English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In this paper we consider a multi-party electoral competition model in which parties -- which care both about implemented policy and their electoral performance -- strategically promise a redistribution scheme while their social ideologies are considered to be known and fixed (differentiated parties). Voters, who differ both in income and in social ideologies, vote sincerely for the party that they cumulatively like most (that is, taking into account both the redistribution scheme proposals and parties' social ideologies). Formal analysis of this game uncovers an ends-against-the-middle equilibrium: parties with moderate social ideologies tend to be in favour of generous redistribution, while parties with extremist social ideologies are more likely to fervently oppose such schemes. An implication of this result is that, ceteris paribus, an increase in income inequality should lead to an increase in the cumulative vote share of moderate parties and, hence, in a decrease in party-system fragmentation.

When Extremes Meet: Redistribution in a Multiparty Model with Differentiated Parties