: 46.0 percent; Germany (infas Institut für angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), 01.09.06—15.01.07, CAPI: 54.5 percent; Hungary (The Gallup Organization Hungary, Hungarian Academy of Sciences), 21.11.06—28.01.07, PAPI: 66.1 percent; Ireland (Economic and Social Research InstituteIrish Research Council for the Humanities & Social Sciences), 14.09.06—31.08.07, PAPI: 56.8 percent; Netherlands (GFK Panel Services Benelux, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research), 16.09.06—18.03.07, CAPI: 59.8 percent; Norway (Statistics Norway—Division for sample surveys, The Research Council of Norway), 21.08.06—19.12.06, CAPI: 65.5 percent; Poland (Centre of Sociological Research, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences Ministry of the Education and Science), 02.10.06—13.12.06, PAPI: 70.2 percent; Portugal (TNS Euroteste, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia), 12.10.06—28.02.07, PAPI: 72.8 percent; Slovenia (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Public Opinion and Mass Communication Research Center, Slovenian Research Agency, Government Office for European Affairs, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs), 18.10.06—04.12.06, PAPI: 65.1 percent; Spain (Metroscopia, Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia), 25.10.06—04.03.07, CAPI: 65.9 percent; Sweden (SCB, Vetenskapsrådet, Riksbankens jubileumsfond, FAS), 21.09.06 - 03.02.07, CAPI: 65.9 percent; Switzerland (M.I.S. Trend SA, Swiss National Science Foundation), 24.08.06—02.04.07, CAPI: 51.5 percent; United Kingdom (BMRB, Economic and Social Research Council), 05.09.06—14.01.07, CAPI: 54.6 percent.

European Social Survey Round 4 (2008–2009): Belgium (TNS Dimarso, Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique, Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), 13.11.08—20.03.09, CAPI: 58.9 percent; Czech Republic (Factum Invenio, Institute of Sociology AS CR), 08.06.09—08.07.09, PAPI: 69.5 percent; Denmark (SFI—Survey, Danish Social Science Research Council), 01.09.08—11.01.09, CAPI: 53.9 percent); Estonia (Turu—uuringute AS, Ministry of Education and Science, Office of the Minister of Population Affairs), 05.11.08—11.03.09, PAPI: 57.4 percent; Finland (Statistics Finland, Academy of Finland), 19.09.08—05.02.09, CAPI: 68.4 percent; France (Institut de Sondages Lasvialle—GFK, Plan pluriannuel de formation of the University of Caen, Sciences Po), 28.09.08—31.01.09, CAPI: 49.4 percent; Germany (infas Institut für angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), 27.08.08—31.01.09, CAPI: 48.0 percent; Hungary (Gallup Hungary OTKA—Hungarian Scientific Research Fund), 20.02.09—20.04.09, PAPI: 61.3 percent; Ireland (Ipsos—MORI, Irish Research Council for the Humanities & Social Sciences), 11.09.09—12.03.10, CAPI: 51.6 percent; Netherlands (GFK Panel Services Benelux, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research), 08.09.08—28.06.09, CAPI: 49.8 percent; Norway (Statistics Norway—Division for sample surveys, The Research Council of Norway), 25.08.08—20.01.09, CAPI: 60.4 percent; Poland (Centre of Sociological Research, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Ministry of Science and Higher Education), 03.11.08—15.02.09, PAPI: 71.2 percent; Portugal (TNS Euroteste Marketing e Opinião S.A., Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia), 09.10.08—08.03.09, CAPI: 75.7 percent; Slovenia (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Public Opinion and Mass Communication Research Center, Slovenian Research Agency), 20.10.08—20.01.09, PAPI: 59.1 percent; Spain (Metroscopia, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Direcció General de Participació Ciutadana de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Centre d'Estudis d'Opinió, Escola Galega de Administración Pública), 05.09.08—31.01.09, CAPI: 66.8 percent; Sweden (SCB, Vetenskapsrådet, Riksbankens jubileumsfond, FAS), 15.09.08—03.02.09, CAPI: 62.2 percent; Switzerland (MIS Trend, Swiss National Science Foundation), 30.08.08—17.04.09, CAPI: 49.9 percent; United Kingdom (NatCen and NISRA, Economic & Social Research Council), 01.09.08—19.01.09, CAPI: 55.8 percent.

European Social Survey Round 5 (2010–2011): Belgium (Significant GfK, Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique, Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), 11.10.10—06.05.11, CAPI: 53.4 percent; Czech Republic (Factum Invenio, Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports), 20.01.11—08.03.11, PAPI: 70.2 percent; Denmark (SFI—Survey, The Danish Council for Independent Research, Social Sciences), 20.09.10—31.01.11, CAPI: 55.4 percent; Estonia (GfK Custom Research Baltic Eesti filiaal, Ministry of Science and Education, Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of Justice), 10.10.10—28.05.11, CAPI: 56.2 percent; Finland (Statistics Finland, Academy of Finland), 13.09.10—30.12.10, CAPI: 59.5 percent; France (Institut de Sondages Lasvialle—GFK, GIS Quételet, EHESS, PPF de l'Université de Caen, Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques), 15.10.10—06.04.11, CAPI: 47.1 percent; Germany (TNS Infratest Sozialforschung GmbH, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), 15.09.10—03.02.11, CAPI: 30.5 percent; Hungary (Gallup Hungary, OTKA—Hungarian Scientific Research Fund), 19.10.10—10.12.10, PAPI: 49.2 percent; Ireland (Amárach Research, Irish Research Council for the Humanities & Social Sciences), 20.09.11—31.01.12, CAPI: 65.2 percent; Netherlands (GFK Panel Services Benelux, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research), 27.09.10—02.04.11, CAPI: 60.0 percent; Norway (Statistics Norway—Division for sample surveys, The Research Council of Norway), 09.09.10—15.02.11, CAPI: 58.0 percent; Poland (Centre of Sociological Research, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Ministry of Science and Higher Education), 01.10.10—06.02.11, PAPI: 70.3 percent; Portugal (TNS, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia), 11.10.10—23.03.11, CAPI: 67.1 percent; Slovenia (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Public Opinion and Mass Communication Research Center, Slovenian Research Agency), 20.10.10—31.01.11, PAPI: 64.4 percent; Spain (Metroscopia, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación & Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas), 11.04.11—24.07.11, CAPI: 68.5 percent; Sweden (SCB, Vetenskapsrådet, Riksbankens jubileumsfond, FAS), 27.09.10—01.03.11, CAPI: 51.0 percent; Switzerland (MIS Trend SA, Swiss National Science Foundation), 02.10.10—23.03.11, CAPI: 53.3 percent; United Kingdom (Ipsos MORI, Economic & Social Research Council), 31.08.10—28.02.11, CAPI: 56.3 percent.

European Social Survey Round 6 (2012–2013): Belgium (TNS Dimarso, Hercules Fonds & FNRS), 10.09.12—24.12.12, CAPI: 58.7 percent; Czech Republic (MEDIAN, Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports),09.01.13—11.03.13, PAPI: 68.4 percent; Denmark (SFI—Survey, The Danish Council for Independent Research, Social Sciences), 10.01.13—24.04.13, CAPI: 49.1 percent; Estonia (Saar Poll OÜ, University of Tartu, Ministry of Science and Education), 01.09.12—28.01.13, CAPI: 67.8 percent; Finland (Statistics Finland, Academy of Finland), 03.09.12—02.02.13, CAPI: 67.3 percent; France (GfK ISL Custom Research France, Centre national de la recherche scientifique—Très grande infrastructure PROGEDO), 08.02.13—30.06.13, CAPI: 52.1 percent; Germany (Infas Institut für angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), 06.09.12—22.01.13, CAPI: 33.8 percent; Hungary (TÁRKI Social Research Institute OTKA—Hungarian Scientific Research Fund), 10.11.12—17.02.13, CAPI: 64.5 percent; Ireland (Amárach Research, Irish Research Council), 15.10.12—09.02.13, CAPI: 67.9 percent; Netherlands (GFK Panel Services Benelux, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research), 28.08.12—30.03.13, CAPI: 55.1 percent; Norway (Statistics Norway—Division for sample surveys, The Research Council of Norway), 14.08.12—08.02.13, CAPI: 54.9 percent; Poland (Centre of Sociological Research, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, The National Science Centre), 19.09.12—08.01.13, PAPI: 74.9 percent; Portugal (TNS, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia), 24.10.12—20.03.13, CAPI: 77.1 percent; Slovenia (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Public Opinion and Mass Communication Research Center, Slovenian Research Agency), 01.10.12—31.12.12, CAPI: 57.7 percent; Spain (TYPSA Estadística y Servicios S.L., Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación & Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas), 23.01.13—14.05.13, CAPI: 70.3 percent; Sweden (Ipsos Observer Sweden, Vetenskapsrådet), 01.10.12—05.05.13, CAPI: 52.4 percent; Switzerland (MIS Trend SA, Swiss National Science Foundation), 01.09.12—22.04.13, CAPI: 51.7 percent; United Kingdom (Ipsos MORI, Economic & Social Research Council), 01.09.12—07.02.13, CAPI: 53.1 percent.

European Social Survey Round 7 (2014–2015): Belgium (TNS Dimarso, Hercules Fonds & FNRS),10.09.14—01.02.15, CAPI: 57.0 percent; Czech Republic (MEDIAN, Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports), 24.11.14—09.02.15, CAPI + PAPI: 67.9 percent; Denmark (SFI—Survey, The Danish Council for Independent Research, Social Sciences), 12.09.14—17.02.15, CAPI: 51.9 percent; Estonia (Saar Poll OÜ, Ministry of Science and Education, international program), 07.09.14—29.12.14, CAPI: 59.9 percent; Finland (Statistics Finland, Academy of Finland), 03.09.14—09.02.15, CAPI: 62.7 percent; France (IPSOS, UMS Progedo and Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales), 31.10.14—03.03.15, CAPI: 50.9 percent; Germany (Infas Institut für angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), 18.08.14—05.02.15, CAPI: 31.4 percent; Hungary (TÁRKI Social Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre for Social Sciences), 24.04.15—26.06.15, CAPI: 52.7 percent; Ireland (Amárach Research, Irish Research Council), 04.09.14—31.01.15, CAPI: 60.7 percent; Netherlands (TNS NIPO/Veldkamp, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research), 08.09.14—15.01.15, CAPI: 58.6 percent; Norway (Statistics Norway—Division for sample surveys, The Research Council of Norway), 20.08.14—08.01.15, CAPI: 53.9 percent; Poland (Centre of Sociological Research, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, The Ministry of Science and Higher Education), 17.04.15—14.09.15, PAPI: 65.8 percent; Portugal (Consulmark2 - Estudos de Mercado e Trabalho de Campo, Lda. and Institute of Social Sciences—University of Lisbon, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia), 02.02.15—30.11.15, CAPI: 43.0 percent; Slovenia (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Public Opinion and Mass Communication Research Center, Slovenian Research Agency, Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, 09.10.14—01.02.15, CAPI: 52.3 percent; Spain (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas), 22.01.15—25.06.15, PAPI: 67.9 percent; Sweden (Ipsos Observer Sweden, Vetenskapsrådet, 01.08.14—30.01.15, CAPI: 50.1 percent; Switzerland (MIS Trend SA, Swiss National Science Foundation), 29.08.14—20.02.15, CAPI: 52.7 percent; United Kingdom (National Centre for Social Research, Economic & Social Research Council, 01.09.14—25.02.15; 02.10.15 - 07.12.15, CAPI: 43.6 percent.

European Social Survey Round 8 (2016–2017): Belgium (Kantar TNS, FWO and FNRS), 14.09.16—31.01.17, CAPI: 56.8 percent; Czech Republic (ppm factum research, Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports), 24.10.16—19.12.16, CAPI: 68.5 percent; Estonia (Statistics Estonia, Ministry of Education and Research), 01.10.16—31.01.17, CAPI: 68.4 percent; Finland (Statistics Finland, Academy of Finland), 15.09.16—08.03.17, CAPI: 57.7 percent; France (GfK-ISL CRF, Large National Research Infrastructure PROGEDO and National Centre for Scientific Research), 10.11.16—11.03.17, CAPI: 52.4 percent; Germany (Infas Institut für angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung), 23.08.16—26.03.17, CAPI: 30.6 percent; Hungary (TÁRKI Social Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre for Social Sciences), 14.05.17—16.09.17, CAPI: 42.7 percent; Ireland (Amárach Research, Irish Research Council), 25.11.16—08.05.17, CAPI: 64.5 percent; Netherlands (KANTAR, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research), 01.09.16—31.01.17, CAPI: 53.0 percent; Norway (Statistics Norway, The Research Council of Norway), 22.08.16—17.01.17, CAPI: 52.8 percent; Poland (Centre of Sociological Research, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, The Ministry of Science and Higher Education), 07.11.16—22.02.17, PAPI: 69.6 percent; Portugal (Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia), 20.10.16—15.06.17, CAPI: 45.0 percent; Slovenia (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Public Opinion and Mass Communication Research Center, Slovenian Research Agency, Ministry of Education, Science and Sport), 21.09.16—11.01.17, CAPI: 55.9 percent; Spain (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas), 16.02.17—23.06.17, PAPI: 67.7 percent; Sweden (Ipsos Observer, Sweden Vetenskapsrådet), 26.08.16—10.02.17, CAPI: 43.0 percent; Switzerland (MIS Trend SA, Swiss National Science Foundation), 01.09.16—02.03.17, CAPI: 52.2 percent; United Kingdom (National Centre for Social Research, Economic & Social Research Council), 01.09.16 - 20.03.17, CAPI: 42.8 percent.

European Social Survey Round 9 (2018–2019): Belgium (Kantar TNS Belgium, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), 20.09.18—28.01.19, CAPI: 57.6 percent; Czech Republic (ppm factum research, Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports), 17.11.18—06.02.19, CAPI: 67.4 percent; Denmark (VIVE, Statistics Denmark—DST Survey, Carlsberg Foundation), 13.09.18—08.01.19, CAPI: 48.8 percent; Estonia (Statistics Estonia, Ministry of Education and Research), 01.10.18—02.03.19, CAPI: 62.7 percent; Finland (Statistics Finland, Academy of Finland), 03.09.18—18.02.19, CAPI: 51.8 percent; France (IPSOS, Large National Research Infrastructure PROGEDO and National Centre for Scientific Research), 19.10.18—01.04.19, CAPI: 48.1 percent; Germany (Infas Institut für angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung), 29.08.18—04.03.19, CAPI: 27.6 percent; Hungary (TÁRKI Social Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre for Social Sciences), 31.01.19—22.05.19, CAPI: 40.7 percent; Ireland (Behaviour & Attitudes, Irish Research Council), 05.11.18—05.04.19, CAPI: 62.0 percent; Netherlands (I& O Research, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research), 28.08.18—22.01.19, CAPI: 49.6 percent; Norway (Ipsos Norway, The Research Council of Norway), 04.10.18 - 16.05.19, CAPI: 43.3 percent; Poland (A consortium of two companies: Realizacja sp. z o.o. and Kantar Polska S.A., The Ministry of Science and Higher Education), 26.10.18—20.03.19, CAPI: 60.4 percent; Portugal (Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon Programa Operacional Regional de Lisboa, National Science Foundation), 26.11.18—25.12.19, CAPI: 34.9 percent; Slovenia (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Public Opinion and Mass Communication Research Center, Slovenian Research Agency, Ministry of Education, Science and Sport), 24.09.18—01.02.19, CAPI: 64.1 percent; Spain (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas/Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación), 08.11.19—27.01.20, CAPI: 53.8 percent; Sweden (Ipsos Observer Sweden, Vetenskapsrådet), 30.08.18—23.05.19, CAPI: 39.0 percent; Switzerland (MIS Trend SA, Swiss National Science Foundation), 01.09.18—11.02.19, CAPI: 51.8 percent; United Kingdom (National Centre for Social Research, Economic & Social Research Council), 31.08.18 - 22.02.19, CAPI: 41.0 percent.

Figure A1.

Average percent support for income redistribution in Europe by welfare regime, without two outlying countries (the Czech Republic and Denmark). EUROPEAN SOCIAL SURVEY (Using this card, please say to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. The government should take measures to reduce differences in income levels.) The vertical axis reports the percentage of respondents who agree strongly or agree with the statement. Regime-round means are unweighted averages based on redistribution support in the corresponding countries. The percentages in the legend represent the average support for income redistribution within the given welfare regime, that is, each of these means is calculated from the nine available observations (ESS rounds). The Czech Republic (i.e., post-communist regime) and Denmark (i.e., social-democratic regime) are not part of this figure. The average redistribution support in the corresponding welfare regime increased after excluding these two countries with extremely low redistribution support levels (cf. figure 1).

Figure A2.

Market income and disposable income inequality by country, 2002–2018/19. Source: Standardized World Income Inequality Database (SWIID), Version 9.1 (available at: https://fsolt.org/swiid/). The difference between the two Gini coefficients (market income and disposable income) represents a measure of redistribution in these countries (i.e., how much market income inequality is reduced by taxes and transfers).

Figure A3.

Public social spending (% of GDP) by five welfare regime types, 2002–2018/19. Source: OECD Social Spending, 2022 (available at: https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm). This indicator is measured as a percentage of a country GDP. Regime averages (bottom-right figure) are unweighted means based on public social expenditures in corresponding countries. Social expenditure comprises cash benefits, direct in-kind provision of goods and services, and tax breaks with social purposes. Benefits may be targeted at low-income households, the elderly, disabled, sick, unemployed, or young persons. To be considered “social,” programs have to involve either redistribution of resources across households or compulsory participation.

Table A1.

Survey sample sizes (by country and ESS round).

	2002/03	2004/05	2006/07	2008/09	2010/11	2012/13	2014/15	2016/17	2018/19
Belgium	1899	1778	1798	1760	1704	1869	1769	1766	1767
Czech Republic	1360	3026	na	2018	2386	2009	2148	2269	2398
Germany	2919	2870	2916	2751	3031	2958	3045	2852	2358
Denmark	1506	1487	1505	1610	1576	1650	1502	na	1572
Estonia	na	1989	1517	1661	1793	2380	2051	2019	1904
Spain	1729	1663	1876	2576	1885	1889	1925	1958	1668
Finland	2000	2022	1896	2195	1878	2197	2087	1925	1755
France	1503	1806	1986	2073	1728	1968	1917	2070	2010
United Kingdom	2052	1897	2394	2352	2422	2286	2264	1959	2204
Hungary	1685	1498	1518	1544	1561	2014	1698	1614	1661
Switzerland	2040	2141	1804	1819	1506	1493	1532	1525	1542
Ireland	2046	2286	1800	1764	2576	2628	2390	2757	2216
Netherlands	2364	1881	1889	1778	1829	1845	1919	1681	1673
Norway	2036	1760	1750	1549	1548	1624	1436	1545	1406
Poland	2110	1716	1721	1619	1751	1898	1615	1694	1500
Portugal	1511	2052	2222	2367	2150	2151	1265	1270	1055
Sweden	1999	1948	1927	1830	1497	1847	1791	1551	1539
Slovenia	1519	1442	1476	1286	1403	1257	1224	1307	1318

Note: na = ESS Round was not fielded in the country in the given year.

Table A2.

Question wording of used variables and notes.

Using this card, please say to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
The government should take measures to reduce differences in income levels
	1	Agree strongly
	2	Agree
	3	Neither agree nor disagree
	4	Disagree
	5	Disagree strongly
	7	(Refusal)
	8	(Don’t know)
Note: The levels of support for redistribution reported in figures 1–7 represent respondents who selected answers “1 Agree strongly” and “2 Agree” on this item. The answer “8 (Don’t know)” is part of the analyses in these figures (i.e., this answer category is part of the base from which the reported proportions are computed). Refusals (answer code 7), which only amounted to 0.1 percent of the entire dataset, were excluded from the reported analyses.
Using this card, if you add up the income from all sources, which letter describes your household's total net income? If you don't know the exact figure, please give an estimate. Use the part of the card that you know best: weekly, monthly or annual income.
	J 01 R 02 C 03 M 04 F 05 S 06 K 07 P 08 D 09 H 10 U 11 N 12
	77 (Refused)
	88 (Don’t know)
Note: This question wording with 12 income categories was used in ESS rounds 1 through 3 (corresponding variable name in the cumulative ESS data: hinctnt). The harmonized income variable for the first three ESS rounds was constructed based on this variable. This harmonized variable (presented in figures 3–7) was computed so that the sum of absolute deviations from the expected counts (20 percent, 60 percent and 20 percent) was minimized. See Table A3 for the relative proportions of the three resulting income categories.
Using this card, please tell me which letter describes your household's total income, after tax and compulsory deductions, from all sources? If you don't know the exact figure, please give an estimate. Use the part of the card that you know best: weekly, monthly or annual income.
	1	J
	2	R
	3	C
	4	M
	5	F
	6	S
	7	K
	8	P
	9	D
	10	H
	77	(Refusal)
	88	(Don’t know)
Note: This question wording with 10 income categories was used in ESS rounds 4 through 9 (corresponding variable name in the cumulative ESS data: hinctnta). The harmonized income variable for the last six ESS rounds was constructed based on this variable. This harmonized variable (presented in figures 3−7) was computed so that the sum of absolute deviations from the expected counts (20 percent, 60 percent and 20 percent) was minimized. See Table A3 for the relative proportions of the three resulting income categories.
Using this card, please say how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
Large differences in people’s incomes are acceptable to properly reward differences in talents and efforts.	1	Agree strongly
	2	Agree
	3	Neither agree nor disagree
	4	Disagree
	5	Disagree strongly
	7	(Refusal)
	8	(Don’t know)
Note: The beliefs in meritocracy reported in figure 8 represent respondents who selected answers “1 Agree strongly” and “2 Agree” on this item. The answer “8 (Don’t know)” is part of the analysis in figure 8 (i.e., this answer category is part of the base from which the reported proportions are computed). Refusals (answer code 7), which only amounted to 0.1 percent of the dataset in ESS rounds 4 and 8, were excluded from the figure.
For a society to be fair, differences in people’s standard of living should be small.
	1	Agree strongly
	2	Agree
	3	Neither agree nor disagree
	4	Disagree
	5	Disagree strongly
	7	(Refusal)
	8	(Don’t know)
Note: The beliefs in egalitarianism reported in figure 9 represent respondents who selected answers “1 Agree strongly” and “2 Agree” on this item. The answer “8 (Don’t know)” is also part of the analysis in figure 9 (i.e., this answer category is part of the base from which the reported proportions are computed). Refusals (answer code 7), which only amounted to 0.1 percent of the dataset in ESS rounds 4 and 8, were excluded from the figure.

Figure 4.

Percent support for income redistribution by income group: social-democratic regime.

Figure 5.

Percent support for income redistribution by income group: liberal regime.

Figure 6.

Percent support for income redistribution by income group: Mediterranean regime.

Figure 7.

Percent support for income redistribution by income group: post-communist regime.

Table A3.

Relative frequencies of the three household income categories (by country and ESS round).

	Round 1: 2002/03			Round 2: 2004/05			Round 3: 2006/07			Round 4: 2008/09			Round 5: 2010/11			Round 6: 2012/13			Round 7: 2014/15			Round 8: 2016/17			Round 9: 2018/19
	Income quintile			Income quintile			Income quintile			Income quintile			Income quintile			Income quintile			Income quintile			Income quintile			Income quintile
	1st	2nd, 3rd, 4th	5th	1st	2nd, 3rd, 4th	5th	1st	2nd, 3rd, 4th	5th	1st	2nd, 3rd, 4th	5th	1st	2nd, 3rd, 4th	5th	1st	2nd, 3rd, 4th	5th	1st	2nd, 3rd, 4th	5th	1st	2nd, 3rd, 4th	5th	1st	2nd, 3rd, 4th	5th
Belgium	18	65	18	16	63	21	12	61	27	17	59	23	21	63	16	24	51	25	23	62	16	22	54	23	23	52	25
Germany	14	62	24	15	61	24	15	63	22	24	60	16	18	65	18	18	64	18	16	62	22	17	63	20	16	62	22
France	ina	ina	ina	17	58	25	13	62	24	24	53	23	26	53	21	28	53	19	20	54	26	20	55	25	27	53	20
Switzerland	20	67	13	19	70	11	19	67	13	25	60	16	25	58	17	16	69	15	17	60	23	15	61	24	19	65	17
Netherlands	22	65	12	22	66	12	22	67	10	16	68	16	19	59	22	17	56	27	20	56	24	16	58	26	19	65	16
Denmark	20	66	15	20	64	16	17	65	18	19	59	21	19	56	25	20	62	19	21	59	20	na	na	na	22	62	16
Finland	18	60	22	17	57	25	14	77	9	24	54	22	18	66	16	24	57	19	17	67	17	17	67	16	23	54	23
Norway	23	52	26	20	51	30	18	67	14	17	57	25	22	57	21	21	56	24	22	62	17	20	56	23	17	59	24
Sweden	24	48	27	21	49	30	20	71	9	17	69	15	23	60	17	24	62	13	22	62	16	23	62	15	18	61	21
United Kingdom	17	64	19	17	64	18	24	52	25	21	56	23	25	56	19	22	56	23	23	56	22	21	56	23	20	59	21
Ireland	ina	ina	ina	18	61	21	20	56	24	20	60	20	22	61	17	12	70	17	14	71	15	22	58	21	21	64	16
Spain	15	65	20	25	60	16	25	60	15	17	63	20	18	65	18	13	65	22	21	57	23	25	55	20	17	61	22
Portugal	29	56	15	28	54	19	24	58	18	27	59	15	ina	ina	ina	30	61	9	24	54	22	21	63	16	19	63	18
Czech Republic	15	72	13	12	71	17	na	na	na	21	66	13	20	64	16	23	53	23	22	54	25	21	60	19	23	58	19
Estonia	na	na	na	ina	ina	ina	ina	ina	ina	22	55	23	23	55	22	25	48	27	ina	ina	ina	19	57	24	22	60	18
Hungary	ina	ina	ina	ina	ina	ina	ina	ina	ina	28	50	21	21	60	19	18	57	25	19	63	18	14	63	23	20	63	17
Poland	32	55	12	30	58	13	25	61	14	22	51	26	21	55	24	20	57	23	20	64	16	18	58	24	16	61	24
Slovenia	24	56	19	18	66	15	13	67	20	16	69	15	26	56	18	23	61	16	23	58	18	18	61	21	17	60	23

Note: na = ESS Round was not fielded in the given year, ina = income variable not available in the given country-round.

Funding

Research was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, project: The Evolution of Prejudice, DR. 2016-07177 to Mikael Hjerm; by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, project no. LTT20011, ESS-CZ LM2018139 to Klára Plecitá; and by the ECSR Visitor Grant to I.P.

Data Availability

Replication data and documentation are available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/S2EF8R.