WID.world WORKING PAPER SERIES N° 2018/7

Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right:
Rising Inequality & the Changing Structure of Political Conflict(Evidence from France, Britain and the US, 1948-2017)

Thomas Piketty

March 2018

Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right:
Rising Inequality and the Changing Structure of Political Conflict(Evidence from France, Britain and the US, 1948-2017)

Thomas Piketty
EHESS and Paris School of Economics
First version: January 26th 2018
This version: March 22nd 2018

Abstract. Using post-electoral surveys from France, Britain and the US, this paper
documents a striking long-run evolution in the structure of political cleavages. In the
1950s-1960s, the vote for left-wing (socialist-labour-democratic) parties was
associated with lower education and lower income voters. It has gradually become
associated with higher education voters, giving rise to a “multiple-elite” party systemin the 2000s-2010s: high-education elites now vote for the “left”, while highincome/high-wealth elites still vote for the “right” (though less and less so). I argue
that this can contribute to explain rising inequality and the lack of democratic
response to it, as well as the rise of “populism”. I also discuss the origins of thisevolution (rise of globalization/migration cleavage, and/or educational expansion perse) as well as future prospects: “multiple-elite” stabilization; complete realignment of
the party system along a “globalists” (high-education, high-income) vs “nativists” (loweducation, low-income) cleavage; return to class-based redistributive conflict (either
from an internationalist or nativist perspective). Two main lessons emerge. First, withmulti-dimensional inequality, multiple political equilibria and bifurcations can occur.
Next, without a strong egalitarian-internationalist platform, it is difficult to unite loweducation, low-income voters from all origins within the same party.

* I am grateful to various data centers for providing access to post-electoral surveys,
and in particular to CDSP/ADISP (France), NES (Britain), and ANES, ICPSR andRoper Center (USA). This research is supplemented by a data appendix available
online at piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict.

1Section 1. Introduction
Section 2. Changing Political Cleavages in France
Section 3. Changing Political Cleavages in the United States
Section 4. Changing Political Cleavages in Britain
Section 5. Multi-Dimensional Models of Inequality and Political Cleavages
Section 6. Concluding Comments and Perspectives
References

2
Section 1. Introduction

Income inequality has increased substantially in most world regions since the 1980s,
albeit at different speeds (see Alvaredo et al, World Inequality Report 2018,
wir2018.wid.world). This process of rising inequality came after a relatively egalitarian
period between 1950 and 1980, which itself followed a long sequence of dramatic
events – wars, depressions, revolutions – during the first half of the 20th century (seePiketty, 2014). Given the recent evolution, one might have expected to observe rising
political demand for redistribution, e.g. due to some simple median-voter logic.
However so far we seem to be observing for the most part the rise of various forms of
xenophobic “populism” and identity-based politics (Trump, Brexit, Le Pen/FN,
Modi/BJP, AfD, etc.), rather than the return of class-based (income-based or wealthbased) politics. Why do democratic and electoral forces appear to deliver a reduction
in inequality in some historical contexts but not in others? Do we need extreme
circumstances in order to produce the type of Social-Democratic/New-Deal politicalcoalition that led to the reduction of inequality during the 1950-1980 period?

This paper attempts to make some (limited) progress in answering these complex
questions. The general objective is to better understand the interplay between longrun inequality dynamics and the changing structure of political cleavages. In order todo so, I exploit in a systematic manner the post-electoral surveys that wereconducted after nearly every national election in France, Britain and the UnitedStates over the 1948-2017 period. I construct homogenous long-run series on thechanging structure of the electorate in these three countries, i.e. who votes for which
parties or coalitions depending on different dimensions of inequality (income, wealth,education, age, gender, religion, foreign or ethic origins, etc.). For instance, I showthat the relation between voting behavior and income percentile is generally stronger
at the top of the distribution than within the bottom 90%, and that the wealth profile
has always been much steeper than the income profile (see Figures 1.1a-1.1b for thecase of France). To my knowledge, this is the first time that such consistent series
are established in a long run and comparative basis.

Next, and most importantly, I document a striking long-run evolution in the multidimensional structure of political cleavages in these three countries.

3

In the 1950s-1960s, the vote for “left-wing” (socialist-labour-democratic) parties was
associated with lower education and lower income voters. This corresponds to what
one might label a “class-based” party system: lower class voters from the different
dimensions (lower education voters, lower income voters, etc.) tend to vote for thesame party or coalition, while upper and middle class voters from the different
dimensions tend to vote for the other party or coalition.

Since the 1970s-1980s, “left-wing” vote has gradually become associated with higher
education voters, giving rise to what I propose to label a “multiple-elite” party systemin the 2000s-2010s: high-education elites now vote for the “left”, while highincome/high-wealth elites still vote for the “right” (though less and less so).

I.e. the “left” has become the party of the intellectual elite (Brahmin left), while the“right” can be viewed as the party of the business elite (Merchant right). 1

I show that the same transformation happened in France, the US and Britain (seeFigures 2a-2d), despite the many differences in party systems and political histories
between these three countries.

I argue that this structural evolution can contribute to explain rising inequality and thelack of democratic response to it, as well as the rise of “populism” (as low education,
low income voters might feel abandoned). I also discuss the origins of thistransformation

(rise

of

globalization/migration

cleavage,

and/oreducational

expansion per se) as well as future prospects: “multiple-elite” stabilization; complete
realignment of the party system along a “globalists” (high-education, high-income) vs“nativists” (low-education, low-income) cleavage; return to class-based redistributive
conflict (either from an internationalist or nativist perspective). Recent elections heldin the three countries in 2016-2017 suggest that several different evolutions are
possible: France-US illustrate the possibility a shift toward the “globalists” vs“nativists” cleavage structure (see Figures 2e-2f for the case of France); while Britain
1

In India’s traditional caste system, upper castes were divided into Brahmins (priests,
intellectuals) and Kshatryas/Vaishyas (warriors, merchants, tradesmen). To some extent themodern political conflict seems to follow this division.

4
supports the “multiple-elite” stabilization scenario (and possibly the return to classbased internationalism, though this seems less likely).

Two general lessons emerge from this research. First, with multi-dimensional
inequality, multiple political equilibria and bifurcations can occur. Globalization andeducational expansion have created new dimensions of inequality and conflict,leading to the weakening of previous class-based redistributive coalitions and thegradual development of new cleavages. Next, without a strong egalitarianinternationalist platform, it is difficult to unite low-education, low-income voters fromall origins within the same coalition and to deliver a reduction in inequality. Extreme
historical circumstances can and did help to deliver such an encompassing platform;
but there is no reason to believe that this is a necessary nor a sufficient condition. 2

This work builds upon a long tradition of research in political science studying theevolution of party systems and political cleavages. This literature was strongly
influenced by the theory of cleavage structures first developed by Lipset and Rokkan(1967). In their seminal contribution, Lipset-Rokkan stressed that modern
democracies are characterized by two major revolutions – national and industrial –that have generated four main cleavages, with varying importance across countries:
center vs periphery; state vs churches; agriculture vs manufacturing; workers vs
employers/owners. Their classification had an enormous influence on the literature.
One limitation of this work, however, is that Lipset-Rokkan largely ignore racial/ethnic
cleavages, in spite of their importance in the development of the US party system. 3

In the present paper, I argue that the particularities of US party dynamics (whereby
the Democratic party very gradually shifted from the slavery party to the poor whites
party, then the New Deal party, and finally the party of the intellectual elite and theminorities), which often seem strange and exotic from a European perspective (howis it that the slavery party can become the “progressive” party?), might be highly

2E.g. the Great Depression, World War 2 and the rise of Communism certainly made theSocial-Democratic New-Deal platform more desirable, while globalization and the fall ofCommunism contributed to weaken it. But multiple trajectories are always possible.
3 It is paradoxical that Lipset-Rokkan refer so little to racial cleavages, especially given thatthey write in the middle of the US Civil Rights movement. Their approach is arguably a bit too
centered on the European (and especially North European) party systems of their time.

5
relevant to understand the current and future transformation of cleavages structuresin Europe and elsewhere.

Subsequent research has contributed to extend the Lipset-Rokkan framework. In
particular, a number of authors have argued that the rise of universalist/liberal vstraditionalist/communitarian values since the 1980s-1990s, following in particular therise of higher education, has created the condition for a new cleavage dimension,and the rise of the “populist right” (see e.g. Bornshier, 2010). My findings are closely
related to this thesis. In particular, I stress the interplay between income, educationand ethno-religious cleavages, and the commonalities and differences between US
and European trajectories in that respect (while Bornshier focuses on Europe). 4
This work is also related to the study of multi-issue party competition, 5 and to anumber of papers that have recently been written on the rise of “populism”. 6
However, to my knowledge, my paper is the first work trying to relate the rise of“populism” to what one might call the rise of “elitism”, i.e. the gradual emergence(both in Europe and in the US) of a “multiple-elite” party system, whereby each of thetwo governing coalitions alternating in power tends to reflect the views and interestsof a different elite (intellectual elite vs business elite).

More generally, the main novelty of this research is to attempt to build systematic
long-run series on electoral cleavages using consistent measures of inequality(especially regarding education, income, wealth). In particular, by focusing upon
differentials in voting behavior between deciles of income, wealth or education(relatively to the distribution of income, wealth or education prevailing for a givenyear), it becomes possible to make meaningful comparisons across countries andover long time periods, which is not possible by using occupational categories (which
the literature has largely focused upon so far). 7
4 On the gradual transformation of the European party system and the rise of populist right,

see also Kitshelt (1994, 1995) and Mudde (2007, 2013).
For an ambitious attempt to calibrate multi-issues models of party competition (vertical
redistribution vs attitude to migration/minorities), using both US and European data, see
Roemer, Lee and Van der Straeten (2007).
6
See in particular Inglehart and Norris (2016) and Rodrik (2017).
7 An important strand of work in political science relies on occupational categories like « bluecollar workers » and indexes like the « Alford class voting index » (Alford, 1962), i.e. the5

6The present paper should be viewed as a (limited) step in a broader research agenda
seeking to analyze in a more systematic manner the long-run interplay between
inequality dynamics and political cleavages structures. The post-electoral survey datathat I use in this paper in order to cover the case of France, the US and Britain overthe 1948-2017 period has obvious advantages: one can observe directly who voted
for whom as a function of individual-level characteristics like gender, age, education,
income, wealth, religion, etc. Post-electoral surveys now exist for a large number ofcountries, at least for recent decades. They could and should be used in order to test
whether the same patterns prevail, and to better understand the underlying
mechanisms. The advantage of looking at only three countries is that I am able in thispaper to analyze these cases in a relatively detailed manner. However it is clear thatin order to go further one would need to add many more country studies.
Post-electoral surveys also have major drawbacks: they have limited sample size, 8
and they do not exist before the 1940s-1950s (and in some countries not before the1980s-1990s). The only way to analyze changing inequality patterns and politicalcleavages from a longer run perspective (i.e. going back to electoral data from the1870s onwards, or before) is to use local-level electoral data together with local-level
census data and/or other administrative or fiscal data providing indicators on thesocio-demographic and economic characteristics of the area. This kind of data exists
in pretty much every country where elections have been held. It is only by collecting
and exploiting this material that we can hope to reach a satisfactory understanding of
the interplay between inequality dynamics and cleavages structures.

difference between the labour party vote within the « working class » (typically defined as
manual wage-earners or low-skill manufacturing workers, with substantial variations overtime and space in the exact definition and the population share) and labour party vote withinthe « middle class » (all other voters). Such categories (blue-collar workers, manual wageearners) can be highly relevant to characterize the political conflict within a given period, but
do not allow for consistent comparisons over long time horizons and across countries, which
is why I choose to focus on income, wealth and education (of course education also raises
issues of comparability over time and across countries ; but at least it can be ranked on acommon scale, at least to some extent : primary-secondary-tertiary, advanced degrees, etc.).
The same issue arises for the measurement of long-run trends in inequality.
8
As we will see, the long-run evolutions that I document are statistically significant, but manyof the year-to-year variations are not.

7
Another obvious limitation of the present paper is that cleavages structures cannot beproperly analyzed without using other types of sources and materials, including party
manifestos, political discourses, and other non-voting expressions of opinion.
Platforms and promises are not always straightforward to analyze and compare overtime and across countries, however. Looking at cleavages structures, as revealed by
the changing structure of the electorates, gives an interesting snapshot on how thedifferent social groups perceive the various parties and coalitions and what they arelikely to bring to them.

Last but not least: this paper is already very long, so in order to save on space I
choose to focus upon changing political cleavages among the voting population andto leave my results on abstention in the on-line data appendix. Maybe unsurprisingly,
the massive increase in abstention, which took place in all three countries between
the 1950s-1960s and the 2000s-2010s, arose for the most part within the lower
education and lower income groups. 9 A natural interpretation is that these voters do
not feel well represented in the “multiple-elite” party system. This also would need to
be investigated more thoroughly in future research.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, I present my results onchanging political cleaves for the case of France. I then proceed with the case of the
US (Section 3) and Britain (Section 4). In Section 5, I present simple two-dimensionalmodels of inequality, beliefs and redistribution, which might help to interpret some ofthese evolutions. In effect, these models build upon some previous work of mine
(Piketty, 1995) and introduce multiple dimensions of inequality (domestic vs external
inequality; education vs income/wealth) in the simplest possible manner in order toaccount for observed patterns. Although I view the primary contribution of thisresearch as historical/empirical, it is my hope to convince the reader that thetheoretical part also has a little bit of interest. Finally, Section 6 offers concludingcomments and research perspectives.

9

See Appendix Figures A1-A2.

8
Section 2. Changing Political Cleavages in France

In this section, I present detailed results on the changing structure of politicalcleavages for the case of France. I begin by briefly describing the evolution of thestructure of political parties and popular vote in France over the 1945-2017 period(section 2.1), and the post-electoral surveys that I will be using (section 2.2). I thenpresent basic results on changing voting cleavages by gender and age (section 2.3),
before moving on to my main results on the reversal of the education cleavage(section 2.4), income and wealth (section 2.5), and the shift to “multiple-elite” party
system (section 2.6). I finally present results on changing cleavages by religion andforeign origins (section 2.7) and on the emergence of two-dimensional, four-quarter
political cleavages in France (section 2.8).

Section 2.1. Changing Political Parties and Electoral Results in France 1946-2017

The French multi-party system has always been substantially more complicated anddiversified than the US and British two-party systems. This can be attributed to thedifferences in electoral system (two-round vs one-round), though this itself could beendogenous, at least in part. 10 In order to analyze changing voting patterns andpolitical cleavages in France, I will exploit both presidential and legislative elections.

I first describe the general evolution of presidential elections. Beginning in 1965,
French voters have been electing their president directly via universal suffrage, using
a two-round electoral system. 11 Only the top two contenders in the first round areallowed to compete in the second round. 12 One of the objectives of the reform was toreinforce executive power and stability, and to some extent it contributed to the
10 For classic references on the interplay between party systems and electoral systems, seee.g. Duverger (1951) and Lijphart (1994).

11 There was a first and failed attempt in 1848 to elect Presidents via universal suffrage (thewinner of the election decided to become Emperor Napoleon III and to stop conducting open
elections altogether). This led to a long interruption, until De Gaulle imposed the current
system by referendum in 1962 (with a first application for the presidential election of 1965).
Between 1871 and 1962, the President was elected by Parliament and had limited powers.
12 This is the same electoral system that is currently used for legislative elections in each of
the approximately 570 constituencies, except that in legislative elections all candidates who
made more than 12,5% of the registered electorate in the first round (i.e. about 15-20% of
the vote depending on turnout) are qualified for the second round (and not only the top two).

9
emergence of something closer to a two-party system in France (or at least to a twocoalition system). In most presidential elections since 1965, one indeed observes inthe second round a pretty tight race between a “left” or “center-left” candidate (usually
supported by the socialist party, the communist party and other left-wing parties) anda “right” or “center-right” candidate (usually supported by the Gaullist party and otherright-wing parties). The electoral scores obtained by both contenders have generally
been close to a perfect split of the popular vote into two halves: the largest margins
have been of the order of 55-45 (De Gaulle vs Mitterand in 1965) or 54-46 (Mitterandvs Chirac in 1988), and have usually been closer to 51-49 (Giscard vs Mitterand in1974) or 52-48 (Hollande vs Sarkozy in 2012). The complete set of second-roundpresidential races that I will be focusing upon in order to analyze changing politicalcleavages is described on Figure 2.1a.

I will also be using legislative elections outcomes, first because they cover longer
historical periods (legislative elections have been conducted approximately every five
years since the beginning of the Third Republic in 1871), and next because they
provide a better testimony of the complexity of French politics (though this is not mymain focus here). I summarize on Figure 2.1b the evolution of popular vote sharesobtained by left-wing parties (combining center-left, left, and extreme-left parties) andright-wing parties (combining center-right, right, and extreme-right parties) in all
legislative elections that were conducted in France between 1946 and 2017. 13 Theclassification of parties that I use here corresponds to the way parties are describedby voters (using the questions on left-right party scales that are available in postelectoral surveys) and is largely non-controversial in the study of French politics. 14
The only parties that I left out of this left-right classification are those which voters do
not rank in a consistent manner or refuse to rank (such as regionalist parties). In
practice, their share of the popular vote is usually very small: typically less than 3% of
the vote (see Figure 2.1b). 15 If we exclude these other votes, we obtain the simple
13 I use first-round legislative elections because they are more meaningful (many parties do

not qualify for the second round in a large number of constituencies).
Voters are asked to rank parties on a left-right scale usually going from 1 to 10 or 1 to 7. Inorder to classify parties one can simply use the the average rank attributed to them by
voters. Unsurprisingly, communists appear to be ranked at the left of socialists, which are
ranked at the left of center-right parties, themselves at the left of extreme-right parties.
15
One major exception is the 32% vote share obtained in 2017 by the self-designated« centrist » LRM-Modem alliance (which I split 50-50 between center-right and center-left on
14

10
left-vs-right decomposition of the vote represented on Figure 2.1c, which I will beusing in order to analyze changes in political cleavages (together with thepresidential votes reported on Figure 2.1a).

I stress that this basic left-vs-right characterization of the French party system should
be viewed as an enormous simplification of a much more complex landscape. The
only reason for making this simplification is that in the context of this paper I am
primarily interested in establishing broad long-run evolutions, and most importantly inmaking comparisons with the evolution of political cleavages observed in the US andBritain (two countries with well-established two-party systems). The fact that we findsimilar evolutions of political cleavages in the three countries is in itself interesting,and could not have been documented without this simple left-vs-right characterizationof the French party system.

That being said, let me emphasize once again that one cannot properly analyze andunderstand French political dynamics without taking into account the complexity ofeach coalition. 16 In order to give a sense of this complexity, I decompose on Figure
2.1d the total left-wing vote in French legislative elections 1946-2017 into three main
components (extreme-left, left, center-left). The “extreme-left” component includes
the communist party (PCF) and other extreme-left parties (such as LO, LCR, NPA,
PG, LFI, etc.). The “left” component includes mostly the socialist party (SFIO-PS) as
well as a number of smaller allied parties (including various green parties). 17 The“extreme-left” was the strongest component in the immediate post-war period (with
28% of the popular vote for PCF in 1946, its highest historical score), and wasovertaken by the “left” during the 1970s-1980s. I have included in the “center-left”
component the Radicals and its followers (PRG, etc.) as well as half of the LRMModem vote in 2017. The Radicals used to be the most pro-Republic party during thethe series reported on Figures 2.1b-2.1d). I will return below to the particular case of the2017 election (see in particular section 2.8).
16This also applies to Britain and the US, albeit in different institutional contexts (i.e. oneneeds to take into account the various factions within each party, the dynamics of the primarysystem, etc.).
17 The French socialist party was founded in 1905 and used the name SFIO (Section
française de l’internationale ouvrière) to designate itself until 1969 (after which it used theacronym PS, Parti socialiste). The communist component (PCF, Parti communiste français)splitted from SFIO in 1920, and has recently been overtaken by LFI (La France insoumise).

11
early decades of the Third Republic (when monarchist and bonapartist groups
dominated the right-hand half of the political spectrum) and until World War 1, before
being overtaken on their left by socialists and communists during the interwar period(during which the three components of the left were often of comparable size, inparticular during “Front Populaire” 1936 coalition government). This “center-left”
component became very small during the 1960s-1970s, but recently re-gained
strength with the 2017 election (in a certain way).

I also decompose on Figure 2.1e the total right-wing vote in French legislativeelections 1946-2017 into three components (extreme-right, right, center-right). The“extreme-right” component includes the FN (Front National) and other parties such as
the Poujadist movement in 1956 (when Le Pen was first elected). The “right”
component includes the various “Gaullist” and post-Gaullist parties (RPF, UDR, RPR,
UMP, LR, etc.). The “center-right” component includes the MRP in the immediate
post-war period and various parties in the following decades (UDF, UDI, etc., as wellas half of the LRM-Modem vote in 2017). I should stress again that the frontiers
between these various components are uncertain and porous, both within the left andwithin the right, and that the broad left vs right coalitions are themselves highly
unstable, and do not necessarily imply any particular ability to govern together. 18
They should merely be viewed as a way to cut the electorate into approximatively two
halves (on the basis of left-right scales used by voters themselves) in order to makehistorical and international comparisons. I will later return to the discussion of how
meaningful these groupings really are when I present the results on the long-run
evolution of political cleavages – as measured by the evolution of the structure of thecorresponding electorates – and make comparisons between France and the othertwo countries (see in particular section 4.6).

18 In particular, the right and center-right components never shared a governing coalition withthe extreme-right since 1946 (except during brief periods in some regions after the 2004
regional elections). The left, center-left and extreme-left components did share national
governing coalitions in some instances (e.g. after the elections of 1936, 1981 and 1997), but
not in others (e.g. between 1947 and 1958, the ruling “Troisième Force” coalition generally
included the left, center-left and center-right; during the Third Republic, i.e. between 1871
and 1940, the center-left Radicals also often formed coalitions with the center-right; finally,
the governing majority following the 2017 is also based on a “centrist” coalition borrowing
both from the center-left and the center-right).

12Section 2.2. Data Sources: French Post-Electoral Surveys 1958-2017

There exists a long tradition of post-electoral surveys in France. Major surveys havebeen conducted after all national elections (legislative and presidential) since 1958
(namely in 1958, 1962, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1981, 1986,
1988, 1993, 1995, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017). Most of these surveys wereconducted by a consortium of academic organizations; the corresponding micro-files
have been well preserved and documented, and are easily accessible. 19

These post-electoral surveys are reasonnably large in size (typically about 4000
observations, though the earlier surveys are somewhat smaller, i.e. around 20002500). As we shall see, this is sufficient to deliver highly significant results regarding
long-run evolutions (though not necessarily for year-to-year variations). Thesesurveys include detailed questionnaires involving dozens of variables on sociodemographic characteristics, including in particular gender, age, family situation,
education (including highest degree obtained), occupation, religion, and income (witha relatively large number of income brackets, typically about 10-15 brackets). One ofthe particularities of the French post-electoral surveys is that they also include
relatively detailed information on wealth and asset ownership, beginning with the1978 survey, which turns out to be particularly interesting for our purposes (more on
this in section 2.5 below). Recent surveys also include very useful information on
foreign origins (see section 2.7).

All surveys include questions about voting behavior for the current election (thesurvey typically takes place in the two weeks following election day), as well as
retrospective questions about voting behavior in past elections (typically the past twoor three elections). We focus upon the current-election variables (except for the 1956
19 Most post-electoral surveys since 1958 were organized by FNSP (Fondation nationale dessciences politiques) and its various research centers in political science (in particular
CEVIPOF), and are currently being archived and distributed by the ADISP-CDSP data center(French data archives for the social sciences, quetelet.casd.eu). This includes in particular
the surveys conducted in 1958, 1962, 1978, 1988, 1995, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012 and 2017.
Some other surveys (in particular those conducted after the 1967 and 1968 elections) wereorganized by other academic teams and are distributed via ICPSR. A small number of postelectoral surveys (in particular those following the 1974 and 1981 elections) were organized
by a consortium of media organizations and do not seem to have been preserved in microfile format (only published tabulations are available). See on-line data appendix for details.

13election, for which we use the retrospective question asked in the 1958 survey), but
we also checked that we obtain the same results using retrospective variables. 20 All
technical details and computer codes describing the way I have used these surveys
are available in the on-line data appendix.

Section 2.3. Evolution of Gender and Age Cleavages

I begin by describing the evolution of French political cleavages with respect togender and age. I should stress that there is nothing really new here: the substantial
novel results begin with the reversal of the education cleavage in the next section.
Before looking at voting cleavages by education and income, it is useful however tohave in mind the basic results regarding voting patterns by gender and age.

Regarding gender, I confirm a well-known result in the political science literature,according to which women have become more left-wing over time. This pattern has
been found both in Western Europe and North America (see e.g. Inglehart and Norris
2000; Edlund and Pande 2002). 21 I observe the same general voting pattern forFrance. I.e. in the 1950s and early 1960s, the difference between the fraction of
women voting for left-wing parties and the fraction of men voting for left-wing parties
was large and negative, of the order of about -15 percentage points; the size of thisgap gradually dropped in absolute terms during the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s,
and since the late 1980s this gap has been close to 0, i.e. women and men vote inapproximately the same manner (see Figure 2.2a).

I also report on Figure 2.2b the same differential after controlling for age, family
situation (single vs married/cohabiting), education (highest degree), householdincome bracket and wealth bracket. As one can see, this has relatively little impact on

20

Retrospective questions are generally biased in terms of levels (i.e. in retrospect more
voters generally report generally to have voted for the winner than the observed fraction andwhat they report the week immediately after the election), but not in terms of socio-economic
differentials (i.e. the left-vs-right voting gaps by gender, age, education, income are about thesame in retrospective variables as in current variables).
21 Edlund and Pande (2002) relate their findings to the decline of marriage and the rise ofdivorce and the economic fragility of women. The results I obtain for France are notinconsistent with this explanation, but suggest a somewhat more complex story, involving
transformations in the structure of the ideological conflict about women’s role (see below).

14
the trend (there are counterbalancing forces). If one includes religious practice
however (which we observe beginning in 1967), then the trend entirely disappears(see Figure 2.2c). That is, the only reason why women appear to vote more for rightwing parties than men in France in the 1960s-1970s is because they more often
report to be practicing catholics; controlling for religious beliefs and practice, they
vote roughly in the same manner as men.

More precisely, the differentials reported on Figures 2.2b-2.2c (and on all subsequent
similar figures) come from simple linear regressions of the following form:
leftit = α + βt xit + γct cit + ԑit(E1)

With: leftit = 1 if left-wing vote, 0 if right-wing votexit = explanatory variable of interest (here gender: xit=1 for women and xit=0 for men)cit = control variables (here age, family situation, income, wealth, religion) 22
In the absence of control variables, the coefficient βt is simply equal to the difference
between left-wing vote among women and men in election year t reported on Figure
2.2a (i.e. βt = E(leftit=1, xit=1) - E(leftit=1, xit=0)). As one adds control variables, one
obtains the coefficients βt reported on Figures 2.2b-2.2c and other similar figures.
I should also make clear that the coefficients βt reported on Figures 2.2a-2.2c (and all
subsequent figures) combine the results obtained from all post-electoral surveys andelections (using both presidential and legislative elections). In practice, the results
come from legislative elections for years 1956, 1958, 1962, 1967, 1973, 1978, 1986,
1993 and 1997 (when there was no presidential election), and from presidential
elections for years 1965, 1974 and 1995 (when there was no legislative election) andyears 1981, 1988, 2002, 2007, 2012 and 2017 (when there were both presidential
22 In our baseline specifications, control variables enter as dummy variables. We use fivecategorical values for age (18-24, 25-34, 35-49, 50-64, 65+) and all available values andbrackets for education, income and wealth. In addition I also include employment status(wage earner, self employed, or not working). For religion, I distinguish between practicing
and non-practicing catholics (more or less than once a month at church), atheists (noreligion) and other religion (more on this in section 2.7 below). I have also conducted probit
regressions and they yield similar results. Given that the coefficients are easier to interpretwith simple linear probability regressions, I focus on the latter.

15
and legislative election; I choose to report presidential coefficients βt for these years,
but the results are virtually identical with legislative elections coefficients). 23

The fact that the gender effect disappears after controlling for religion is suggestive,
but not entirely conclusive. The process through which women have become moreleft-wing over time (which we also find for the US and Britain) involves complex
issues which are beyond the scope of the present paper. 24

Regarding age, I confirm the common intuition according to which younger voterstend to be more left-wing than older voters. However the youth also appears to behighly volatile: the gap between the fraction of young (18-to-34-year-old) and old (65year-old and over) voters supporting left-wing parties was as large 30 points in the
1970s (and about 20 points in the mid 2000s), as compared to as little as 5-10 points
when De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy were elected for the first time (see Figure 2.2d).
We observe the same strong time variations if we compare age groups 18-34, 35-64
and 65+ (see Figure 2.2e) and if we include controls for gender, family situation,
education, income, wealth and religion (see Figures 2.2f-2.2g). Generally speaking,the young seem to lean strongly to the left following long periods of right-wing
governments, and to lean much more modestly to the left (or even not at all) following
periods of left-wing governments. I find similar results for the US and Britain.

23

This is not saying that electoral scores obtained by the left and right in presidential andlegislative elections conducted during the same year are always identical in levels (though
they are usually fairly close), but rather that the left vs right voting differentials with respect togender, age, education, income, wealth, etc., are the same for presidential and legislativeelections. For presidential elections 1973, 2002 and 2017 (when the left was eliminated fromthe second round), we use first-round voting for left vs right candidates (more on this below).
24
The difficult question is to understand why women used to express stronger religious
practice and beliefs, and what this really means. This evolution is certainly related to thegradual emergence of gender equality as a central political issue in recent decades. Back inthe 1950s-1960s, gender equality was not a very salient issue: the patriarchal, bread-winner
ideology was largely dominant, and one might argue that the traditional housewife role(which a majority of women ended up choosing – or were induced to choose – at the age ofchild rearing) was better rationalized by conservative and religious discourses; hence
women’s higher religiosity and stronger right-wing preferences; of course causality is likely to
go both ways here.

16
Section 2.4. The Reversal of the Education Cleavage

I now move to the main results, namely the complete reversal of the education
cleavage. At the beginning of the period, i.e. in the 1950s-1960s, the more educatedvoters systematically vote more for the right: the higher the education level, thehigher the right-wing vote. At the end of the period, i.e. in the 2000s-2010s, I observe
the complete opposite pattern: the higher the education level, the higher the left-wing
vote. This complete reversal takes place in a gradual manner over more than half acentury and appears to be extremely robust.

The simplest indicator which one can use in order to visualize this long-term trend is
the difference between the fraction of university graduates voting left and the fractionof non-university graduates voting left. This difference was large and negative in the
1950s and early 1960s, with a gap of about -20 percentage points; the gap gradually
dropped in absolute value during the 1960s-1970s and was close to 0 during the
1980s; it became slightly positive in 1990s, and strongly positive in the 2000s-2010s,
with a gap around +10 percentage points (see Figure 2.3a). The shift between the
1950s-1960s and the 2000s-2010s amounts to about 30 percentage points, whichcorresponds to a complete and massive change in the relation between educationand voting behavior.

Next, it is striking to see that if we look separately at voters with primary, secondary
and tertiary degrees, the relation between education and left-wing vote used to besystematically and monotonically downward-sloping, and that it has become
systematically and monotonically upward sloping (see Figure 2.3b). In the 1950s1960s, election after election, voters with primary degrees vote more for the left thanthose with secondary degrees, who themselves vote more the left than those withtertiary degrees (higher education) (see Figure 2.3c). In the 2000s-2010s, it is exactly
the opposite: election after election, voters with primary degrees vote more for theright than those with secondary degrees, who themselves vote more the right thanthose with tertiary degrees (higher education) (see Figure 2.3d). Looking at thepatterns for all French elections between 1956 and 2017 gives a sense of how deep
and far-reaching this transformation is (see Figure 2.3e).

17
It is also striking to see that this holds within the set of university graduates. Back inthe 1970s, voters with more advanced tertiary degrees (in particular the graduates ofgrandes écoles, i.e. selective higher education, as opposed to shorter and/or lessselective higher education tracks) vote more for the right than those with lessadvanced degrees. In the 2000s-2010s, it is exactly the opposite: the more advanced
the degrees, the stronger the vote for the left (see Figure 2.3f).

Finally, the reversal of the education cleavage appears to be strongly significant froma statistical standpoint (see Figure 2.3g), and highly robust to the inclusion of control
variables. Generally speaking, the inclusion of control variables affects the levels of
our simple education-gradient indicator (i.e. the difference between the fractions ofuniversity graduates and non-graduates voting for the level), but does not affect thetrend. For instance, including gender and age control variables pushes the education
gradient downwards: this is because young cohorts tend to be both more educatedand more left-wing. However this effect is moderate in size as compared to the total
education gradient, and most importantly the age effect has always been there (withvolatile variations but no long term trend, as we early noticed), so that this does notaffect the trend (see Figure 2.3h).

Conversely, including income and wealth variables pushes the education gradient
upwards: this is because higher income and/or higher wealth individuals tend to beboth more educated and more right-wing (see below). However this effect is again
moderate in size as compared to the total education gradient, and most importantly it
is approximately constant over time, so that controlling for income and wealth again
leaves the trend unaffected (see Figure 2.3i). The same conclusion applies if one
also controls for father’s occupation (see Figure 2.3j). I also used other control
variables, including father’s and mother’s education level (when such variables areavailable), and this leaves the trend unaffected.

From an intergenerational perspective, it is worth stressing that the fraction ofuniversity graduates has increased enormously over the past half-century. Back in
1956, 72% of the electorate held primary school degrees, 23% held secondary
degrees, and only 5% held tertiary degrees; by 2012, primary degree holders makeonly 18% of the electorate, vs 56% for secondary degree holders and 26% with

18
tertiary degrees (including 16% with advanced degrees) (see Figure 2.3b above). In
other words, when we look at the parents and grand-parents of the individuals votingin the 2000s-2010s, almost everybody had parents or grand-parents who wereprimary (or sometime secondary) degree holders. But the point is that controlling forfamily origins, those who made it to higher degrees vote more for the left, and those
who did not make it vote more for the right.

In order to take into account the structural change in the distribution of educational
attainment, I also estimated the evolution of the difference between the fraction of left
vote within top 10% education voters and the fraction of left vote within bottom 90%
education voters (education deciles are defined within a given year, and average
decile-level vote shares are computed assuming a constant left score within eacheducation-year cell). I find the same long-run trend, both before controls and after
controls (see Figure 2.3k). This is not too surprising, given that we observe acomplete reversal of the education gradient (from monotonically decreasing tomonotonically increasing), but this is probably the most meaningful way to measurechanges in education cleavages over time (and also the best manner to makecomparisons with income and wealth cleavages).

One explanation that has been put forward in the political science literature andwhich could potentially explain the reversal of the education cleavage is the rise of“universalist values” and the rise of the migration cleavage (see e.g. Bornshier 2010).
Unfortunately (or fortunately), questions on attitudes toward immigrants were notasked in French post-electoral surveys before 1986-1988, and in any case these
attitudinal questions are obviously imperfect. For what it is worth, I have also included
the immigrant question in the regression: one can see that this reduces the highereducation left-wing coefficient (as expected), albeit in a relatively moderate manner,
and without affecting the trend (see Figure 2.3l). Needless to say, this is highly
imperfect evidence, and it is hard to draw any strong conclusion from this. I will later
return to this discussion (see in particular sections 2.7-2.8).

19
Section 2.5. Stability and Attenuation of Income/Wealth Cleavages

I now present the results on the income and wealth cleavages. One of the most
simplistic – yet very widespread – ways of describing the left vs right cleavage
involves the poor vs rich dimension: poor vote for the left, while rich vote for the right.
As I already highlighted in the introduction, the empirical evidence is actually a lot
more mixed and complex. If we look at the profile of left-wing vote by income
percentile in France over the 1956-2017 period, we find that the curve is relatively flatwithin the bottom 90% of the income distribution: one needs to enter the group of top
10% incomes (and especially the top 5% and top 1% incomes) to see a significantly
lower vote share for the left (see Figure 2.4a). In effect, several counterbalancing
factors contribute to attenuate income effects within the bottom 90%. In particular,
many self-employed workers – and especially small independent peasants, whichhave long been very numerous in France – have at the same time relatively low
incomes and a weak propensity to vote for the socialist and communist left (which
has long been associated to the defense of wage earners and the collectivization of
the means of the production, something independent producers usually do not liketoo much). This is yet another illustration of the multi-dimensionality of inequality andpolitical cleavages.

If we look at the profile of left-wing vote by wealth percentile (rather than by income
percentile), then we find a much steeper curve: the percentage of left-wing vote issystematically much higher in lower wealth deciles than among voters in the middleof the distribution, and much higher in the middle than among top 10% wealthholders (see Figure 2.4b). This much steeper profile illustrates the fact that thepolitical conflict about economic inequality has historically been much more a conflict
about property than a conflict about income per se. 25 These findings also show how
critical it is to have information about wealth and asset ownership (and not only about
income) in order to analyze political cleavages. The wealth variables available inpost-1978 French post-electoral surveys are imperfect and probably underestimate
the steepness of the profile, but they are sufficiently precise to demonstrate that25

The property of the means of production does play a special role : as noted above, selfemployed and systematically vote more to the right in French post-electoral surveys(controlling for other factors). But even for a given employment status (wage-earner, selfemployed, not working), I find the same steep profile of vote by wealth percentile.

20
wealth is a stronger determinant of voting attitude than income. 26 To my knowledge
this simple fact has not been established in previous research. 27

I now turn to the evolution over time of the income and wealth gradients. As one canalready see from Figures 2.4a-2.4b, the steepness of the profile seems to beparticularly strong at the beginning of the period (from the 1950s to 1980s), especiallyat the top of the income and wealth distributions, and to decline over time. In order tofurther investigate this issue, it is useful to focus upon a simple steepness indicator,
namely the difference between the fraction voting left among top 10% income
earners and the fraction voting left among bottom 90% income earners (and thecorresponding difference for top 10% and bottom 90% wealth holders). The main
results are reported on Figures 2.4c-2.4d. Several remarks are in order.

First, in the absence of controls, the income gradient is clearly declining over time:
the gap in left vote between top 10% and bottom 90% income earners used to bearound -10 and -15 percentage points from the 1950s to the 1980s, and it is of theorder of -5 points in the 2000s-2010s (see Figure 2.4c). However the attenuation of
the income gradient over time looks less strong after the introduction of controls, andespecially education controls. This is due to the reversal of the education gradient:high-education and high-income always tend to be positively correlated; at the
beginning of the period, high-education is associated to stronger right-wing vote, sothat controlling for education reduces the impact of high-income on right-wing vote;conversely, at the end of the period, high-education to weaker right-wing vote, so that26 Generally speaking, the findings reported on Figures 2.4a-2.4b (and in subsequent results

on income and wealth deciles) are based upon the assumption of a fixed left vs right voting
fraction within each income and wealth bracket. This amounts to neglecting the withinbracket gradient and therefore to underestimate the total steepness of the income and wealthprofiles. In addition, regarding wealth, for most years we only observe categorical variables
on asset ownership (for about 5-10 asset categories), from which construct a composite
wealth index and decile indicator. We observe explicit wealth brackets in 2007, which allows
us to check that both methods deliver consistent results (but the comparison also shows thatthe wealth index method tends to underestimate somewhat the top gradient as compared to
the wealth bracket method). All details and computer codes are available on-line.
27
A number of papers have used wealth variables available in French and other surveys toanalyze the positive impact of asset ownership (and particularly of the ownership of “risky”
business and financial assets) on right-wing vote. See e.g. Foucault, Nadeau and LewisBeck (2013), Foucault (2017) and Persson and Martinsson (2016). To my knowledge theseworks do not explicitly compare the magnitude of the income effect vs wealth effect.
Regarding the 1978 French post-electoral survey and the introduction of wealth variables (arightly celebrated innovation), see the collection of essays edited by Capdevielle et al (1981).

21
controlling for education reinforces the income effect. After including controls, the gap
in left vote between top 10% and bottom 90% income groups is relatively close in
1958-1962 and in 2007-2012, i.e. around -10 points, so it is unclear whether wereally see an attenuation of the gap at this stage.

Next, one should be careful about the interpretation of the results for 2017 (which I
represent using dashed lines). Without controls, the income gap in left vote becomesslightly positive in 2017, meaning that top 10% voters support the “left” more thanbottom 90% income voters. However the gap is back to zero (very slightly negative)
levels after inclusion of controls (see Figure 2.4c). Most importantly, it is unclear at
this stage whether the 2017 election should be viewed as an outlier or a new normal.
In the results presented on Figure 2.4c for income cleavages in 2017 (as well as in
the results that we presented in previous subsections for gender, age and education
cleavages in 2017), I define the left vs right vote on the basis of the first round of the2017 presidential elections: “left” vote includes the votes for Mélenchon/Hamon(28%) and Macron (24%), i.e. a total of 52%; “right” vote includes the votes for Fillon(22%) et Le Pen/Dupont-Aignan (26%), i.e. a total of 48%. This is not an entirely
unreasonable definition of “left” vs “right”, in the sense that it cuts the electorate into
approximately two halves, and that most voters (when asked to rank parties andcandidates on a left-right scale) rank Macron to the left of Fillon/LePen/DupontAignan. However it is clear that such left vs right groupings are highly unstable andarbitrary, and that the 2017 French election is better viewed as the archetype of a
two-dimensional, four-quarter election (see the discussion in section 2.7 below; seeespecially Table 2.1). If we were to use solely the first-round Melenchon-Hamon
presidential vote as “left” vote (and/or the legislative left vote, excluding
LRM/Modem), then the gap in left vote between top 10% and bottom 90% income
voters would be negative in 2017 (roughly at the same level as in 2012: about -10
points before controls, -5 points after controls). 28 And if we were to look at the gap infirst-round Macron presidential vote (and/or in the legislative LRM/Modem vote)between top 10% and bottom 90% income voters would be strongly positive (about+15 points before controls, and +10 points after controls).

28

In contrast, the results on education cleavages are virtually unaffected if we move to thisMélenchon-Hamon definition of left vote (rather than Mélenchon-Hamon-Macron).

22
Finally, if we look at the evolution of the wealth gradient, we also find an attenuationof the gap in left vote between top 10% and bottom 90% wealth voters, although theattenuation is again less clear once we introduce control variables (see Figure 2.4d).
The one stable fact is that the wealth gradient is systematically larger than theincome gradient: after controls, and leaving aside 2017, the gap in left vote between
top 10% and bottom 90% voters is usually between -15 and -20 points for wealth andabout -10 points for income (see Figures 2.4c-2.4d). 29 The difference between thetwo is statistically significant, election after election, which shows that high wealth is astronger determinant of right wing vote than high income. 30

Section 2.6. Multiple-Elite Party System or Great Reversal?

By combining the results on changing cleavages by education and by income/wealth,I am now in a position to synthetize my main findings. I compare on Figures 2.5a2.5b the evolution of the gap in left vote between university graduates and nonuniversity graduates and the gap in left vote between top 10% and bottom 10%
income voters, before and after controls. I do the same on Figures 2.5c-2.5d for theleft vote gap between top 10% and bottom 90% education voters and between top
10% and bottom 90% income voters, again before and after controls, which is theprobably the most meaningful way to make the comparison.

The general conclusion is clear: we have gradually moved from a class-based party
system to what I propose to label a “multiple-elite” party system. Back in the 1950s1960s, the party system was defined along class lines: the vote for left-wing parties
was associated to both low-education and low-income voters, while the vote for rightwing parties was associated to both high-education and high-income voters. The left
vote has gradually been associated with higher education voters, and in the 2000s2010s we have a system where high-education voters support the “left” while highincome support the “right”.

29

The wealth gap drops in absolute value in 2017 (though it is still negative), but again thisentirely comes from the highly affluent profile of the Macron vote.
30
See e.g. the confidence intervals on Figure 2.5f below.

23
The difficult question – a question that I am unable to fully answer in the present
paper – is to understand where this evolution comes from, and whether this is astable equilibrium or not. To the extent that high education commands high income inthe long-run, one might argue that a “multiple-elite” party system is inherently
unstable. That is, one might expect that the gap in left vote between top 10% andbottom 90% income voters will also come structurally positive in the future, just likethe gap in left vote between top 10% and bottom 90% education voters. If this was tohappen, this would correspond to a complete realignment of the party system: theformer “left” (which used to be associated to low-income, low-education voters) would
now be associated to high-income, high-education voters; whereas the former “right”(which used to be associated to high-income, high-education voters) would now be
associated to low-income, low-education voters. In effect, such a party system would
have little to do with the “left” vs “right” party system of the 1950s-1960s. Maybe it
should better be described as an opposition with the “globalists” (high-income, higheducation) and the “nativists” (low-income, low-education). This is roughly the way inwhich the new political actors themselves – e.g. Macron and Le Pen during the 2017
presidential election – tend to describe what they perceive to be the central politicalcleavage of our time (and indeed the second round of the French presidential
election of 2017 is a perfect illustration of this). 31

It is unclear however at this stage whether this complete realignment will take place.
One can also find some forces pushing for a stabilization of the “multiple-elite” party
system. One such force is the wealth effect. I compare on Figures 2.5e-2.5j theevolutions of gap in left vote between top and bottom voters along education, income
and wealth lines. The education gap has become strongly positive (i.e. higheducation voters now strongly support the “left”), the wealth gap has remained
strongly negative (i.e. high wealth voters maintain a strong support to the “right”),
while the income gap is in between the two and remains moderately negative. This
reflects the fact that income is determined by a combination of education (humancapital), wealth (non-human capital), and other factors. One could imagine a situation
where some families and individuals specialize in the accumulation of education,
while some others in the accumulation of wealth, so that the “multiple-elite” party
31

This “globalists” vs “nativists” cleavage was already visible in the 1992 and 2005 Frenchreferenda on Europe (as well in many parliamentary votes on Europe).

24
system persists. 32 Also some members of high-education elite might voluntarilychoose to make career choices that are financially less rewarding than the highincome and high-wealth elites. I will further discuss these issues when I present
evidence on changing political cleavages in the US and Britain (sections 3-4), andwhen I describe multi-dimensional models of inequality and political cleavages(section 5).

Section 2.7. The Transformation of Religious and Origin-Based Cleavages

I now turn to the evolution of religious and origin-based political cleavages. The
structure of the electorate by religion has changed substantially in France between
1967 (when questions on religious practice were first asked in post-electoral surveys)
and 2017. The fraction of the electorate reporting to be “Catholic” declined from 91%
to 55%, while the fraction reporting to have “no religion” rose from 6% to 35%, andthe fraction reporting “other religions” rose from 3% to 10% (see Figure 2.6a). Among“Catholics”, the fraction reporting to be “practicing Catholics” (which I define as thosereporting to go to the Church at least once a month) declined from 25% to 6%, andthe “non-practicing Catholics” dropped from 66% to 49%. Among “other religions”,
Islam rose from less than 1% to 5%, while Prostestantism/Judaïsm/Buddhism/otherrose from 3% to 5%. While Muslim voters are still a very small minority, they havebecome a noticeable minority (comparable in size to practicing Catholics).

Regarding the Catholic voters vs no-religion voters, we observe a strong andpersistent right vs left cleavage. The gap has reduced over time, but it still very
substantial and significant (see Figures 2.6b-2.6c). Catholic voters tend be older andto have higher income and wealth than voters with no religion, which partly explains
their support for right-wing parties. But even after controlling for all observablecharacteristics, practicing Catholics vote a lot more for the right, while Atheists(individuals who report no religion vote) a lot more for the left (see Figure 2.6d).
Although the magnitude of the impact has declined over time, it is still of the order of
32 Note that the correlation structure between education, income and wealth - as measured in

post-electoral surveys – appears to be relatively stable over time, at least as a first
approximation. That is, the raw correlation between income and education appears stablearound 0.3-0.35 over the 1958-2017 period, while the income-wealth raw correlation is stablearound 0.2-0.3, and the education-wealth correlation is stable around 0.1-0.15.

25
10-20 points in recent years, i.e. comparable or higher than the effects associated toeducation, income or wealth.

I now turn to the effects associated to other religions, and particularly Islam. Until
1978, Islam is not registered separately from other religions in post-electoral surveys.
In 1988 and 1995, Muslim voters make up about 1% of the electorate, and theirreported vote is more left-wing than that of catholic voters, and comparable to that ofvoters with no religion (see Figure 2.6e). Between 1997 and 2012, the fraction of(self-reported) Muslim voters in the electorate gradually rises from 1% to 5%, and thefaction of them voting for left-wing parties rises to even higher levels, typically in the
80%-90% range (see Figure 2.6f). Although the number of observations is limited, thefact that Muslim voters lean to the left is highly significant from a statisticalstandpoint, and more and more so over time (see Figure 2.6g-2.6h). Muslim voterstend be younger and have lower income and wealth than other voters, which partly
explains their left vote. However, all explanatory variables combined can only explaina relatively small part of the Muslim preference for the left: after taking into accountall controls, the impact is systematically of the order of 30-40 percentage points, year
after year (see Figure 2.6i). This is substantially larger than all other effects that westudied so far (gender, age, education, income or wealth).

The strong left-wing preference of Muslim voters could seem surprising, especially inlight of the fact that the left vote has historically been strongly associated to Atheists
vs Catholics in France (and is still is), and given that the family values (particularly
toward women’s role and homosexuality) of Muslim voters are pretty far from those oflefty Atheists. This suggests that there is something stronger going on in otherdimensions of the political conflict: presumably this has to do with the fact that Muslim
voters perceive to be a lot of hostility from right-wing parties (and more sympathy
from the left; more on this below).

Ideally, one would like to be able to distinguish between the effect on voting attitudes
coming from the reported Muslim religion and the effect coming from different foreign
origins (which might well have an impact on perceived discrimination and racism).
Unfortunately, detailed questions on family origins were not asked before the 2007
post-electoral survey, which limits how much one can say about this.

26

I report on Figure 2.6j the results obtained with foreign origins in 2007-2012. As of
2012, 72% of the French electorate reports to have no foreign grand-parent, while
19% reports to have at least one foreign grand-parent coming from another
European country (in practice mostly from Spain, Italy and Portugal), and 9% reports
to have at least one grand-parent coming from an extra-European country (in practicemostly from Maghreb and Sub-saharan Africa). Those with European foreign origins
vote eaxctly in the same way as voters with no foreign origin (with left scores equal to
49% for both groups in 2012, vs 52% for the entire electorate), while those with extraEuropean origins vote massively for the left (77%).

If we combine all explanatory factors of the vote, both socio-economic factors(gender, age, education, income, wealth) and religion/origins, we find that the pro-leftattitude of Muslim voters resists to the inclusion of foreign origins. More precisely,socio-economic control variables reduce the Muslim left-wing preference from +42
points to +38 points in 2012, and adding foreign origins (including separate dummies
for each region of origin) further reduces the effect to +26 points (see Figure 2.6k). In
other words, for given gender, age, education, income, wealth and region of origin(for instance North Africa), there is still a sizable effect associating self-reported
Muslim identity and left-wing vote. One natural interpretation is that Muslim votersperceive an additional, specific hostility from right-wing parties (and/or an additional,
specific sympathy from left-wing parties), as compared for instance to voters with
North African origins but who do not describe themselves as Muslim. 33 In theabsence of more detailed data (more observations/questions and/or longer historicalseries on countries of origin), it is difficult to go further.

Section 2.8. Two-Dimensional, Four-Quarter Political Cleavages in France

We also have other direct survey evidence about the strength of the migration
cleavage in French politics. Beginning in 1988, French post-electoral surveys
systematically ask voters whether they believe or not that there are too many
immigrants. The proportion of voters responding that there are too many immigrants
33

There is evidence on specific anti-Muslim labour market discrimination in France (seeValfort 2017), so this interpretation seems plausible.

27
has actually declined over time: it used to be as large as 70-75% in the 1980s anduntil the mid-1990s (vs 25-30% of voters believing that there are not too many
immigrants), and it has declined to about 50% in 2007-2012, with a rebound a little
above 55% in 2017 (see Figure 2.6l). However the intensity of the right vs leftcleavage on migration seems to have actually increased: the gap in left vote between
voters believing there are not too many immigrants and those believing the opposite
has always been large and positive (about 30-40 points, i.e. bigger than any othereffect except the Muslim effect), and if anything it seems to have risen between the
1980s and the 2010s, both before and after controls, albeit in a relatively irregularmanner (see Figure 2.6m). In other words, the issue of migration seems to havebecome more divisive over time: the population is split almost 50-50 as to whether
there are too many migrants or not (there is still a majority believing that there are too
many migrants, but there is now a large minority - of almost equal size - believing the
opposite), and the voting cleavage between the two quasi-halves is bigger than ever.

I will return to this discussion in section 5 when I present two-dimensional models of
inequality and redistribution, with a pro-migrants/anti-migrants cleavage and a proredistribution/anti-redistribution cleavage. For now, it suffices to note that when the
French voters are asked whether social justice entails further redistribution from therich to the poor, we also observe that the electorate is split into two halves ofcomparable size: the fraction of the electorate responding that we should reduce
inequality was equal to 52% in 2017 (vs about 55-60% in 2002-2012; see Figure2.6n). 34 The interesting point, however, is that the pro-migrants/anti-migrants halves
and the pro-proor/pro-rich halves are almost entirely uncorrelated, in the sense thatby combining these two questions we obtain four quarters of comparable size,
particularly in 2012-2017 (see Figure 2.6o).

The four quarters can be labeled as Internationalists-Egalitarians (pro-migrants, propoor); Internationalists-Inegalitarians (pro-migrants, pro-rich); Nativists-Inegalitarians

34

The rich-poor question is deliberately phrased in a fairly aggressive manner, namely: “Inorder to achieve social justice we need to take from the rich and give to the poor. Do you
agree or disagree?”. In the same manner as for the immigration questions (“There are too
many immigrants in France. Do you agree or disagree?”), I grouped together the answers“completely agree”/“somewhat agree” and “completely disagree”/”somewhat disagree” andexcluded the individuals who do not answer (less than 5%).

28
(anti-migrants, pro-rich); Nativists-Egalitarians (anti-migrants, pro-poor). Back in
2002, the Internationalists-Inegalitarians made much less than a quarter of theelectorate (only 12%); this is the group that has been growing the most (up to 23% in2007). Unfortunately the rich-poor question was not asked in the same manner
before 2002 (and the immigrant question was not asked at all before 1988), so it is
impossible to do consistent longer run analysis.

Finally it is interesting to note that this four-quarter decomposition of the electorate
fits very well with the results of 2017 French presidential election, which looks like aperfect illustration of two-dimensional, four-quarter politics. I.e. in the first round theelectorate was split into four groups of almost exactly equal size (see Table 2.1): 28%of the vote for the “left” candidates Mélenchon/Hamon (these happen to be the mostpro-migrants and pro-poor voters); 24% of the vote for the “centrist” candidate
Macron (these voters are also pro-migrants, though a bit less so, and they are also
pro-rich); 22% for the “right” candidate Fillon (these are anti-migrants and pro-richvoters); and 26% for the “extreme-right” candidates Le Pen/Dupont-Aignan (these are
the most anti-migrant voters, and they are also pro-poor). I will return to this
discussion and to the relation with the education vs income cleavages in section 5,
after presenting the results for the US and Britain.

29
Section 3. Changing Political Cleavages in the United States

In this section, I present detailed results on the changing structure of politicalcleavages for the case of the United States. I begin by briefly describing the evolutionof political parties and popular vote in the US over the 1948-2016 period (section3.1), and the post-electoral surveys that I will be using (section 3.2). I then present
basic breakdowns by gender and age (section 3.3), before moving on to my main
results on breakdowns by education (section 3.4), income and wealth (section 3.5),
and the shift to “multiple-elite” party system (section 3.6). I finally present results on
breakdowns by ethnic and foreign origins (section 3.7). In all of these dimensions, I
will stress the similarities and differences with the results obtained for France.

Section 3.1. Changing Political Parties and Electoral Results in the US, 1948-2016

The US party system is the best existing example of a two-party system (Democrats
vs Republicans). As such, it is much simpler than the French party system, and alsomuch simpler than most party systems observed in Europe (including in Britain) andaround the world. Although it is formally simple, the US party system is neverthelessrelatively exotic and mysterious for many outside observers in Europe andelsewhere: how is it that the Democrats, which were the pro-slavery party in the 19th
century, gradually became the New-Deal party and the “progressives” party over thecourse of the 20th century? One of the points that I am trying to make in this paper isthat a better understanding of this historical trajectory might be highly relevant toanalyze the evolution of multi-dimensional political cleavages that might occur inEurope, North America and elsewhere in the 21st century.

The apparent formal simplicity of the US party system should also not overshadow
the fact that there has always been large ideological heterogeneity within each of thetwo main parties. These conflicts are not being addressed via the continuous creationof a multitude of new parties (as they are in a country like France), but this does notmean they do not exist: they rather take different forms and involve different
institutional processes like factions and primaries in order to arbitrate them.

30
I will focus upon voting attitudes in US presidential elections (rather than incongressional elections), because they are usually more centered on national issues
and involve the same candidates and policy platform for all voters (by construction). 35
The shares in popular vote observed in US presidential elections 1948-2016 arereported on Figure 3.1a. As one can see, the vote shares obtained by third party
candidates are usually very small (less than 10% of the vote for all third party
candidates combined), with the exception of Wallace in 1968 (14%) and Perot in1992 and 1996 (20% and 10%, respectively). If we exclude these candidates andfocus upon the Democrats vs Republicans vote shares, we obtain the series reported
on Figure 3.1b. The scores are usually relatively close to 50-50, in the same way asin the second rounds of French presidential elections, though with a bit morevariance (up to 60-40). In what follows I will focus upon the Democrats vs
Republicans voting patterns (excluding third party voting), first because I am mostlyinterested in long run evolutions (and third party candidates are all unique in theirown way), and next because my main purpose is to make comparison with left-wing
vs right-wing voting patterns in France and Britain.

Section 3.2. Data Sources: US Post-Electoral Surveys 1948-2016

There exists a long tradition of post-electoral surveys in the US. I will be using two
main series of surveys: first the ANES series (American National Election Studies);and next the NEP series (National Exit Polls). Both series have strengths anddrawbacks (which is why I choose to use both).

The ANES surveys have been organized following every presidential election in the
US between 1948 and 2016 (and also after every mid-term congressional election).
They have been run by an academic consortium and the micro-files are easily
accessible. 36 In this paper, I choose to rely primarily on ANES surveys because they
provide the longest available consistent series. Their sample size was relatively
limited in early surveys (about 1000-2000 observations) but it has grown over time
35 I have also computed the same results for votes in congressional elections, and I find thesame transformations. See on-line data appendix for computer codes and series.
ANES micro-files are available on-line on ANES website (see www.electionstudies.org).
The academic consortium in charge of ANES has been based mostly at the University ofMichigan (ICPSR/ISR).

36

31(up to 4000-5000 observations in recent surveys). ANES surveys include dozens ofquestions on gender, age, education, occupation, income, religion, race, etc.
Unfortunately, unlike the French post-electoral surveys, they do not include detailed
questions on wealth and asset ownership. 37

The NEP series have been organized following every US presidential election
between 1972 and 2016 (and also after most congressional elections) by aconsortium of media organizations (including CBS, CNN, NYT, etc.). They are lesseasily accessible than the ANES micro-files, they do not cover the pre-1972 period,
and their questionnaire is more rudimentary and includes much fewer variables. 38
Also the income question asked in NEP usually includes much fewer income
brackets than the corresponding ANES question (typically 5-10 brackets in NEP
instead if 15-20 or more in ANES), so that it contains less information. 39 NEP does
not include wealth information (just like ANES). Given my purposes in this paper, theonly real advantage of NEP files is their bigger sample size (up to 20 000-25 000
observations in recent elections). I have therefore used NEP files mostly to performrobustness checks and to replicate ANES findings for the years and variables forwhich NEP data is available (see on-line appendix). In what follows I will focus upon
the ANES results.

Section 3.3. Evolution of Gender and Age Cleavages

I begin by describing the evolution of US political cleavages with respect to genderand age. In the same way as for France, I should stress again that there is nothing
really new here: the substantial novel results begin with the reversal of the education
cleavage in the next section.
37

We do have basic information on home ownership and self-employment status, which
gives similar results than in France. Unfortunately we cannot compute wealth deciles.
38
NEP are exit polls (i.e. they are run right outside voting booths), while ANES are postelectoral surveys (i.e. individuals are interviewed in the days after the election, typically within
two weeks, which allows for a longer questionnaire). I have accessed the NES files via theRoper Center (ropercenter.cornell.edu). The Roper Center also archives Gallup exit polls andopinion surveys that were organized in the US regularly since 1935, and which in somecases might include more detailed variables than those available in ANES surveys (see e.g.
Kuziemko and Washington (2018) for a recent use of the information on racial attitudes
available in early Gallup surveys; see section 3.7 below).
39
Typically it is difficult to isolate the top 5% or top 1% income group with the NEP data (forsome years it is even difficult to isolate the top 10% group), while this is do-able with ANES.

32

Regarding gender, I confirm previous findings according to which women have
gradually turned from right to level during the past five to six decades (see Figure3.2a). As compared to France, the trend is very similar, though the level is different:in the US, women used to be moderately right-wing (pro-Republicans) and over timethey have turned strongly left-wing (pro-Democrats); while in France, and to someextent in other European countries, women used to be strongly right-wing (apparently
in relation to their stronger religious beliefs), and over time they have turned
moderately left-wing (or neutral; see Figure 2.2a-2.2c above). This is consistent withprevious findings (see e.g. Edlund and Pande 2002), and this is not an issue on
which this paper has much to contribute (see the discussion in section 2.3 above).

Regarding age, I again find the same basic pattern as for France: young votersgenerally tend to support the left substantially more than old voters, but the gap ishighly volatile, can sometime be very close to zero, or even go the other way, forinstance at the time of the Reagan election in 1980 (see Figure 3.2b).

Section 3.4. The Reversal of the Education Cleavage

I now turn to my findings on the reversal of the education cleavage. Generally
speaking, the results that I obtain for the US regarding education cleavages arealmost identical to those obtained for France. Given the enormous differences inparty systems, socio-economic structures and political histories between the twocountries, this is very striking.

I report on Figure 3.3a the simplest indicator of education cleavage, i.e. the gap in
Democratic vote between university graduates and non-university graduates. Back inthe 1940s-1960s, the gap was large and negative, around -15 points: university
graduates voted a lot more for Republican candidates than other voters. The gap has
gradually shrank over time, and by 2016 it has become strongly positive, close to +15
points. Of course there might be a special Trump effect in 2016 – an issue on which I
will return below, and which appears to be particularly strong regarding the income
cleavage. Regarding education, however, what we see in 2016 does not seem out ofline with what we in previous years: it rather fits well in the continuity of a long-run

33
evolution, in the same way as what we saw regarding the education cleavage inFrance for the 2017 election (see section 2.4 above).

I also report on Figure 3.3a the evolution of the education voting gap before and after
controls. The controls for gender and age have limited impact, while the controls forincome and race have a significant upward effect on the levels. This is due to the factthat minority voters tend both to have much lower education levels and to votemassively more for Democrats. Controlling for race, the gap in Democratic votebetween university graduates and non-university graduates is pushed upwards, andbecomes marginally positive during the 1980s-1990s and strongly positive in the
2000s-2010s (much before the Trump election).

The detailed results by highest degree are also very striking (see Figure 3.3b). Backin the 1940s-1960s, we observe a monotonically decreasing relationship between
education and Democratic support: the higher the education level, the lower the
Democratic vote. E.g. in the 1948, more than 60% of voters with primary or nodegree (i.e. high-school dropouts, 63% of the electorate at the time) supported the
Democratic candidate, vs about 50% of voters with secondary degrees (high-school
graduates, 31% of the electorate) and only 20% of voters with university degrees)(only 6% of the electorate). This monotonically decreasing relationship has changed
gradually during the 1970s-1980s-1990s, and by the 2000s-2010s it has started tolook more and more upward sloping at the top of educational pyramid.

By 2016, the relation between education and Democratic vote is close to being
monotonically increasing. The only exception (and the only difference in France) liesat the very bottom of the distribution: high-school drop-outs support the Democratic
candidate more than high-school graduates. This is largely due to a minority effect(though not entirely). Above high-school level, the relation between education and
Democratic vote is strongly increasing: in particular, 70% of voters with Master
degrees (11% of the electorate) supported the Democratic candidate, and 76% ofvoters with PhD degrees (2% of the electorate), vs 51% of voters with Bachelor
degrees (19% of the electorate) and 44% of high-school graduates (59% of theelectorate) (see Figure 3.3b).

34
Given the magnitude of educational expansion over the 1948-2016 period, the mostmeaningful way to analyze changing political cleavages by education is probably tolook at the gap in voting behavior between top 10% education voters and bottom
90% education voters (and more generally to compare relative positions in thepercentile distribution of education rather than absolute levels). In the same manner
as for France, I define education deciles within a given year, and I estimate decilelevel vote shares by assuming a fixed vote score within education-year cell. 40

The results on the gap in Democratic vote between top 10% and bottom 90%
education voters are reported on Figure 3.3c, both before and after controls. The
complete reversal of the gap, from large and negative in the 1940s-1960s to large
and positive in the 2000s-2010s, is even more spectacular than when we look at the
gap between university graduates and non-university graduates, particularly in recent
decades (see Figure 3.3a). This is because the gradient within university graduates
has become very large in the recent period (with holders of advanced degrees
supporting Democratic candidates much more strongly than those with bachelor
degrees). It is also striking to see that the after-control top-10%-vs-bottom-90%
education gradient observed in the 2016 election appears to be just a little bit higher
than in previous elections, and very much in line with the long run evolution (seeFigure 3.3c). In this particular sense, the Clinton-Trump election is not an anomaly.
As we see below, the change in income gradient is the real novelty of the election.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, the reversal of the education gradient appears
to be almost identical in timing and magnitude in the US and in France. This is true
whether we look at the gap in voting attitudes between university graduates and nonuniversity graduates, before or after controls (see Figures 3.3d-3.3e), or between top
10% and bottom 90% education voters, before and after controls (see Figures 3.3f3.3g). I will later discuss how these similar evolutions can be interpreted.

40

In effect, this leads to underestimate inter-decile gap, whether the relation between
education and voting score is monotonically decreasing or increasing, since this neglects
within-cell variations.

35
Section 3.5. Stability and Attenuation of Income/Wealth Cleavages

I now turn to my findings on changing US political cleavages by income. I report on
Figure 3.4a the profiles of Democratic vote share by income percentiles since 1948
(excluding the 2016 election), which were estimated in the same manner as forFrance. The profile is generally downward sloping, particularly at the level of the top
10%. Within the bottom 90%, the profile appears to be more strongly downward
sloping (i.e. less flat) in the US than in France, which seems to be related to thelesser historical importance of the “poor right-wing self-employed” (in particular “poorright-wing peasant”) in the US as compared to France, at least in the post-World War
2 era. At the level of the top 10%, the profile is generally more strongly downward
sloping in France than in the US. But overall the two countries display broadly similar
income profiles.

If we now add the 2016 US presidential election on the picture, we see something
entirely new: for the first time, top 10% income voters support the Democratic
candidate (see Figure 3.4b). If we look at the evolution of the gap in Democratic votebetween top 10% and bottom 90% income voters, both before and after controls, one
can see that this gap was approximately constant between the 1940s-1950s and the1980s-1990s, increased slightly in the 2000s and early 2010s, and most importantlyrose sharply in 2016. This is real innovation of the 2016 election: high education
voters had already turned Democrats many elections before, but for the first time highincome voters turned Democrats as well.

Regarding US political cleavages by wealth, we are unfortunately unable to analyze
the long-run evolution, since we do not have detailed wealth questionnaires in US
post-electoral surveys. Note however that we do have some basic wealth variables
for a number of elections, in particular for year 2012, and this data shows the same
pattern that what we find for France (and also for Britain, see below), namely thathigh wealth is an even stronger predictor of the vote for Republicans (or right-wingparties in the French context, or Conservatives in British context) than high income. 41
41

The 2012 data comes from the US version of the CSDS project (Comparative Study ofElectoral Systems), an international consortium organizing homogenous post-electoral
surveys in dozens of countries. All data is available on-line (www.cses.org). The project

36
It seems likely that this conclusion also applies in earlier years and throughout theperiod 1948-2012 period, just like in France and Britain. 42

Section 3.6. Multiple-Elite Party System or Great Reversal?

By combining our results on changing US political cleavages by education and byincome, we obtain the following picture. Whether we measure education cleavages
by comparing university graduates vs non-university graduates (before and after
controls; see Figures 3.5a-3.5b), or by comparing top 10% vs bottom 90% education
voters (also before and after controls; see Figure 3.5c-3.5d), which is probably mostmeaningful, we find the same broad evolution of the party system in the US.
Moreover the evolution is very similar to that observed in France (compare Figure
3.5d to Figure 2.5d). Back in the 1940s-1960s, the US party system could becharacterized as a class-based system, in the sense that low education and low
income voters supported the same party (the Democrats), while high education andhigh income voters supported the other party (the Republicans). The US have
gradually moved toward a “multiple-elite” party system, whereby the high-education
elite votes for Democrats and the high-income elite votes for the Republicans.

In the same as way for France, it is unclear at this stage whether this “multiple-elite”
party system will persist, or whether it will gradually evolve toward a complete
realignment of the party system along “globalists” (high education, high income) vs“nativists” (low education, low income) lines. The 2016 election clearly seems to pointin this direction: for the first time, the Democratic vote was associated both to higheducation and high income voters. It could be however that this is largely due to a
specific Trump factor, and that the high-income elite will return to Republicans in thenear future (of course this will depend on the choice of Republican and Democratic
candidates). I have therefore put 2016 in dashed lines on Figure 3.5d (and otherfigures), just like the 2017 election in France (see Figure 2.5d). In both cases, one
includes four waves so far: module 1 (1996-2001), 2 (2001-2006), 3 (2006-2011) and 4(2011-2016). Module 4 includes a special questionnaire on wealth (including categoricalquestions on ownership for several asset categories: home ownership, stock, saving, andprofessional business assets). See on-line appendix for detailed results.
42
As suggested by the home ownership variables available in ANES surveys, which we used
to estimate the wealth differentials indicated on Fig. 3.5e-3.5h (which should be viewed as
exploratory, for lack of better wealth data). See the discussion on Britain in section 4.5 below.

37
can interpret the unusual 2016-2017 electoral events as the consequence of a longrun transformation of the party system, which is now facing different possible
trajectories: stabilization of the “multiple-elite” party system; “globalists” vs “nativists”
realignment; return to some new form of class-based system.

Section 3.7. The Transformation of Racial and Origin-Based Cleavages

I now turn to the evolution of US racial and origin-based cleavages. Here the basic
facts are relatively well-known, and I would like to stress to the differences andsimilarities with French evolutions (which are less well known), and most importantly
the interaction with the multiple-elite transformation.

I report on Figure 3.6a the evolution of vote shares for Democratic party candidate byethnic groups in US presidential elections between 1948 and 2016. The proportion ofBlacks (Africans-Americans) in the electorate has been relatively stable around 1012% throughout the period, and the fraction voting Democrats has constantly been
within the 80-95% range from 1964 (the beginning of the Civil Rights movement) until
the present day. In previous elections (1948-1960), the Democratic vote shareamong Blacks was less overwhelming, though already very substantial (about 6070%). The fact that Black voters already supported the Democrats before the party
officially supported desegregation can be rationalized in a number of ways: first andmostly, from the 1930s onward, or even before, the Democratic New-Deal-type policy
platform was already benefiting low-income low-education voters (and therefore thevast majority of Black voters, albeit indirectly); next, Northern Democrats were notsegregationists (unlike Southern Democrats), and their attitude on racial issues was
not necessarily very different from that of Republicans. 43 44

43

The limited opinion survey evidence that we have from 1936 onwards suggests that Blacks
were already supporting Democratic candidates (i.e. Roosevelt) in the 1936-1944
presidential elections by a margin of about 70-30 (close to what we see in the 1948-1960
elections); party identification among Blacks moved more gradually (about 50-50 in 19361944, up to 70-30 in 1948-1960, and over 90-10 from 1964 onwards), suggesting that it took
more time for Black electorate to acknowledge that Democrats had pro-Blacks. See e.g.
Ladd and Hardley (1975) and Bositis (2012, Table 1) for a compilation of early opinion survey
polls (mostly from Gallup). Unfortunately there is very little survey data available before 1936,
and one needs to use local-level election data to recover individual-level cleavages.
44
Post-1860 Republicans were abolionnists and pro-free-labour, but this obviously does not
imply that they were strong supporters of the political and economic emancipation of

38

In any case, the point is that from 1964 onwards Black voters have always given
overwhelming majorities (80-95%) to Democratic candidates, and that this has
become one of the most structuring (if not the most structuring) characteristics of thestructure of US political conflict. In contrast, Whites have never given a majority to a
Democratic candidate since 1964 (i.e. with a whites-only voting system based on
popular vote all Presidents would have been Republicans; see Figure 3.6a).

It is striking to see that the overwhelming Black vote for Democrats (80-95%) isquantitatively similar to the overwhelming Muslim vote for left-wing parties in France
since the mid-1990s (80-95%; see Figures 2.6e-2.6f and section 2.7 above). Also, inthe same way as for the Muslim vote in France, adding control variables foreducation, income, wealth, etc. explains only a relatively small fraction of the Black
vote for Democrats (see Figure 3.6b, and compare to Figure 2.6i for France). In thetwo countries, these voting patterns can be accounted for by the fact that bothminorities – the Black racial minority in the US and the Muslim ethno-religious
minority in France – perceive substantial hostility on the “right” side of the political
spectrum (Republicans in the US, right-wing parties in France) and more sympathyon the “left” side (Democrats in the US, left-wing parties in France). On the otherside, a substantial fraction of the White majority considers that the “left” unduly favors
the minority, which in their view justifies their vote for the “right”.

Although there are commonalities between the two situations, there are also
enormous differences, and in particular the role of the Latino vote in the US. NonBlacks minorities accounted for a very small fraction of the US electorate during the1940s-1960s (less than 1%), but since the 1970s they have increased enormously,
up to almost 20% of the electorate in the late 2010s (mostly Latinos). 45 The Latinos
and other non-Black minority voters have always given a strong majority to
Democratic candidates: between 55% and 70% of the vote in all presidential

Africans-Americans. On the way Democrats were able during the Reconstruction period torebuild a winning coalition by portraying Republicans as captured by the North-East financial
and manufacturing elite (a coalition which in many ways seeds the grains for the future NewDeal Democratic coalition), see e.g. Barreyre (2015).
45
Here we include non-Black non-Latino minorities (less than 2% of the electorate in 2016)
with Latino voters.

39
elections between 1972 and 2016. Although this is less overwhelming than the Black
Democratic vote, this is still a very strong majority: the gap with the White vote isstrong and persistent, about 20 percentage points (see Figure 3.6a), and only
moderately reduced by controls.

This makes a very big difference with France (or more generally with European
countries). In France, about 10% of the elector ate in 2010s has extra-European
foreign origins (mostly Maghreb and Sub-saharan Africa), i.e. roughly the same
fraction as the Black population in the US, and about 20% of the electorate has
European foreign origins (most from Spain, Portugal and Italy), i.e. roughly the same
fraction as the Latino population in the US. But the big difference is that the French
Latinos are not Latinos, in the sense that they vote exactly in the same manner as
the population with no foreign grand-parent (see Figure 3.6c).

In the case of the US, it has long been argued that racism and anti-Blacks attitudes
can contribute to explain the smaller size of the welfare state and social transfers (ascompared to Europe). 46 In particular, racial issues are the prime candidate
explanation as to why the Democrats gradually lost a large part of the working classWhite voters after the Civil Rights movement (especially in the South), thereby
contributing to weaken and eventually dismantle the Democratic New-Dealcoalition. 47 In effect, racial diversity and racial conflict have made it more complicatedto keep the poor Blacks and the poor Whites in the same coalition. This cancontribute to explain the transition away from the “class-based” party system of the
1950s-1960s toward the “multiple-elite” party system of the 2000s-2010s.

This certainly does not imply, however, that this is the only explanation. First, theextent of “racism” of certain White voters in the US (or France or elsewhere) cannot
simply be taken as given. At some level, it must be related to actual experience with
racial relations, and also to the ability of certain social policies and institutions to unify(or not) the perception of identity and class solidarity. E.g. French Latinos are not
46

See e.g. Alesina, Glaeser, Sacerdote (2001) and Roemer, Lee, Van Der Straeten (2007).

47 See e.g. recent research by Kuziemko and Washington (2018), which shows that racial

attitudes (as measured by responses to survey questions) – rather than the rise of theincome of Southern Whites (relatively to national average) – can better account why specificgroups of White voters shifted from Democrats to Republicans in particular states and years.

40
perceived and do not perceive themselves as Latinos, unlike US Latinos. The factthat social policies have been relatively segmented in the US (i.e. targeted towardspecific groups) has arguably made it more difficult to develop a sense of common
interest and to counteract racist perceptions and other prejudices. 48

Next, even in the absence of any racial divide, one can find some other reasons andmechanisms (e.g. related to educational expansion per se) which might havecontributed to the shift from “class-based” to “multiple-elite” party system. In the caseof the US, I find the same transformation of the party system into a “multiple-elite”
pattern even if I exclude entirely the Southern states. Maybe most importantly, in thecase of France, I find that the gradual shift toward the “multiple-elite” system started
in the 1960s-1970s, i.e. before the cleavage about migration (and particularly about
non-European migrants and Islam) really became salient, i.e. in the 1980s-1990s.
This points towards the existence of a separate mechanism which can contribute to
explain the transformation of the structure of political conflict, independently from theissue of migration and racial/ethnical/religions diversity (which of course does notmean that this issue did not contribute as well). I will return to this discussion when I
present theoretical models in section 5.

48

Ashok, Kuziemko, Washington (2015) analyze other reasons explaining declining support
for redistribution within specific groups in recent decades (in spite of rising inequality), e.g.
among the elderly (who might fear to loose Medicare benefits in case social transfers areextended to other groups) and among Africans-Americans (which might reflect the fact that“transfers” have been increasingly associated to race-based aid and negative perceptions).

41
Section 4. Changing Political Cleavages in Britain

In this section, I present detailed results on the changing structure of politicalcleavages for the case of Britain. I begin by briefly describing the evolution of politicalparties and popular vote in Britain over the 1945-2017 period (section 4.1), and themain data sources (post-electoral surveys) that I will be using (section 4.2). I thenpresent basic breakdowns by gender and age (section 4.3), before moving on to mymain results on breakdowns by education (section 4.4), income/wealth and the shift
to “multiple-elite” party system (section 4.5). I finally present results on breakdowns
by religion and ethnic groups (section 4.6).

Section 4.1. Changing Political Parties and Electoral Results in Britain 1945-2017

Together with the US system, the British party system is the best example of a twoparty system. The shares in popular vote obtained by the various parties competingin all British general elections that took place between 1945 and 2017 are reported
on Figure 4.1a. The top two parties over this 72-yar-long period have always been
the Conservative party and the Labour party. 49

In the famous 1945 election, Attlee’s Labour party attracted 48% of the vote, vs 36%
for Churchill’s Conservative party. This led in the following years to the creation of the
NHS and the modern British welfare state. In the 2017 election, May’s Conservative
party obtained 42% of the vote, vs 40% for Corbyn’s Labour. Third parties usuallyobtain less than 10-15% of the vote, except in 1987-1992 and 2005-2010 when the
Lib-Dems attracted over 20% of voters; by 2015-2017, they seem to be back around
5-10%, where they were in the 1950s-1960s (see Figure 4.1a). 50

49 Note that in the 18th and 19th centuries the two-party system involved the Conservatives

and the Liberals (or the Whigs). It took almost half a century, between 1900 and 1945, for the
Labour party to replace the Liberals as the second major party. In other words, the British
system has always been a two-party system, but the identity of the two parties has changed,
and transitions from one two-party system to the next one can take a very long time. Internal
within-party transformations usually provide a simpler mechanism to shift the party system.
50 The Liberals-Democrats (Lib-Dems) are the modern incarnation of the Liberals. During the
1980s they briefly formed the Liberals/SDP Alliance with a split from the Labour party.

42
The contrast between the stability of the two major British parties (Conservative andLabour) provides a striking contrast with the French political scene, where both sidesof the spectrum have a long history of permanently creating new party names andacronyms (see section 2.1 above). The contrast is usually attributed to the different
voting system (one-round in Britain, two-round in France), but as I already noted thismight be endogenous, at least in part.

In the context of the present paper, I will exclude the other votes and I willconcentrate on the Labour vs Conservative vote. By focusing upon the Labour vsConservative vote, I obtain the vote shares reported on Figure 4.1b. They tend to bevery close to 50-50, in the same way as the French and US left vs right and
Democrats and Republicans votes (see Figures 2.1a, 2.1c and 3.1b). The justificationfor excluding the other votes is again that my main purpose in this paper is to look at
broad long-run evolutions and to make comparisons with the two other countries. In
any case, just like for the US case, the other votes are so small that this has virtuallyno impact on the trends that I am analyzing here.

Section 4.2. Data Sources: British Post-Electoral Surveys 1963-2017

There exists a relatively long tradition of post-electoral surveys in Britain. The mostcomplete and longest series are the BES surveys (British Election Study). They areorganized by a consortium of academic organizations and the micro-files are easily
accessible. 51 The first BES survey was conducted in 1963 (including retrospective
questions on voting attitudes in the general elections of 1959 and 1955), andsubsequently BES surveys were conducted after all general elections since 1964
(namely in 1964, 1966, 1970, 1974, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005,
2010, 2015, 2017).

In the same way as the French and US equivalent surveys, BES surveys include
dozens of questions on gender, age, education, occupation, income, wealth, religion,
ethnic and foreign origins, etc. Sample size is about 4000 observations in recent

51

The BES project has been based for the most part at the universities of Manchester andOxford. All files are accessible on-line (www.britishelectionstudy.com).

43
surveys (but closer to 1000-2000 in early surveys). The wealth variables are lessdetailed than in the French surveys, but more detailed than in the US (see below).

Section 4.3. Evolution of Gender and Age Cleavages

I begin by briefly describing the evolution of British political cleavages with respect togender and age. In the same way as for France and the US, I stress that there isnothing really new here: the substantial novel results begin with the reversal of theeducation cleavage in the next section.

Regarding gender, I confirm previous findings according to which women have
gradually turned from right to level during the past five to six decades (see Figure4.2a). The trends are the same in France and the US, and the levels are closer toFrance than then to the US: in the US, women used to be moderately right-wing (proRepublicans) and over time they have turned strongly left-wing (pro-Democrats);
while in both Britain and France, women used to be strongly right-wing and over timethey have turned moderately left-wing.

Regarding age, I again find the same basic pattern as for France and the US: young
voters generally tend to support the left substantially more than old voters, but the
gap is highly volatile (see Figure 4.2b). The enormous gradient observed in 20152017 is particularly striking: the fraction of voters supporting labour is about 30-40
points higher among the 18-to-34-year-old than among the 65-year-old over, amagnitude that has never been recorded for an age in post-war survey data in thethree countries under study. Even in France in the 1970s, with a youth strongly
leaning to the left, the similarly defined age gradient was somewhat less than 30
points. This expresses the strong hostility of the youth to the Tories and to Brexit inrecent years.

Section 4.4. The Reversal of the Education Cleavage

I now turn to the results on the education cleavage. I find the same basic result as inFrance and the US. In particular, the gap in labour vote between university graduatesand non-university graduates used to be large and negative in the 1950s-1960s (as44large as -20 points or even -30 points), and it gradually dropped in absolute values
during the 1970s-1980s-1990s, before becoming positive in the 2000s-2010s, both
before and after controls (see Figures 4.3a-4.3b). The same conclusion holds when I
look at the gap in labour vote between top 10% and bottom 90% education voters(both before and after controls), which is probably the most consistent way to look at
this evolution (see Figure 4.3c).

It is worth noting that although the trend is virtually identical in the three countries, thelevel of the gap in left vote between high and low education voters has always beensomewhat lower (i.e. more negative, or less positive) in Britain than in France and the
US. This holds whether we compare the left vote gap between university graduatesand non-university graduates, both before and after controls (see Figures 4.3d-4.3e),or the left vote gap between top 10% and bottom 90% education voters, both before
and after controls (see Figures 4.3f-4.3g), the latter variant being the most robust
comparison.

In other words, the British party system used to be even more “class-based” than the
French and US systems: back in the 1950s-1960s, it was very rare for educatedindividuals to vote for Labour rather for the the Conservative; and it took a very longtime for the educated elite to shift vote from Conservative to Labour (as compared toFrance and the US); and when they finally shifted, they did so less massively than inFrance and the US. This is consistent with the ideological and political origins of theLabour vs Conservative divide in Britain, which are indeed more explicitly classbased (as the very name of the “labour” party indicates) than the cleavages which led
to the development of the party systems in the other two countries. 52

52

In an interesting article (« Am I a Liberal ? », published in 1925 in The Nation &Athenaeum, republished in his Essays in Persuasion, 1931), John Maynard Keynes – aperfect example of the educated elite – famously explained why he would never vote
Labour : « I do not believe that the intellectual elements in the Labour Party will ever exercise
adequate control; too much will always be decided by those who do not know at all what they
are talking about. (…) I incline to believe that the Liberal Party is still the best instrument of
future progress ». Had he not died in 1946, he might have finally become a Labour Brahmin ;but this certainly would have taken a long time.

45
The interesting point, however, is that at the end of the day the long run evolutions
appear to be very similar, particularly in recent years, when university graduates andparticularly those with the highest degrees (the top 10% education group) havemassively shifted to labour (see Figure 4.3g).

Section 4.5. Multiple-Elite Party System or Great Reversal?

I now present the results on income cleavages. The profile of labour vote by income
percentile has generally been relatively steep in Britain, both within the bottom 90%(typically steeper than in France) and at the level of the top 10% (see Figure 4.4a).
The gap in labour vote between top 10% and bottom 90% income voters has always
been substantial in Britain, particularly at the beginning of the period, both before andafter controls, with a slight attenuation over time (see Figures 4.4b-4.4c).

If we combine the findings on education and income cleavages (see Figures 4.5a4.5d), we find that Britain has gradually moved from a “class-based” party system(with both low education and low income voters supporting Labour) to a “multipleelite” party system: high education voters now strongly support Labour, while highincome voters strongly support Conservative.

One interesting difference with France and the US is that in Britain there is no signthat high-income voters could shift sides and support Labour in the near future. Ifanything, the “multiple elite” nature of the British party system was reinforced in the
recent 2015-2017 elections: high-education voters have increased their support forLabour party, while high-income voters have increased their support for theConservatives (see particularly the after-controls estimates on Figures 4.5b and4.5d). This stands in clear contrast with the recent evolutions observed in France andthe US (see Figures 2.5b and 2.5d for France, and Figures 3.5b and 3.5d in the US),
where high-income voters were moving in the direction of the “left” (Clinton-Macron),suggesting the possibility of a gradual shift toward a complete realignment of theparty system along “globalists” (high-education, high-income) vs “nativists” (loweducation, low-income) lines.

46
Available evidence on wealth cleavages in Britain also confirms the stabilization of
the “multiple-elite” system (see Figures 4.5e-4.5h). High-wealth voters have always
had a strong Conservative preference (even stronger than that of high-income
voters), and this does not seem to be changing. 53

The fact that high-income and high-wealth voters show no tendency to shift Labour
can naturally be related to the relatively strong pro-redistribution stance taken by the
party leadership (Corbyn). Of course one could also imagine a different scenario for
the future, e.g. one where Labour takes an increasingly pro-EU stance (and theConservative an increasingly protectionist stance), so that high-income and highwealth voters join Labour on this basis; this could mean that Britain also moves
toward a globalists vs nativists cleavage. But this does not seem to be the most likely
evolution at this stage.

In any case, the point is that this comparison between Britain and France-US
illustrates the fact that different possible evolutions are possible, including astabilization of the “multiple-elite” party system, or a complete realignment (globalists
vs nativists). A third possibility would be a return to class-based party system. In
principle, this could happen either from an internationalist or a nativist perspective. In
the context of Britain and the Labour party (a party that has long been associatedwith a pro-migrant stance, as compared to Conservatives), the internationalist
perspective is more relevant. A return to class-based system would correspond to asituation where Labour leadership would amplify its pro-redistribution platform. In
order to regain the low education vote, one would however need to be very
persuasive regarding the possibility of an internationalist egalitarian platform thatwould benefit them (more than the anti-migrant stance which many support). This is
uncertain but not impossible.

A shift to a nativist class-based party system seems less likely (but again not entirely
impossible). This would correspond to a situation where a nativist party (e.g. National
53 Here I define high-wealth as full home owners (no mortgage). This information is available

on a consistent basis in BES surveys (unlike in the US). In the BES surveys of the 1980s1990s, we also have information on ownership of newly privatized stock ownership, and thisagain strongly associated to Conservative vote. Unfortunately we do not have enoughconsistent asset ownership variables to estimate wealth deciles in a reliable manner.

47
Front in France, or Trump in the US) gradually shifts to a strong pro-redistribution
platform. The chief historical precedent is the gradual transition of the Democratic
party from the party of slavery to the party of the New Deal over the 1860-1960
period (an evolution which itself did not prove to be very stable). The recent
experience with Trump suggests that ruling nativists are more likely to adopt an antimigrant pro-business platform, but different trajectories could take place in othercountries in the future.

The general point is that with multi-dimensional inequality and cleavages, multiple
equilibria and bifurcations are possible, depending on different party strategies (e.g.
Corbyn vs Blair strategy in the case of the British Labour party), or to small
differences in tight election races. E.g. the cleavages structures in the 2016
presidential election would probably have looked fairly different (at least along theincome dimension) had Sanders won the Democratic primaries against Clinton. The
clearest case where multiple bifurcations could have happened - and could happen in
the future - is the first round of the French 2017 presidential election (see section 2.8
and Table 2.1 above): all top four candidates were so close that any combination of
two could have made it to the second round; presumably the cleavages structures
would have been very different with a second round Mélenchon-Fillon, Mélenchon-Le
Pen, Fillon-Le Pen, Mélenchon-Macron or Macron-Fillon (instead of Macron-Le Pen),possibly with long lasting effects, for better and for worst.

Section 4.6. The Transformation of Religious and Origin-Based Cleavages

I now turn to the results on the transformation of religious and origin-based clevages
in Britain. Generally speaking, the results are very close to those obtained for France.

This is particularly striking regarding the evolution of religious cleavages (see Figure4.6a). Just like in France, more than 90% of the voters used to described themselves
as Christians: 96% in 1964 (putting together Anglicans, other Prostestants andCatholics). This proportion gradually fell to 43% in 2017. In the meantime, theproportion of voters reporting “no religion” rose from 3% in 1964 to 48% in 2017
(even more than in France). Just like in France, the Christians vs no-religion divide is48strongly associated to Conservatives vs Labour voting pattern (though the magnitudeof the effect is somewhat smaller in Britain).

Next, and maybe most importantly, we observe exactly the same patterns regarding
the Muslim vote. In Britain like in France, Islam used to be non-existent (it is stilllargely non-existent in the US). Before 1979 Islam was included with other religions in
BES surveys so we can look specifically at Muslim voters. When the question is first
asked in the 1979 survey, less than 1% of voters describe themselves as Muslims.
The proportion gradually rises in the following three decades, up to 5% of voters in
2017, exactly the same level as in France, albeit with different origins (British
Muslims largely come from South Asia, while French Muslims mostly originate from
North Africa, reflecting different colonial experiences). Even more strikingly, British
Muslims have always voted massively for the Labour party, typically with scoresaround 80-95%, just like in France (see Figure 4.6a, and compare to Figure 2.6a-2.6f
for France), and also like the Black Democratic vote in the US. The magnitude of theeffect seems to have increased somewhat over time, but it was already massive atthe beginning of the period.

Unfortunately the British surveys do not include the same questions on foreign grandparents and countries of origin as those asked in the recent French surveys, so wecannot go fully compare the results between the two countries. Starting in 1979, theBritish surveys start asking questions on self-designated ethnic groups. At that time,
98% of the voters described themselves as “Whites” (or “English”, or “Scott”, etc.),
while about 1% described themselves as “Africans-Caribbeans” and about 1% as“Indians-Pakistanis-Bengladeshis”. By 2017, the proportion of “Whites” has declined
to 89%, while “African-Caribbeans” have increased to 3%, “Indians-PakistanisBengladeshis” to 6%, and others categories (mostly “Chinese” and “Arabs”) to 2%. In
the same way as for France, voters with extra-European origins give strong support
to the Labour party (see Figure 4.6b). This holds independently from religion, butthere seems to be an additional effect associated to Islam as such (like in France,
though the data is imperfect).

The basic reason why Muslim and extra-European voters support so massively the
Labour party in Britain throughout the 1979-2017 period is also the same as in49
France: voters with extra-European origins (and especially the Muslims) perceive a
lot of hostility from the Conservatives, and more sympathy from the Labour party.
Also starting in 1979, British surveys start asking questions about whether there are
too many immigrants in Britain (similar to the questions which appear in the French
surveys in 1988). It is striking to see that a vast majority of voters responds that are
too many immigrants (over 75% in 1979), but that Conservative and Labour votersgive very different responses as how to address the problem: Conservative
supporters believe that the only viable solution is to stop immigration altogether, while
Labour supporters believe that creating more jobs and constructing more housing
units in large cities could help solve the problem (tough a large proportion alsofavours a complete end to immigration). When asked about which party is more likely
to deliver a full stop to immigration, 96% respond the Conservatives (and only 4%
respond Labour). In retrospect, the issue appears to play an extremely salient role inthe 1979 election and the Conservative victory. 54

It is tempting to relate this to the US research showing that the racist white flightstrongly contributed to the decline of the Democratic party following the Civil Rights
movement (see section 3.7 above), and in particular contributed to the Nixon 1968
election, and later to the Reagan 1980 and Trump 2016 elections. This is interesting,especially because the Thatcher-Reagan victories are usually associated with therise of neo-liberalism: it is possible that the rise of ethno-religious cleavages played alarger role than what is usually assumed. Also this shows that major transformationsof cleavage structures can take place within the same institutional party structure, i.e.
without changing the names of the party or creating new parties. In the case ofFrance, it is natural to associate the historical rise of low-education right-wing vote to
the development of the National Front (and the historical decline of low-education
left-wing vote to the demise of the Communist Party). 55 However the US and British

54

It has also been argued that attitudes on migration already played a decisive role in the1970 Conservative victory, following Enoch Powell’s famous « Rivers of Blood » April 20
1968 speech againts the Race Relations Bill promoted by the Labour governement.
According to Gallup polls conducted at the time, 73% of the British electorate supported
Powell (and disapproved the decision of Tory leader Heath to sack him from Shadow
Cabinet) and 84% approved a drastic reduction of immigration. Powell was sacked, but theepisode contributed to make the Labour vs Conservative conflict on migration more saliant.
55 Detailed results by party show that communist vote was indeed stronger among low
education voters in the 1950s-1960s (as compared to socialist vote and center-left vote), and50cases show the same structural transformations can take place within the same twoparty systems, i.e. without a Communist Party and without a National Front. Of
course this is not saying that parties are unimportant. But this shows that it can be
fruitful and justified to group parties in broad ideological coalitions (as we did forFrance) in order to compare the evolution of political cleavages between countries
with very different party systems and political histories. Some of the most important
evolutions might be taking place independently from the institutional party structure,
and appear to be better accounted for by the changing structure of underlying
intellectual and substantial cleavages than by the specific institutional vehicles
carrying these cleavages.

that FN vote is also stronger among low education voters in the 2000s-2010s (as comparedto vote for center-right and other right-wing parties). See on-line data appendix.

51
Section 5. Multi-Dimensional Models of Inequality and Political Cleavages

In this section, I present simple two-dimensional models of inequality, beliefs andpolitical cleavages, which might help to interpret some of the evolution analyzed in
the previous sections. In effect, these models build upon some previous work of mine
(Piketty, 1995) and introduce multiple dimensions of inequality (domestic vs external
inequality; education vs income/wealth) in the simplest possible manner in order toaccount for observed patterns. Although I view the primary contribution of thisresearch as historical/empirical, I hope that these theoretical models can also be ofinterest to the reader. I start by presenting the simple one-dimensional model (section5.1), before introducing the globalization/immigration cleavage (section 5.2) and theeducation vs income/wealth cleavage (section 5.3).

Section 5.1. A Simple One-Dimensional Model of Inequality, Beliefs & Redistribution

Consider a country with a continuum of agents i of mass one, and two possible
income levels y0 < y1. One can think of y0 as the income associated to low-paid job
and y1 as that of a high-paid job. The probability to access a high-paid job depend
both on individual effort and on family origins:
Probability (yi=y1) = π0 + θei if parental income = y0
Probability (yi=y1) = π1 + θei if parental income = y1
With: ei = individual effort
θ = index of how much individual effort matters
Δπ = π1- π0 = index of how much inequality in social origins matters
One should think of effort as including both education-related effort (diligence andmotivation at school, etc.) and business-related effort (diligence and motivation atwork and/or to develop one’s business, etc.). These two dimensions will be further
distinguished in section 5.3 below. Family origins could matter for a number ofreasons: better off families might offer better access to skills and schooling, and/or
better networks or assets to find good jobs or start a business, and so on.

52
At some general level, everybody agrees that both individual effort and family origins
matter. But there is wide disagreement about how much exactly each factor matters.
The country needs to choose an income tax rate T≥0, the proceeds of which financea universal cash transfer c=Ty, where Ty is per capita tax revenue and y per capita
average income. More generally, one can interpret the transfer c as the equivalentvalue of public services (education, health, etc.) paid by tax revenues.
For a given policy T≥0, agents are assumed to choose their effort level ei bymaximizing utility Ui=yi-c(ei), where yi is expected post-tax post-transfer income, andc(e)=e2/2a is a simple quadratic effort cost function (extensions to more generalfunctional forms are straightforward). One can easily show that ei=aϴ(1-T)(y1-y0). I.e.
effort declines as the tax rate rises. In case the tax rate is equal to T=100%, then all
incentives to provide effort disappear, so that ei=0. How bad this is will depend on
how much effort matters for generating high-paying jobs.

Further assume that everybody in the country shares a Rawlsian objective function,i.e. seeks to maximize the expected lifetime welfare of the individuals with lower classfamily origins. The one can easily show that the optimal tax rate T* is given by:
T* = qΔπ/a(y1-y0)ϴ2

Unsurprisingly, the optimal level of redistributive taxation T* is an increasing functionof Δπ and a decreasing function of ϴ. In other words, the higher the inequality ofopportunity due to social origins, the more it needs to be corrected; and the stronger
the role of effort, the more severe the incentive problem. 56

56

See Piketty 1995. One could also assume (maybe more realistically) that tax revenues canbe split into Ty = c + g, where g is public investment in education (or other relevant public
investment: infrastructure, health, etc.); g increases the probability to generate high-paying
jobs by kg, where k is an index of public spending efficiency, as opposed to c (puretransfers). One can easily show that if k(y1-y0)>1 then it will be optimal to spend all tax
revenues on g (i.e. pure transfers c=0), and the optimal T* will be an increasing function ofΔπ and µ and a decreasing function of ϴ.

53
One can also show that different mobility trajectories can naturally generate different
beliefs, so that in practice individuals and families with high income will tend tobelieve more in effort and will favor low redistribution, while those will low income willtend to believe less in effort and will favor high redistribution (Piketty 1995). Of course
this pattern might be reinforced by the existence of self-serving beliefs (i.e. somehigh-income individuals might choose to believe in effort, even though they know
they have just been lucky) and the fact not all individuals behave as consistent
Rawlsian (i.e. some high-income individuals might simply maximize their own interestand discard the interests the poor, though they usually claim the opposite).

In any case, the point is that this beliefs-based one-dimensional model ofredistributive politics can explain why the relation between income and preference forredistribution is not deterministic (left-wing vote tends to be weaker among highincome individuals than among low-income individuals, but this is only true on
average, not systematically), and also why mobility trajectory and not only current
income seem to matter (Piketty, 1995).

Section 5.2. Introducing the Globalization/Immigration Cleavage

Assume now that we start from an initial policy conflict about the domestic
redistributive tax rate and that there are two broad parties and coalitions, with the“left” proposing a higher level of redistributive taxation then the “right” (TL > TR).
Lower income groups have on average more “left-wing beliefs” than higher-income
groups (along the lines described above) and tend to vote more for the “left”. One canthink of this as the standard class-based political conflict observed in the 1950s1960s in France, the US and Britain.

One simple way to model the rise of the globalization/immigration cleavage is thefollowing. First, in addition to the policy dimension T (redistributive domestic tax rate
between rich and poor), each country also needs to choose about the degree of
economic openness, and in particular openness to migration flows.

For instance, the issue of extra-European migration gradually started to become
more relevant in France and Britain beginning in the 1960s-1970s, with flows often

54
coming from ex-colonial empires (South Asia for Britain, North Africa for France), andespecially in the 1980s-1990s-2000s, with the coming of the second generation (thechildren of the migrant workers). In all countries and time periods for which we have
survey information (e.g. Britain starting in the 1970s and France starting in the
1980s), voters view the policies advocated by the “left” as more favourable tomigration and migrants than the “right”: i.e. we start with a situation with OL > OR.
This can be accounted for by the internationalist-egalitarian tradition of the labourand socialist movement. In the case of the US, we also start in the 1960s-1970s with
OL > OR: Democrats are more open to migration flows (in particular Latino migration),and in addition they are also pro-Africans-Americans in the US Civil Rights context.

How do different individuals perceive the benefits and costs of openness? We simply
assume utility functions of the form:
Ui = yi - c(ei) + µiβO
µi measures individual perceptions of the costs and benefits of migration. Individuals
with µi>0 prefer more openness (higher O), maybe because they value the cultural
diversity (which on average tends to be associated with higher education) or because
they have special family or personal ties with migrant population. 57 Conversely,
individuals with µi<0 prefer less openness (smaller O), maybe because they perceive
migrants as competitors that can reduce their employment and wage prospects(which on average tends to be associated to lower income and lower education). The
parameter β measures the strength of the globalization/migration cleavage and canbe assumed to have increased over time. Back in the 1950s-1960s, one can think ofβ as relatively small, so that whatever policies OL > OR were advocated by left andright parties, this had virtually no impact on voting patters: the policy differentiation on
domestic redistribution TL > TR was more relevant.

As the issue of extra-European migration gradually became quantitatively moresignificant between the 1970s-1980s and the 1990s-2000s, β increased, which
57

E.g. individuals with a spouse or a friend with origins in South Asia or Maghreb will tend toview more positively family reunification policies (“chain migration”, as anti-migrant parties
describe it) than individuals with no such tie.

55
implies that for given policy pairs (TL,OL) and (TR,OR) voters with large negative µistarted shifting their support from “left” to “right” (especially voters with lower
education and/or lower income, except those with special ties to migration), while
voters with large positive µi started shifting their support from “right” to “left”(especially voters with higher education and/or higher income). Assuming the shift isparticularly strong along education lines, one can see how this can make the party
system moves toward a “multiple-elite” party system: high education voters join the“left” on the migration issue, while high income voters keep supporting the rightbecause of the redistribution issue.

Now assume that globalization is also affecting the possibility to conduct domestic
redistributive policies. To make things really extreme and simple (though not entirely
unrealistic), assume that globalization gradually makes it easier and easier for highincome individuals to evade taxation, in the following sense: by putting dissimulation
effort f (or by paying an equivalent cost in legal services), high-income taxpayers
manage with probability ωf to locate their income in tax havens and pretend that they
have income y0 instead of y1. The higher ω, the easier it is to avoid taxation. Assume
that financial globalization led to an increase in ω. Then one can easily see that for agiven initial set of beliefs and policies TL>TR, both the “left” and the “right” will reduce
their proposed rate of redistributive taxation. I.e. they will shift to TL(ω)>TR(ω), withTL‘(ω)<0 and TR‘(ω)<0. As ω becomes infinitely large, both TL(ω) and TR(ω) converge
toward 0 : it is infinitely simple to evade

taxation, then redistributive taxation

becomes impossible.

If and when this happens, then the domestic redistribution dimension becomes
irrelevant (both the “left” and the “right” propose almost the same policy on this issue,
as TL and TR become arbitrarily close), and the globalization/migration/openness
dimension becomes the main determinant the vote, as both the “right” and the “left”
keep proposing very different policies OL>OR. This can be further exacerbated by thefact that the two parties or coalitions might choose to overemphasize their differenceson the OL vs OR dimension (in reaction to the fact there is not much difference on the
TL vs TR dimension). Building models of endogenous party positioning is however

56
notoriously difficult, especially with multi-issue politics, and far beyond the scope of
the present paper. 58

In the extreme case where no redistributive taxation at all becomes feasible, so thatthe only dimension of political conflict is about openness (OL vs OR), then by
construction the only possible party system is organized along “globalists” (higheducation, high income) vs “nativists” (low education, low income). In the long run,the only way out is the development of a new platform and new internationalistegalitarian policy tools making redistribution and globalization compatible – like for
instance a global financial register and a coordinated wealth tax (which in effectamounts to a coordinated strategy to change the ω parameter). 59 The comparison of
the recent evolutions in Britain vs France-US also show that different national party
strategies and positioning can make a difference regarding the transition between the“multiple elite” party system and the “globalists vs nativists” party system. Thissuggests that different positioning on the domestic redistribution (TL vs TR) can still
make difference, and that the ω parameter is not sufficiently large yet.
The magnitude of the parameters β and ω can also help determine what type ofpolitical equilibrium will emerge from a four-quarter electorate (such as the Frenchelectorate; see section 2.8 and Table 2.1). As long as β and ω are relatively small,the dominant dimension of political conflict will be domestic redistribution between therich and the poor: the “internationalist-egalitarians” and the “nativists-egalitarians” will
be able to unite against the inegalitarians of all sorts, because their divergence on
openness is less important than their agreement on redistribution. However as β andω, the agreement on redistribution becomes less and less relevant (as all parties
propose more or less the same platform on this dimension), and the conflict on
migration becomes dominant, so that the “internationalist-egalitarians” and“internationalist-inegalitarians” end up uniting against the nativists of all sorts.

58

See the models of multi-issue party competition developed by Roemer, Lee and Van derStraeten (2007).
59
See e.g. Piketty 2014 and Zucman 2015.

57
Section 5.3. Introducing the Education vs Income/Wealth Cleavage

The rise of the globalization/migration cleavage is certainly an important part of the
explanation behind the development of the “multiple-elite” party system and thepossible evolution toward a “globalists vs nativists” system. It is unclear howeverwhether this is the only explanation. As I already argued, it is possible that the shift
toward a “multiple-elite” system and differentiation between the high-education elite
and the high-income elite has started before the globalization/migration issue
became salient, and would have taken place in its absence (albeit possibly in a lesspronounced way).

The main mechanism that I have in mind is the following: educational expansion, andin particular the rise of higher education, creates new forms of inequality cleavages
and political conflict that did not exist at the time of primary and secondary education.
For a long time, the main issue in terms of education policy was to generalize accessto primary and secondary education. Such a policy agenda is naturally inclusive andegalitarian: one can argue that the objective is to bring the totality of a given
generation to this level. Once everybody has reached primary and secondary
schooling, things look markedly different: it is difficult to imagine a situation where thetotality of a generation becomes university graduates; and even if this happens it ishard to think of a world where everybody in a generation obtains a PhD, at least in
the foreseeable future. In other words, the rise of higher education forces societiesand political forces to deal with inequality in a new way, and to some extent to accept
certain educational inequalities on a permanent basis, which can lead to complicatedpolitical cleavages.

One

simple

way

to

model

this

is

the

following.

Forgetabout

theglobalization/openness cleavage introduced in section 5.2, and start from the simple
model presented in section 5.1. We still have a continuum of agents i of mass one,and two possible income levels y0 < y1, which one can think of as the incomes
associated to low-paid and high-paid jobs.

The only difference is that I now introduce two possible education levels x0 < x1. One
can think of x0 as the basic education level which everybody attains (say, primary and58
secondary education) and x1 as higher education. In an educationally more advanced
society, one could also think of x1 as restricted to more advanced university degrees
or more selective university tracks (like Grandes écoles in France, or Ivy League in
US, or Oxford/Cambridge in Britain).

Assume that the probability to be access higher education x1 depends both oneducation-related individual effort fi and on family education origins:
Probability (xi=x1) = α0 + φfi if parental education = x0
Probability (xi=x1) = α1 + φfi if parental education = x1
With: fi = individual education-related effort
φ = index of how much education-related effort matters for accessing high education
Δα = α1- α0 = index of how much inequality in educational origins matters foraccessing high education

Life is organized follows. Each individual i chooses education-relation effort fi andobserves where she/he is able to access higher education or not (xi=x1 or xi=x0).
Then she/he chooses business-related effort ei and observes whether she/he is able
to find a high-paid or a low-paid job (yi=y1 or yi=y0). I assume that being a higher
education graduate is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to find a highpaid job. Being a graduate (xi=x1) simply increases the probability to find a high-paidjob (yi=y1), along with two other factors, namely business-related effort and family
origins. That is, the probability to find a high-paid job is determined as follows:
Probability (yi=y1) = π0 + θei + µs if xi=x1 (high education) and parental income = y0
Probability (yi=y1) = π0 + θei if xi=x0 (low education) and parental income = y0
Probability (yi=y1) = π1 + θei + µs if xi=x1 (high education) and parental income = y1
Probability (yi=y1) = π1 + θei if xi=x0 (low education) and parental income = y1
With: With: ei = individual business-related effort
θ = index of how much business-related effort matters for accessing high-paid jobs
Δπ = π1- π0 = index of how much inequality in social origins matters for accessing
high-paid job

59
s = per capita spending in higher educationµ = index of how much higher education matters for accessing high-paid jobs

By applying the same logic as in Piketty (1995), one can immediately see that evenwith fully sincere and rational learning the society will never reach complete
learning. 60 That is, depending on their trajectory, different individuals and families willend with different set of beliefs about the various parameters (φ, Δα, θ, Δπ).
Typically, individuals and families that have a long record of accessing higheducation (i.e. the high education elite) will tend to believe more strongly in theimportance of education-related effort (they will believe in high φ). Individuals andfamilies that have a long record of accessing high-paid jobs (but not necessarily higheducation), i.e. the business elite, will tend to believe more strongly in the importanceof business related effort (they will believe in high θ). Needless to say, self-serving
beliefs will also play a role (i.e. part of high education elites will pretend to believe in
education related effort, even though they know their Brahmin family origins did help
a lot), and self-interested policy objectives as well (i.e. part of high education elites
will prefer to spend most tax revenues on elitist higher education because they caremore about their own children than about the poor children).

When it comes to the policy conflict, one can see how this structure can naturally giverise to a “multiple-elite” party system. Assume the country needs to choose an
income tax rate T≥0, the proceeds of which finance both a universal cash transfer c(accessible to everybody) and a higher education spending level s (benefiting only
those who access high education). I.e. Ty=c+s, where Ty is per capita tax revenue
and y per capita average income. More generally, one can interpret the transfer c as
including the equivalent value of the basic education (primary and secondary) andother public services (health, etc.) accessible to everybody.

In such a setting, the business elite will tend to favor very low taxation (they are notso much interested in higher education spending, and they are not interested at all inthe universal transfer), the education elite will favor somewhat higher taxation (theywant to fund higher education), and the low-education low-income groups should
60

Unless of course social sciences make huge progress in their attempts to estimate theseparameters, and managed to convince societies that they did.

60
favor even bigger taxation (in order to pay for generous universal transfers andspending, as well as higher education for those poor students who make it).

One can also think of all sorts of reasons why some coalitions between the businesselite might take place, e.g. if one combines these ingredients with theglobalization/migration cleavage introduced in the previous section. Building explicit
models of multi-issue party positioning along these lines would be very interesting,but far beyond the scope of the present paper.

61
Section 6. Concluding Comments and Perspectives

In this paper, I have used French, US and British post-electoral surveys covering the
1948-2017 period in order to document a striking long-run evolution in the structureof political cleavages. In the 1950s-1960s, the vote for left-wing (socialist-labourdemocratic) parties was associated with lower education and lower income voters. It
has gradually become associated with higher education voters, giving rise to a“multiple-elite” party system in the 2000s-2010s: high-education elites now vote forthe “left”, while high-income/high-wealth elites still vote for the “right” (though less andless so). I have argued that this can contribute to explain rising inequality and thelack of democratic response to it, as well as the rise of “populism”. In effect,
globalization and educational expansion have created new dimensions of inequality
and conflict, leading to the weakening of previous class-based redistributive
coalitions and the gradual development of new cleavages.

It is clear however that we still face many limitations in our understanding of theseissues, and more research is needed. Two open questions stand out. First, to what
extent could the transition to a “multiple-elite” party system have happened without
the rise of globalization/migration cleavage? Next, can “multiple-elite” party systems
persist, or they inherently unstable? I have stressed that education expansion per se
could generate multi-dimensional cleavages and a persistent conflict between thehigh-education elite and the high-income elite, even in the absence of a
globalization/migration cleavage. In order to go further, it would be interesting for
instance to test whether “multiple-elite” cleavages also develop in countries that havelittle exposition to globalization/migration. 61

More generally, collecting new series on the interplay of inequality dynamics andpolitical conflict for more countries and/or longer time periods is certainly the mostpromising way to bring additional light on the long-run evolution of cleavages
61

On-going work on Germany, Eastern Europe, Spain, Italy, Canada, Australia, Japan,
Brasil, South Africa and India should help settle the issue. The case of post-communist
European countries also provides an interesting example of left-right inversion (see Tavits
and Letki 2009). This illustrates the potential impact of post-communist skepticism withinternationalist-egalitarian ideology (this can be highly relevant for other countries as well).

62
structures. One of the oldest party systems in the world, namely Conservatives vsWhigs in 18th century Britain, was to large extent a conflict of elites (landed elite vsurban-commercial elite). Of course, this was a time of limited suffrage, when only the
top 1% could vote, so there was little else that politics could be except a conflict ofelite. It would be naïve however to imagine that universal suffrage in itself has
permanently brought a different type of equilibrium. Unequal access to politicalfinance, medias and influence can contribute to keep electoral politics under thecontrol of elites. The class-based party system that emerged in the mid-20th century
was due to specific historical circumstances, and proved to be fragile as social andeconomic structures evolved. Without a strong and convincing egalitarianinternationalist platform, it is inherently difficult to unite low-education, low-income
voters from all origins within the same party.

63
References

A. Alesina, E. Glaeser, B. Sacerdote, “Why doesn’t the US have a European styleWelfare State?”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2001

R. Alford, “A Suggested Index of the Association of Social Class and Voting”, Public
Opinion Quarterly, 26(3), 1962, p.417-425

F. Alvaredo, L. Chancel, T. Piketty, E. Saez, G. Zucman, World Inequality Report
2018, wir2018.wid.world, Harvard University Press

V. Ashok, I. Kuziemko, E. Washinton, “Support for Redistribution in an Age of Rising
Inequality: New Stylized Facts and Some Tentative Explanations,” Brookings Papers
on Economic Activity, 2015, p.367-405

N. Barreyre, Gold and Freedom – The Political Economy of Reconstruction,
University of Virginia Press, 2015 (French edition, L’or et la liberté – Une histoire
spatiale des Etats-Unis après la guerre de Sécession, éditions de l’EHESS, 2014)

S. Bornshier, Cleavage Politics and the Populist Right, Temple UP, 2010

D. Bositis, “Blacks and the 2012 Democratic National Convention”, Joint Center for
Political and Economic Studies, 2012

J. Capdevielle, E. Dupoirier, G. Grunberg, E. Schweisguth, France de gauche, vote àdroite ?, Presses de la FNSP, 1981

M. Duverger, Les partis politiques, Armand Colin 1951 (Political Parties, 1954)

L. Edlund, R. Pande, “Why Have Women Become Left-Wing? The Political Gender
Gap and the Decline in Marriage”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2002, p.917-961

M. Foucault, R. Nadeau, M. Lewis-Beck, “Patrimonial Voting: Refining the Measures”,
Electoral Studies, 2017, vol.32, p.557-562

64

M. Foucault, La France politique des possédants et des non-possédants , in P.
Perrineau et al, La démocratie de l’entre soi, Presses de la FNSP, 2017

R. Inglehart, P. Norris, “The Developmental Theory of the Gender Gap: Women's andMen's Voting Behavior in Global Perspective”, International Political Science Review
21(4), 2000, pp. 441-463.

R. Inglehart, P. Norris, “Trump, Brexit and the Rise of Populism”, 2016, Harvard KSG

H. Kitschelt, The Transformation of European Social Democracy, CUP 1994

H. Kitshelt, The Radical Right in Western Europe, Michigan UP 1995

I. Kuziemko, E. Washington, “Why did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New
Data to an Old Debate”, American Economic Review, forthcoming, 2018

C. Ladd, C. Hardley, Transformations of the Americain Party System: Political
Coalitions from the New Deal to the 1970s, Norton, 1975

S.M. Lipset, S. Rokkan, “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems and Voter Alignments:
an introduction», in Party systems and voter alignments: cross-national perspectives,
Lipset and Rokkan eds., The Free Press, 1967

A. Lijphart, Electoral Systems and Party Systems, OUP 1994

C. Mudde, Populist Right Parties in Western Europe, CUP 2007

C. Mudde, Populism in Europe and America, CUP 2013

M. Persson, J. Martinsson, “Patrimonial Economic Voting and Asset Value: New
Evidence from Taxation Register Data“, British Journal of Political Science, 2016

65
T. Piketty, “Social Mobility and Redistributive Politics”, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 110(3), 1995, p.551-584
T. Piketty, Capital in the 21st Century, Harvard University Press, 2014 (French
edition, Le capital au 21e siècle, Le Seuil, 2013)

D. Rodrik, “Populism and the Economics of Globalization”, 2017, Harvard KSG

J. Roemer, D. Lee, K. Van des Straeten, Racism, Xenophobia, and Distribution:
Multi-Issue Politics in Advanced Democracies, Harvard UP, 2007

M. Tavits, N. Letki, “When Left is Right: Party Ideology and Policy in post-Communist
Europe”, American Political Science Review, 103(4), 2009, p.555-569

M.A. Valfort, “Has France a Problem with Muslims? Evidence from a Field LabourMarket Experiment”, PSE, 2017

G. Zucman, The Hidden Wealth of Nations, University of Chicago Press, 2015

% vote for left-wing parties and candidates by income
decile (all household income sources combined)

Figure 1.1a. Left-wing vote by income decile in France, 1958-2012

80%
70%
60%

1958

1962

1974

1978

1986

1988

1995

2007

2012

D9

D10

Top5% Top1%

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1978, left-wing parties (PS, PCF, Rad., etc.) obtain 46% of the vote among voters with bottom 10% income, 23% of
the vote among top 10% income voters, and 17% among top 1%. Generally speaking, the profile of left-wing vote by income
percentile is relatively flat within the bottom 90%, and strongly declining for the top 10%, especially at the beginning of the period.

% vote for left-wing parties and candidates by wealthdecile (real-estate, financial and business assets)

80%

Figure 1.1b. Left-wing vote by wealth decile in France, 1974-2012

70%

1974

1978

1986

1988

1995

2007

D10

Top5% Top1%

2012

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

D9

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1978, left-wing parties (PS, PCF, Rad., etc.) obtain 69% of the vote among voters with bottom 10% wealth, 23%of the vote among voters with top 10% wealth, and 13% among top 1% wealth holders. Generally speaking, the profile ofleft-wing vote by wealth percentile is strongly declining, all along the distribution, especially at the begining of the period.
Sll d l'

t

à

ti d

êt

t él

t

l

1956 2017 (él

ti

é id

ti ll

t lé i l ti)

Figure 1.2a. Left-wing vote in France, 1956-2017:from the worker party to the high-education party

12%

Difference between (% univ.graduates votingleft) and (% non-univ.graduates voting left)

8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PCF, Rad., various left ,green, extreme-left) obtain a score that is 17 points lower
among university graduates than among non-university graduates; in 2012, their score is 8 points higher among graduates.
score 12

i t

20%
16%
12%

Figure 1.2b. Voting for left-wing & democratic parties in France and theUS, 1948-2017: from the worker party to the high-education party
France: Difference between (% univ.graduates voting left)and (% non-univ.graduates voting left) (after controls)
US: Same with democratic party vote (after controls)

8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French and US post-electoral surveys 1948-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PC, Rad., green, extr.-left) obtain a score that is 14 points lower among university
graduates than among non-university graduates in France; in 2012, their score is 13 points higher among university graduates(after controls for age, sex, income, wealth, father's occupation). The evolution is similar for the democratic vote in the US. score
12 i t

24%
20%
16%
12%

Figure 1.2c. Voting for left-wing & democratic parties in France, Britain, US
1948-2017: from the worker party to the high-education party
France: difference between (% univ.graduates voting left)and (% non-univ.graduates voting left) (after controls)
US: same with democratic party vote (after controls)
Britain: same with labour party vote (after controls)

8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French, US and British post-electoral surveys 1948-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PC, Rad., etc.) obtain a score that is 14 points lower among university graduates
than among non-university graduates in France; in 2012, their score is 13 points higher among university graduates (after controls
for age, sex, income, wealth, father's occupation). The evolution is similar for democratic vote in the US and labour vote in Britain.
12 i tFigure 1.2d. Voting for left-wing & democratic parties in France, Britain, US
1948-2017: from the worker party to the high-education party
20%

France: difference btw (% left vote among top 10% education voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% education voters) (after controls)
US: same with democratic party vote (after controls)

16%

Britain: same with labour party vote (after controls)

24%

12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French, US and British post-electoral surveys 1948-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left parties (SFIO-PS, PC, Rad., etc.) obtain a score that is 14 points lower among top 10% education voters thanamong bottom 90% education voters in France; in 2012, their score is 13 points higher among top 10% educ.voters (after controls
for age, sex, income, wealth, father's occupation). The evolution is similar for democratic vote in the US and labour vote in Britain.
12 i t

28%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
-32%
-36%

Figure 1.2e. Political conflict in France, 1956-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?
Difference between (% left vote among university graduates) and(% left vote among non-univ.graduates)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% income voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% income voters)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% wealth voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% wealth voters)

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the left vote used to be associated with lower education and lower income voters; it has gradually become associatedwith higher education voters, giving rising to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs wealth); it might also become
associated with high-income voters in the future, giving rise to a great reversal or realignement of the party system. Source:l l d l'

à

d

ê

él

l

(él

é d

ll

lé

l

)

28%
24%
20%
16%
12%

Figure 1.2f. Political conflict in France, 1956-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% education voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% education voters) (after controls)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% income voters) and(% left vote among bottom 90% income voters) (after controls)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% wealth voters) and(% left vote among bottom 90% wealth voters) (after controls)

8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the left vote used to be associated with lower education and lower income voters; it has gradually become associatedwith higher education voters, giving rising to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs wealth); it might also become
associated with high-income voters in the future, giving rise to a great reversal or realignement of the party system. Source:l l d l'

à

d

ê

él

l

(él

é d

ll

lé

l

)

Figure 2.1a. Political conflict in France: presidential elections 1965-2012

74%
70%

Left (candidate of socialist party (PS) or other left-wing parties)
Right (candidate of gaullist party (RPR, UMP, LR etc.) or other right-wing parties)

66%
62%
58%
54%
50%
46%
42%
38%
34%

De Gaulle 55%
Mitterrand 45%

Hollande 52%
Sarkozy 48%

Mitterrand 54%
Chirac 46%

30%
26%

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Vote shares in presidential second rounds opposing left and right: 1965 (De Gaulle 55%, Mitterrand 45%), 1974 (Giscard 51%,
Mitterrand 49%), 1981 (Mitterrand 52%, Giscard 48%), 1988 (Mitterrand 54%, Chirac 46%), 1995 (Chirac 53%, Jospin 47%), 2007
(Sarkozy 53%, Royal 47%), 2012 (Hollande 52%, Sarkozy 48%). Other second rounds (opposing right, extreme-right and center)
were not represented here:1969 (Pompidou 58%, Poher 42%), 2002 (Chirac 82%, Le Pen 18%), 2017 (Macron 66%, Le Pen 34%).
Source: see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict.de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles etFigure 2.1b. Political conflict in France: legislative elections 1946-2017
64%
60%
56%
52%
48%
44%
40%
36%
32%
28%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%

Left (SFIO-PS (socialist party), PCF, Rad., various left, greens, extreme-left)
Right (MRP, CNIP, UNR, RPR, UDF, UMP, LR, various right, FN, extreme-right)
Other parties (regionalists, etc.)

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Vote shares in legislative elections 1956-2017 (1st round). The vote share obtained in 2017 by centrist LRM-Modem alliance(32%) was split 50-50 between center-right and center-left. Source: see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict.de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes
post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives). 1956, les partis de gauche (SFIO-PS, PCF, MRG, divers gauche etFigure 2.1c. Political conflict in France: legislative elections 1946-2017
74%
70%
66%

Left (SFIO-PS (socialist party), PCF, Rad., various left, greens, extreme-left)
Right (MRP, CNIP, UNR, RPR, UDF, UMP, LR, various right, FN, extreme-right)

62%
58%
54%
50%
46%
42%
38%
34%
30%
26%

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Vote shares in legislative elections 1956-2017 (1st round), excluding other parties (regionalists, etc.). The vote share obtainedin 2017 by centrist LRM-Modem alliance (32%) was split 50-50 between center-right and center-left.
Source: see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict.auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et

68%
64%
60%
56%
52%
48%
44%
40%
36%
32%
28%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%

Figure 2.1d. Left-wing vote in France: legislative elections 1946-2017
Total left
Left (SFIO-PS, greens, etc.)

Extreme-left (PCF, LFI, etc.)
Center-left (radicals, PRG, etc.)

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Vote shares in legislative elections 1956-2017 (1st round). The vote share obtained in 2017 by centrist LRM-Modem alliance(32%) was split 50-50 between center-right and center-left. Source: see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict. et législatives). 1956, les partis
de gauche (SFIO-PS, PCF, MRG, divers gauche et écologistes, extrême-gauche) obtiennent un score 12 point

68%
64%
60%
56%
52%
48%
44%
40%
36%
32%
28%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%

Figure 2.1.e. Right-wing vote in France: legislative elections 1946-2017
Total right
Right (RPF, RPR, UMP, LR, etc.)

Center-right (MRP, UDF, UDI, etc.)
Extreme-right (UFF, FN, etc.)

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Vote shares in legislative elections 1956-2017 (1st round). The vote share obtained in 2017 by centrist LRM-Modem alliance(32%) was split 50-50 between center-right and center-left. Source: see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict.e l'auteur à partir des enquêtes
post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives). 1956, les partis de gauche (SFIO-PS, PCF, MRG, divers gauche et
é l
ê
h ) b

6%

Figure 2.2a. The structure of voting by gender in France, 1956-2017:
right-wing female vote until the 1980s

4%
2%
0%

Difference between(% women voting left)and (% men voting left)

-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
-10%
-12%
-14%
-16%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PCF, Rad., various left, greens, extreme left) obtain a score that is 15 points
lower among women than among men; in 2012, their score is 2 point higher among men.

6%

Figure 2.2.b. The structure of voting by gender in France, 1956-2017:
right-wing female vote until the 1980s

4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%

Difference between (% women voting left) and(% men voting left)
After controls for age, fam.sit., education

-10%
-12%

After controls for age, fam.sit., education,
income, wealth

-14%
-16%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PCF, Rad., various left, greens, extreme left) obtain a score that is 15 points
lower among women than among men; in 2012, their score is 2 point higher among men.

6%

Figure 2.2c. The structure of voting by gender in France, 1956-2017:
right-wing female vote until the 1980s

4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
-10%
-12%
-14%

Difference between (% women voting left) and(% men voting left)
After controls for age, fam.sit., education
After controls for age, fam.sit., education,
income, wealth
After controls for age, fam.sit., education,
income, wealth, religion-16%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PCF, Rad., various left, greens, extreme left) obtain a score that is 15 points
lower among women than among men; in 2012, their score is 2 point higher among men.

40%
36%
32%
28%

Figure 2.2d. The structure of voting by age in France, 1956-2017:
youth vote leans to left, but in a volatile manner
Difference between (%18-34-year-old voting left)and (% 65yr+ voting left)

24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PCF, Rad., etc.) obtain a score that is 12 point shigher among the 18-34year-old than among the 65-year-old-and over; in 2012, their score is 10 points higher among the 18-34-year-old. Source:
calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives)

40%
36%
32%

Figure 2.2e. The structure of voting by age in France, 1956-2017:
youth vote leans to left, but in a volatile manner
Difference between (% 18-34-year-old voting left) and (% 65yr+ voting left)
Difféerence between (% 18-34-year-old voting left) and (% 35-64-yr voting left)
Difference between (% 35-64-year-old voting left) and (% 65-yr+ voting left)

28%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PCF, Rad., etc.) obtain a score that is 11 point shigher among the 18-34year-old than among the 65-year-old-and over; in 2012, their score is 10 points higher among the 18-34-year-old. Source:
calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives)

40%

Figure 2.2f. The structure of voting by age in France, 1956-2017:
youth vote leans to left, but in a volatile manner

36%
32%
28%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%

Difference between (% 18-34-year-old voting left)and (% 65yr+ voting left)
After controls for gender, education
Ater controls for gender, education, income, wealth-8%1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (presidential and legislative elections)
Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PCF, Rad., various left, greens, extreme-left) obtain a score that is 12 pointshigher among the 18-to-34-year-old than among the 65+; in 2012, their score is 10 points higher among the 18-to-34-year-old.
Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives)

40%
36%
32%
28%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%

Figure 2.2g. The structure of voting by age in France, 1956-2017:
youth vote leans to left, but in a volatile manner

Difference between (% 18-34-yr voting left) and (% 65yr+ voting left)
After controls for gender, education
Ater controls for gender, education, income, wealth
After controls for gender, education, income, wealth, religion

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PCF, Rad., etc.) obtain a score that is 12 point shigher among the 18-34year-old than among the 65-year-old-and over; in 2012, their score is 10 points higher among the 18-34-year-old. Source:
calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives).

Figure 2.3a. Left-wing vote in France, 1956-2017:from the worker party to the high-education party

12%

Difference between (% univ.graduates votingleft) and (% non-univ.graduates voting left)

8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PCF, Rad., various left ,green, extreme-left) obtain a score that is 17 points lower
among university graduates than among non-university graduates; in 2012, their score is 8 points higher among graduates.
score 12i t

Figure 2.3b. Left vote by education in France: election by election

65%
60%
55%
50%
45%

High.
57%

Prim.
57%
Prim.
48%

40%
35%

Sec.
54%

30%

High.
49%

Sec.
50%

Sec.
48%

Sec.
47% High.
44%

Prim.
44%

47%

30% 48%

Prim.
47%

High.
37%

25%
20%

72% 23%

1956

5%

42%

1973

11%

1995

22%

18%

56%

26%

2012

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left parties (SFIO-PS, PCF, Rad., etc.) obtain 57% of the vote among voters with no degree (other than primary),
54% among voters with secondary degrees (Bac, Brevet, Bep, etc.) and 37% among university graduates (higher education). In
2012, the left candidate (Hollande) obtains 47% of the vote among voters with no degree and 57% among university graduates.en
2012 le candidat de gauche (Hollande) obtient 47% des voix parmi les électeurs sans diplôme (en dehors du certificat d'études primaires), 50% parmi les65%

Figure 2.3c. Left vote by education in France: election par election
Primary

60%

SecondaryHigher

55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
1956

1958

1962

1965

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left parties (SFIO-PS, PCF, Rad.,etc.) obtain 57% of the vote among voters with no degree (other than primary),
54% among voters with secondary degrees (Bac, Brevet, Bep, etc.) and 37% among university graduates (higher education).
Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives).

65%

Figure 2.3d. Left vote by education in France: election par election
Primary

60%

SecondaryHigher

55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
2002

2007

2012

2017

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 2012, the left candidate (Hollande) obtains 47% of the vote among voters with no degree (other than primary), 50%
among voters with secondary degrees (Bac, Brevet, Bep, etc.) and 57% among university graduates (higher education).
Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives).

65%
60%

Figure 2.3e. Left vote by education in France: election par election
Primary

SecondaryHigher

55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
1956 1958 1962 1965 1967 1973 1974 1978 1981 1986 1988 1993 1995 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left parties (SFIO-PS, PCF, Rad.,etc.) obtain 57% of the vote among voters with no degree (other than primary),
54% among voters with secondary degrees (Bac, Brevet, Bep, etc.) and 37% among university graduates (higher education).
Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives).

65%

Fig. 2.3f. Left vote by education in France: short vs long higher education
Primary

60%

Secondary

Short higher educ.

Long higher educ.

55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
1973

1974

1978

1986

1988

1993

1995

1997

2002

2007

2012

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 2012, the left candidate (Hollande) obtains 47% of the vote among voters with no degree (except primary), 50% amongvoters with secondary degrees, 53% among voters with short higher education and 59% among voters with long higher education.
Note: 1973-1978, short high. = university, long high= grande école. 1986-2012: short high. = bac+2, long high. = bac+3 or more.

16%
12%
8%

Figure 2.3g. Left-wing vote in France, 1956-2017:from the worker party to the high-education party
Difference between (% univ.graduates votingleft) and (% non-univ.graduates voting left)

4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict).
Reading: in 1956, left parties (SFIO-PS, PCF, Rad., etc.) obtain a score that is 17 points lower among univ. graduates than among
non-univ. graduates; in 2012, their score is 8 points higher among graduates. Fine lines indicate confidence intervals (90% level).
score 12 point

16%

Figure 2.3h. Left-wing vote in France, 1956-2017:from the worker party to the high-education party

12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%

Difference between (% univ.graduates votingleft) and (% non-univ.graduates voting left)-20%

After controlling for age, sex

-24%
-28%
-32%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict).
Reading: in 1956, left parties obtain a score that is 17 point lower among univ. graduates than among non-univ. graduates; in2012, their score is 8 points higher among university graduates. Including control variables does not affect the trend (only the level).
Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post électorales 1956 2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives)

Figure 2.3i. Left-wing vote in France, 1956-2017:from the worker party to the high-education party

16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%

Difference between (% univ.graduates voting left) and (% nonuniv.graduates voting left)
After controlling for age, sex

-16%
-20%

After controlling for age, sexe, income, wealth

-24%
-28%
-32%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict).
Reading: in 1956, left parties obtain a score that is 17 point lower among univ. graduates than among non-univ. graduates; in2012, their score is 8 points higher among university graduates. Including control variables does not affect the trend (only the level).
Sourcel l d l' t

à

ti d

êt

t él tl1956 2017 (él ti

é id

ti ll

t lé i l ti)

Figure 2.3j. Left-wing vote in France, 1956-2017:from the worker party to the high-education party

16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%

Difference between (% univ.graduates voting left) and (% nonuniv.graduates voting left)
After controlling for age, sex

-12%
-16%
-20%

After controlling for age, sexe, income, wealth-24%
After controlling for age, sex, income, wealth, father's occupation

-28%
-32%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict).
Reading: in 1956, left parties obtain a score that is 17 point lower among univ. graduates than among non-univ. graduates; in2012, their score is 8 points higher among university graduates. Including control variables does not affect the trend (only the level).
Sourcel l d l' t

à

ti d

êt

t él tl1956 2017 (él ti

é id

ti ll

t lé i l ti)

Figure 2.3k. Left-wing vote in France, 1956-2017:from the worker party to the high-education party

16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%

Difference between (% left vote among top 10% education voters) and(% left vote among bottom 90% education voters)
After controlling for age, sex

-12%
-16%
-20%

After controlling for age, sexe, income, wealth-24%
After controlling for age, sex, income, wealth, father's occupation

-28%
-32%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict).
Reading: in 1956, left parties obtain a score that is 14 point lower among top 10% education voters; in 2012, their score is 9 points
higher among top 10% education voters. Including control variables does not affect the trend (only the level). Source: calculs de
l' t

à

ti d

êt

t él tl1956 2017 (él ti

é id

ti ll

t lé i l ti)

Figure 2.3l. Left-wing vote in France, 1986-2017:from the worker party to the high-education party

16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-12%

Difference between (% univ.graduates voting left) and (% nonuniv.graduates voting left)
After controlling for age, sex-16%

After controlling for age, sexe, income, wealth

-8%

-20%

After controlling for age, sex, income, wealth, father's occupation-24%
After controlling for age, etc., father's occ., + attitudes on immigration

-28%
-32%

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict).
Reading: in 1956, left parties obtain a score that is 17 point lower among univ. graduates than among non-univ. graduates; in2012, their score is 8 points higher among university graduates. Including control variables does not affect the trend (only the level).
Sourcel l d l' t

à

ti d

êt

t él tl1956 2017 (él ti

é id

ti ll

t lé i l ti)

% vote for left-wing parties and candidates by income
decile (all household income sources combined)

Figure 2.4a. Left-wing vote by income decile in France, 1958-2012

80%
70%
60%

1958

1962

1974

1978

1986

1988

1995

2007

2012

D9

D10

Top5% Top1%

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1978, left-wing parties (PS, PCF, Rad., etc.) obtain 46% of the vote among voters with bottom 10% income, 23% of
the vote among top 10% income voters, and 17% among top 1%. Generally speaking, the profile of left-wing vote by income
percentile is relatively flat within the bottom 90%, and strongly declining for the top 10%, especially at the beginning of the period.

% vote for left-wing parties and candidates by wealthdecile (real-estate, financial and business assets)

80%

Figure 2.4b. Left-wing vote by wealth decile in France, 1974-2012

70%

1974

1978

1986

1988

1995

2007

D10

Top5% Top1%

2012

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

D9

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1978, left-wing parties (PS, PCF, Rad., etc.) obtain 69% of the vote among voters with bottom 10% wealth, 23%of the vote among voters with top 10% wealth, and 13% among top 1% wealth holders. Generally speaking, the profile ofleft-wing vote by wealth percentile is strongly declining, all along the distribution, especially at the begining of the period.
Sll d l'

t

à

ti d

êt

t él

t

l

1956 2017 (él

ti

é id

ti ll

t lé i l ti)

Figure 2.4c. High-income vote in France: before and after controls
16%
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% income voters) and(% left vote among bottom 90% income voters)
After controls for age, sex

12%
8%

After controls for age, sex, education

4%

After controls for age, sex, education, father's occupation

0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using post-electoral surveys1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: top 10% income voters always vote less for the left than bottom 90% income voters, before and after controls(except in 2017, where I use dashed lines, due to the difficulty to classify centrist votes). Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir desêtt él tl1956 2017 (él ti

é id

ti ll

t lé i l ti)

Figure 2.4d. High-wealth vote in France: before and after controls
28%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
-32%
-36%

Difference between (% left vote among top 10% wealth voters) and (% left vote among
bottom 90% wealth voters)
After controls for age, sex
After controls for age, sex, education
After controls for age, sex, education, father's occupation

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Source: author's computations using post-electoral surveys1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: top 10% wealth voters always vote much less for the left than bottom 90% wealth voters, before and after
controls (I use dashed lines in 2017, due to the difficulty to classify centrist votes). Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes
t él tl1956 2017 (él ti

é id

ti ll

t lé i l ti)

Figure 2.5a. Political conflict in France, 1956-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

16%
12%

Difference between (% left vote among university graduates)and (% left vote among non-univ. graduates)

8%

Difference between (% left vote among top 10% income
voters) and (% left vote among bottom 90% income voters)

4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the left vote used to be associated with lower education and lower income voters; it has gradually become associatedwith higher education voters, giving rising to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs wealth); it might also become
associated with high-income voters in the future, giving rise to a great reversal or realignement of the party system. Source: calculs
d l'

à

d

ê

él

l

(él

é d

ll

lé

l

)

Figure 2.5b. Political conflict in France, 1956-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?
Difference between (% left vote among univ. graduates) and (% left
vote among non-univ. graduates) (after controls)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% income voters) and(% left vote among bottom 90% income voters) (after controls)

16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the left vote used to be associated with lower education and lower income voters; it has gradually become associatedwith higher education voters, giving rising to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs wealth); it might also become
associated with high-income voters in the future, giving rise to a great reversal or realignement of the party system. Source: calculs
d l'

à

d

ê

él

l

(él

é d

ll

lé

l

)

Figure 2.5c. Political conflict in France, 1956-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?
16%

Difference between (% left vote among top 10% education voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% educ. voters)

12%

Difference between (% left vote among top 10% income voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% income voters)

8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the left vote used to be associated with lower education and lower income voters; it has gradually become associatedwith higher education voters, giving rising to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs wealth); it might also become
associated with high-income voters in the future, giving rise to a great reversal or realignement of the party system. Source: calculs
d l'

à

d

ê

él

l

(él

é d

ll

lé

l

)

Figure 2.5d. Political conflict in France, 1956-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

20%

Difference between (% left vote among top 10% education voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% educ. voters) (after controls)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% income voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% income voters) (after controls)

16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the left vote used to be associated with lower education and lower income voters; it has gradually become associatedwith higher education voters, giving rising to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs wealth); it might also become
associated with high-income voters in the future, giving rise to a great reversal or realignement of the party system. Source: calculs
d l'

à

d

ê

él

l

(él

é d

ll

lé

l

)

28%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
-32%
-36%

Figure 2.5e. Political conflict in France, 1956-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?
Difference between (% left vote among university graduates) and(% left vote among non-univ.graduates)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% income voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% income voters)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% wealth voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% wealth voters)

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the left vote used to be associated with lower education and lower income voters; it has gradually become associatedwith higher education voters, giving rising to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs wealth); it might also become
associated with high-income voters in the future, giving rise to a great reversal or realignement of the party system. Source:l l d l'

à

d

ê

él

l

(él

é d

ll

lé

l

)

28%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
-32%
-36%

Figure 2.5f. Political conflict in France, 1956-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?
Difference between (left vote among university graduates) and(% left vote among non-univ.graduates)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% income voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% income voters)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% wealth voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% wealth voters)

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the left vote used to be associated with lower education and lower income voters; it has gradually become associatedwith higher education voters, giving rising to a "multiple-elite" party system. Fine lines indicate 90% confidence intervals. Source:
calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post électorales 1956 2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives)

Figure 2.5g. Political conflict in France, 1956-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?
24%
20%
16%
12%

Difference between (% left vote among university graduates) and(% left vote among non-univ.graduates) (after controls)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% income voters) and(% left vote among bottom 90% income voters) (after controls)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% wealth voters) and(% left vote among bottom 90% wealth voters) (after controls)

8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the left vote used to be associated with lower education and lower income voters; it has gradually become associatedwith higher education voters, giving rising to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs wealth); it might also become
associated with high-income voters in the future, giving rise to a great reversal or realignement of the party system. Source:l l d l'

à

d

ê

él

l

(él

é d

ll

lé

l

)

36%
32%
28%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
-32%
-36%

Figure 2.5h. Political conflict in France, 1956-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?
Difference between (% univ.graduates voting left) and (% non-univ.graduates voting left)
After controls for age, sexe, income, wealth
Difference between (% high income voters (top 10%) voting left) and (% bottom income voters (bottom 90%) voting left)
After controls for age, sex, education
Difference between (% high wealth voters (top 10%) voting left) and (% low wealth voters (bottom 90%) voting left)
After controls for age, sex, education

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the left vote used to be associated with lower education and lower income voters; it has gradually become associatedwith higher education voters, giving rising to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs wealth); it might also become
associated with high-income voters in the future, giving rise to a great reversal or realignement of the party system. Source:l l d l'

à

d

ê

él

l

(él

é d

ll

lé

l

)

28%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
-32%

Figure 2.5i. Political conflict in France, 1956-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% education voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% education voters)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% income voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% income voters)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% wealth voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% wealth voters)

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the left vote used to be associated with lower education and lower income voters; it has gradually become associatedwith higher education voters, giving rising to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs wealth); it might also become
associated with high-income voters in the future, giving rise to a great reversal or realignement of the party system. Source:l l d l'

à

d

ê

él

l

(él

é d

ll

lé

l

)

28%
24%
20%
16%
12%

Figure 2.5j. Political conflict in France, 1956-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% education voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% education voters) (after controls)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% income voters) and(% left vote among bottom 90% income voters) (after controls)
Difference between (% left vote among top 10% wealth voters) and(% left vote among bottom 90% wealth voters) (after controls)

8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the left vote used to be associated with lower education and lower income voters; it has gradually become associatedwith higher education voters, giving rising to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs wealth); it might also become
associated with high-income voters in the future, giving rise to a great reversal or realignement of the party system. Source:l l d l'

à

d

ê

él

l

(él

é d

ll

lé

l

)

Figure 2.6a. The structure of the electorate by religion in France
100% 3%
6%
90%

Muslim 5%

Other religion

5%

No religion

80%
35%
70%
60%

66%

50%

Catholic(non practicing)

40%
30%

49%

20%
10% 25%

Catholic(practicing)

0%

1967

1973

1978

6%

1988

1995

2002

2007

2012

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict).
Reading: between 1967 and 2012, the fraction of the electorate reporting to be "practicing catholic" (church at least once a month)dropped from 25% to 6%, non-practicing-catholics dropped from 66% to 49%, no-religions rose from 6% à 35%, other-religions(protestantism, juadïsm, budhism, etc., except islam) rose from 3% to 5%, and the fraction reporting islam rose from 0% to 5%.

Figure 2.6b. Left-wing vote by religion in France 1973-2012100%

Pract.catholics

Non-pract.catholics

No religion

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1967

1973

1978

1988

1995

1997

2002

2007

2012

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 2012, the left candidate (Hollande) obtains 38% of the vote among voters reporting to be practicing catholics (going tochurch at least once a month), 42% among non-practicing catholics, and 64% among voters reporting no religion. Source: calculs del'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives).
(

)

50%

Figure 2.6c. Political conflict in France, 1956-2017:a persistently strong cleavage between non-believers and catholics

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%

Difference between (% non-believers (no religion)
voting left) and (% other voters voting left)
Difference between (% practicing catholics voting left)and (% other voters voting left)

-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: we observe a strong and persistent polical cleavage between non-believers (voters reporting no religion, voting left)
and practicing catholics (voting right); fine lines indicate 90% confidence intervals.
e: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives).

50%

Figure 2.6d. Political conflict in France, 1956-2017:a persistently strong cleavage between non-believers and catholics

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%

Difference between (% non-believers voting left) and (% believers voting left)
Difference between (% pract.catho. voting left) and (% non-pract.catho.voting left)
After controls for age, sexe
After controls for age, sex, education, income
After controls for age, sex, education, income, wealth, father's occupation

-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: we observe a strong and persistent polical cleavage between non-believers (voters reporting no religion, voting left)
and practicing catholics (voting right), before and after controls.

Figure 2.6e. Left-wing vote by religion in France : the case of Islam
100%

Pract.catholics

Non-pract.catholics

Other religion

No religion

Muslim

18% 65% 4% 13%

15% 66% 4% 14% 1%

13% 63% 4% 20% 1%

1988

1995

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

25% 66% 3% 6%

1967

1978

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1995, left-wing parties (PS, PCF, Rad., etc.) obtain 19% of the vote among practicing catholics (at least once a month),
45% among non-practicing catholics, 50% among voters reporting another religion (protestantism, judaism, buddhism, etc., except
islam), 73% among voters with no religion and 84% among muslims. Islam is classified with "other religion" in 1973-1978. Source:Figure 2.6f. Left-wing vote by religion in France: the case of Islam
100%

Pract.catholics

Non-pract.catholics

Other religion

No religion

Muslim

12% 62% 4% 22% 1%

11% 58% 4% 25% 2%

8% 56% 4% 29% 3%

6% 49% 5% 35% 5%

1997

2002

2007

2012

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 2012, the left-wing candidate (Hollande) obtains 38% of the vote among practicing catholics (at least once a month),
42% among non-practicing catholics, 52% among voters reporting another religion (protestantism, judaism, buddhism, etc., except
islam), 64% among voters with no religion and 91% among muslims. Islam is classified with "other religion" in 1973-1978. Source:Figure 2.6g. Political conflict in France, 1986-2012:
Muslim vote leans to the left

60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%

Difference between (% muslims voting left) and (%non-muslims for voting left)

20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 2012, the left candidate (Hollande) obtained a score among muslim voters that was 42 points higher than among
other voters.
Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post électorales 1956 2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives)

Figure 2.6h. Political conflict in France, 1986-2012:
muslim vote leans to the left

60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%

Difference between (% muslims voting left) and (%non-muslims voting left)

20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 2012, the left candidate (Hollande) obtained a score among muslim voters that was 42 points higher than among
other voters; fine lines indicate 90% confidence intervals.
So rcel l d l' t

à

ti d

êt

t él tl1956 2017 (él ti

é id

ti ll

t lé i l ti

)

60%

Figure 2.6i. Political conflict in France, 1986-2012:
muslim vote leaning to the left

55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%

Difference between (% muslims voting left) and (% non-muslims voting left)
After controls for age, sex
After controls for age, sexe, education, income
After controls for age, sex, education, income, wealth, father's occupation

15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 2012, the left candidate (Hollande) obtained a score among muslim voters that was 42 points higher than among
other voters; the gap falls to 38 points after controls for age, sex, educ., income, wealth, father's occupation.
Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post électorales 1956 2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives)

90%
80%

Figure 2.6j. Left-wing vote by national origin in France 2007-2012
No foreign origin (no foreign grand-parent)
Foreign origin Europe (Spain, Italy, Portugal, etc.)
Foreign origin non-Europe (Maghreb, Subsaharan Africa, etc.)
77%

70%

71%

60%
50%
49%

40%

49%

49%

72%

19%

45%

30%
20%

77%

17%

2007

6%

9%

2012

Source: author's computation using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 2012, the left-wing candidate (Hollande) obtained 49% of the vote among voters with no foreign origin (no foreign grandparent), 49% of the vote among voters with European foreign origins (in practice mostly Spain, Italy, Portugal, etc.), and 77% of thevote among voters with extra-European foreign origins (in practice mostly Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa).

Figure 2.6k. Decomposition of the Muslim vote in France 2007-2012

70%

Difference between (% muslims voting left) and (% non-muslims voting left)
After controls for age, sex, education, income, wealth, father's occupation

60%

After controls for age, sex, education, income, wealth, father's occupation+ foreign origins (detailed geographical zone)

50%
49%

40%

42%

42%

38%

33%

30%

26%

20%
10%
0%
2007

2012

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 2012, the left candidate (Hollande) obtained a score among muslim voters that was 42 points higher than among othervoters; the gap falls to 38 points after controls for age, sex, educ., income, wealth, father's occup., and 26 pts if we add controls forforeign origins (broken down by area: Italy, Spain, Portugal, other Europe, North Africa, Subsaharan Africa, Asia, other non Europe).
Sl l d l'

à

i d

ê

él

l

1956 2017 (él

i

é id

i ll

lé i l i)

Figure 2.6l. Political conflict and the migration cleavage in France
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%

% voters believing that there are too many
migrants in France% voters believing that there are not too
many migrants in France

40%
35%
30%
25%
20%

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)
Lecture: in 1986, 72% of voters consider that there are too many migrants in France (vs 28% believing the opposite); in
2017 this fraction is equam to 56% (vs 44% believing the opposite).
Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives).
Lect re1956 lti dh (SFIO PS PCF MRG dih té l i ttêh ) btit

12

i t

Figure 2.6m. Political conflict and the migration cleavage in France
50%
48%
46%
44%

Difference between (% left vote among voters believing that there are not too many migrants)and (% left vote among voters believing that there are too many migrants)
After controls for age, sex
After controls for age, sex, education, income
After controls for age, sex, education, income, wealth, father's occupation

42%
40%
38%
36%
34%
32%
30%
28%

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1988, left vote is 31 points higher among voters believing that there are not too many migrants than among
those believing there are too many migrants; in 2012, this gap is equal to 40 points. Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir desenquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives).

80%

Figure 2.6n. Political conflict and the inequality cleavage in France% voters believing that we should reduce
inequality gap between rich and poor

75%
70%

% voters believing that we should not
reduce inequality between rich and poor

65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)
Lecture: in 2002, 63% of voters consider that we should reduce inequality gap between rich and poor in France (vs 37%
believing the opposite); in 2017 this fraction is equal to 52% (vs 48% believing the opposite).
Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives).
Lect re1956 lti dh (SFIO PS PCF MRG dih té l i ttêh ) bti
t

12

i t

50%
45%
40%

Fig. 2.6o. Two-dimensional political conflict & the four-quarter electorate
Internationalists-Egalitarians (pro-migrants, pro-poor)
Internationalists-Inegalitarians (pro-migrants, pro-rich)
Nativists-Inegalitarians (anti-migrants, pro-rich)
Nativists-Egalitarians (anti-migrants, pro-poor)

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral surveys 2002-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)
Lecture: in 2017, 21% of voters are "internationalists-egalitarians" (they consider that there are not too many migrants, and that
we should reduce inequality between rich and poor); 26% are "nativists-inegalitarians" (they consider that there are too many
migrants and that we should not reduce rich-poor gap); 23% are "internationalists-inegalitarians & 30% "nativists-egalitarians".
Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives).

Table 2.1. Two-dimensional political conflict in France 2017: an electorate divided into four quarters
All voters

Mélenchon/Hamon("left")Macron("center")

Fillon("right")

Le Pen/Dupont-Aignan("extreme right")

100%

28%

24%

22%

26%

"There are too many immigrants in France"(% agree)

56%

32%

39%

62%

91%

"In order to achieve social justice we need to takefrom the rich and give to the poor" (% agree)

51%

67%

46%

27%

61%

University graduates (%)

33%

39%

41%

36%

16%

Income > 4000€/m (%)

15%

9%

20%

26%

8%

Internationalist-Egalitarian(pro-migrant, pro-poor)

21%

58%

28%

9%

5%

Internationalist-Inegalitarian(pro-migrant, pro-rich)

23%

26%

38%

30%

6%

Nativist-Inegalitarian(anti-migrant, pro-rich)

26%

12%

16%

37%

35%

Nativist-Egalitarian(anti-migrant, pro-poor)

30%

19%

16%

14%

51%

st

Presidential election 2017 (1 round)

Source: author's computations using French post-electoral survey 2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict). Reading: in 2017, 28% of first-round voters voted for
Mélenchon/Hamon, and 32% of them believe that there are too many migrants in France (vs 56% among all voters); 21% of first-round voters are "internationalistegalitarian (they believe that there are not too many migrants and that we should redistribute from rich to poor), and 58% of them voted for "left" candidates.
Note: the votes for Arthaud/Poutou (2%) and Asselineau/Cheminade/Lassale (2%) were added to the votes for Melenchon-Hamon and Fillon (respectively).

Figure 3.1a. Political conflict in the US: presidential elections 1948-2016
64%
60%
56%
52%
48%
44%
40%
36%
32%
28%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%

Democratic candidate
Republican candidate
Other candidates

1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
Percentage of popular vote obtained by democratic, republican and other candidates in US presidential elections1948-2016.
Source: see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict.de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles etlégislatives). 1956, les partis de gauche (SFIO-PS, PCF, MRG, divers gauche et écologistes, extrême-gauche) obtiennent un score 12 point

Fig. 3.1b. Political conflict in the US: democrats vs republicans (1948-2016)74%
Democratic candidate
Republican candidate

70%
66%
62%
58%
54%
50%
46%
42%
38%
34%

Kennedy 50%
Nixon 50%

Reagan 55%
Carter 45%

Clinton 53%
Bush 47%

Clinton 51%
Trump 49%

30%
26%
1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
Percentage of popular vote obtained by democratic and republican candidates in US presidential elections 1948-2016 (excluding
other candidates). Source: see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict. Sourde l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections
présidentielles et législatives). 1956, les partis de gauche (SFIO-PS, PCF, MRG, divers gauche et écologistes, extrême-gauche) obtiennent unscore 12 point

16%
12%

Figure 3.2a. Voting for the democratic party in the US, 1948-2017:
female vote turning from right to left
Difference (% voting democrat
among women) and (% voting
democrats among men)

8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1948, the democratic candidate obtained a score that was 3 points lower among women than among men; in 2016, thescore of the democratic candidate is 13 points higher among women. score 12 point

32%
28%
24%

Figure 3.2b. Voting for the democratic party in the US, 1948-2017:
young vote leaning to the left, but volatile
Difference (% voting democrat among 18-to-34-yearold) and (% voting democrat among democrats among
65-year-old+)

20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1948, the democratic candidate obtained a score that was 10 points lower among 18-to-34-year-old voters than among
the 65-year-old+); in 2016, the score of the democratic candidate is again 10 points higher among the young. score 12 point

24%
20%
16%
12%

Figure 3.3a. Voting for the democratic party in the US, 1948-2017:from the worker party to the high-education party
Difference (% voting democrat among university graduates)and (% voting democrats among non-university graduates)
After controles for age, sex
After controls for age, sex, income, race

8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1948, the democratic candidate obtained a score that was 17 points lower among university graduates than among
non-university graduates; in 2016, the score of the democratic candidate is 13 points higher among university graduates. score 12
point

80%

Figure 3.3b. Vote for democratic party by education in the US, 1948-2016
Primary

SecondaryHigher (BA)Higher (MA)Higher (PhD)

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

63% 31% 5% 1%

1948

45% 44% 9% 2%

1960

32% 53% 11% 4%

1976

19% 58% 16% 7%

1992

9% 59% 19% 11% 2%2016

Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 2016, the democratic party candidate (Clinton) obtained 45% of the vote among high-school graduates and 75%
among PhDs. Primary: voters with no high-school degree. Secondary: high-school degree but not bachelor degree. Higher (BA):bachelor degree. Higher (MA): advanced degree (master, law/medical school). Higher (PhD): PhD degree.

Figure 3.3c. Voting for the democratic party in the US, 1948-2017:from the worker party to the high-education party

28%
Difference (% voting democrat among top 10% education voters)24%
and (% voting democrat among bottom 90% education voters)
After controles for age, sex
20%
After controls for age, sex, income, race
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1948, the democratic candidate obtained a score that was 21 points lower among top 10% education voters thanamong bottom 90%; in 2016, the score of the democratic candidate is 23 points higher among top 10% education voters. score 12
point

16%
12%
8%

Figure 3.3d. Voting for left-wing & democratic parties in France and theUS, 1948-2017: from the worker party to the high-education party
France: Difference between (% univ.graduates voting left)and (% non-univ.graduates voting left)
US: Same with democratic party vote

4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French and US post-electoral surveys 1948-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PC, Rad., green, extr.-left) obtain a score that is 17 points lower among university
graduates than among non-university graduates in France; in 2012, their score is 9 points higher among university graduates. The
evolution is similar for the democratic vote in the US. score 12 point

20%
16%
12%

Figure 3.3e. Voting for left-wing & democratic parties in France and the US,
1948-2017: from the worker party to the high-education party
France: Difference between (% univ.graduates voting left)and (% non-univ.graduates voting left) (after controls)
US: Same with democratic party vote (after controls)

8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French and US post-electoral surveys 1948-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PC, Rad., green, extr.-left) obtain a score that is 14 points lower among university
graduates than among non-university graduates in France; in 2012, their score is 13 points higher among university graduates(after controls for age, sex, income, wealth, father's occupation). The evolution is similar for the democratic vote in the US. score
12 i t

24%
20%
16%

Figure 3.3f. Voting for left-wing & democratic parties in France, Britain, US
1948-2017: from the worker party to the high-education party
France: Difference between (% left vote among top 10% education
voters) and (% left vote among bottom 90% education voters)
US: same with democratic party vote

12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French and US post-electoral surveys 1948-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PC, Rad., green, extr.-left) obtain a score that is 14 points lower among top 10%
education voters than among bottom 90% education voters in France; in 2012, their score is 9 points higher among top 10%
education voters. The evolution is similar for the democratic vote in the US. score 12 point

Figure 3.3g. Voting for left-wing & democratic parties in France, Britain, US
1948-2017: from the worker party to the high-education party
24%
20%
16%

France: difference btw (% left vote among top 10% education voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% education voters) (after controls)
US: same with democratic party vote (after controls)

12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French and US post-electoral surveys 1948-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PC, Rad., etc.) obtain a score that is 14 points lower among top 10% education
voters than among bottom 90% education voters in France; in 2012, their score is 13 points higher among university graduates(after controls for age, sex, income, wealth, father's occupation). The evolution is similar for democratic vote in the US. score 12i t

% vote for democratic party candidate by income decile

Fig. 3.4a. Vote for democratic party by income decile in the US 1948-2016

90%

1948
1960
1972
1984
1996
2008

80%
70%

1952
1964
1976
1988
2000
2012

1956
1968
1980
1992
2004

D10

Top5% Top1%

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

D9

Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the profile of voting for the democratic party candidate by income percentile is generally downward sloping, especiallyat the level of the top 10%, and particularly at the beginning of the period (from the 1950s to the 1980s). Since the early 1990s,
the profile of the vote at the top is relatively flat.ource: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections

% vote for democratic party candidate by income decile

Fig. 3.4b. Vote for democratic party by income decile in the US, 1948-2016

90%

1948
1960
1972
1984
1996
2008

80%
70%
60%

1952
1964
1976
1988
2000
2012

1956
1968
1980
1992
2004
2016

D10

Top5% Top1%

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

D9

Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the profile of voting for the democratic party candidate by income percentile is generally downward sloping,
especially at the level of the top 10%, and particularly at the beginning of the period (from the 1950s to the 1980s). Since theearly 1990s the profile is really flat at the top. In the 2016 presidential election, the profile is reversed: for the first time,
top 10% voters support the democratic party candidate.Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 19562017 (él

i

é id

i ll

lé i l i)

Figure 3.4c. High-income vote in the US, 1948-2017:
before and after controls
12%8%Difference (% voting democrat among top 10% income voters)- (% voting democrats among bottom 90% income voters)
After controles for age, sex

4%

After controls for age, sex, education, race

0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1948, the democratic candidate obtained a score that was 22 points lower among top 10% income voters than among
bottom 90% income voters; in 2016, the score of the democratic candidate is 10 points higher among top 10% income voters.
score 12 point

20%
16%

Figure 3.5a. Political conflict in the US, 1948-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

12%

Difference between (% voting democrat among university graduates)and (% voting democrats among non-university graduates)

8%

Difference between (% voting democratic among top 10% income
voters) and (% voting democrats among bottom 90% bottom voters)

4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the democratic vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become
associated to high education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become
associated with high income voters in the future, giving rising to great reversal and complete realignment of the party system. score
12 i t

20%
16%
12%

Figure 3.5b. Political conflict in the US, 1948-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?
Difference between (% voting democrat among university graduates) and(% voting democrats among non-university graduates) (after controls)
Difference between (% voting democratic among top 10% income voters)and (% voting democrats among bottom 90% bottom voters) (after controls)

8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the democratic vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become
associated to high education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become
associated with high income voters in the future, giving rising to great reversal and complete realignment of the party system. score
12 i t

24%
20%
16%
12%

Figure 3.5c. Political conflict in the US, 1948-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?
Difference between (% voting democratic among top 10% education
voters) and (% voting democrats among bottom 90% education voters)
Difference between (% voting democratic among top 10% income
voters) and (% voting democrats among bottom 90% bottom voters)

8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the democratic vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become
associated to high education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become
associated with high income voters in the future, giving rising to great reversal and complete realignment of the party system. score
12 i tFigure 3.5d. Political conflict in the US, 1948-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?
24%
20%
16%

Difference btw (% voting democrat among top 10% education voters) and(% voting democrats among bottom 90% educ. voters) (after controls)
Difference btw (% voting democratic among top 10% income voters) and(% voting democrats among bottom 90% bottom voters) (after controls)

12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the democratic vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become
associated to high education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become
associated with high income voters in the future, giving rising to great reversal and complete realignment of the party system. score
12 i tFigure 3.5e. Political conflict in the US, 1948-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

20%
Difference between (% voting democrat among university graduates)16%
and (% voting democrats among non-university graduates)
Difference between (% voting democratic among top 10% income
12%
voters) and (% voting democrats among bottom 90% bottom voters)
8%
Difference between (% voting democrat among top wealth holders) and4%(% voting democrats among bottom wealth holders)
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
-32%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the democratic vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become
associated to high education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become
associated with high income voters in the future, giving rising to great reversal and complete realignment of the party system. score
12 i tFigure 3.5f. Political conflict in the US, 1948-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

28%
Difference between (% voting democrat among university graduates) and24%(% voting democrats among non-university graduates) (after controls)
Difference between (% voting democratic among top 10% income voters)20%
and (% voting democrats among bottom 90% bottom voters) (after controls)
16%
Difference between (% voting democrat among top wealth holders) and (%12%
voting democrats among bottom wealth holders) (after controls)
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the democratic vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become
associated to high education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become
associated with high income voters in the future, giving rising to great reversal and complete realignment of the party system. score
12 i tFigure 3.5e. Political conflict in the US, 1948-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

24%
Difference between (% voting democrat among top 10% education
20%
voters) and (% voting democrats among bottom 90% education voters)
16%
Difference between (% voting democratic among top 10% income
voters) and (% voting democrats among bottom 90% income voters)
12%
Difference between (% voting democrat among top wealth holders) and8%(% voting democrats among bottom wealth holders)
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
-32%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the democratic vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become
associated to high education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become
associated with high income voters in the future, giving rising to great reversal and complete realignment of the party system. score
12 i tFigure 3.5f. Political conflict in the US, 1948-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

32%
Difference between (% voting democrat among top 10% education voters)28%
and (% voting democrats among bottom 90% educ. voters) (after controls)
Difference between (% voting democratic among top 10% income voters)24%
and (% voting democrats among bottom 90% inc. voters) (after controls)
20%
Difference between (% voting democrat among top wealth holders) and16%(% voting democrats among bottom wealth holders) (after controls)
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the democratic vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become
associated to high education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become
associated with high income voters in the future, giving rising to great reversal and complete realignment of the party system. score
12 i tFigure 3.6a. Vote for democratic party by ethnic origin in the US, 1948-2016
100%

WhitesBlacksLatinos/other

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1948 1956 1960 1964 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 2016, the democratic party candidate (Clinton) obtains 37% of the vote among white voters, 89% of the voteamong black voters and 64% of the vote among latino and other voters.

Figure 3.6b. Minority vote in the US, 1948-2017:
before and after controls

52%
48%
44%
40%
36%
32%
28%
24%
Difference (% voting democrat among minority voters(black/latinos/other)) - (% voting democrats among whites)
20%
After controles for age, sex
16%
12%
After controls for age, sex, education, income
8%
4%
0%
-4%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using US post-electoral surveys 1948-2016 (ANES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1948, the democratic candidate obtained a score that was 11 points higher among minority voters than among whites;in 2016, the democratic candidate obtained a score that was 39 points higher among minority voters. score 12 point

% vote for left-wing party (France) or democratic party (US)Figure 3.6c. Political conflict and national-ethnic origins: France vs the US100%

No foreign origin (France); Whites (US)90%

European foreign origin (France); Latino/other (US)Extra-European foreign origin (France); Blacks (US)

80%

89%

77%

70%
60%

64%

50%
49%

49%

40%
37%

30%
20%
10%

72%

19%

9%

70%

France 2012

18%

12%

US 2016

Source: author's computation using French and US post-electoral surveys 1956-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 2012, the French left-wing candidate (Hollande) obtained 49% of the vote among voters with no foreign origin (no foreign
grand-parent), 49% of the vote among voters with European foreign origins (mostly Spain, Italy, Portugal, etc.), and 77% of the voteamong voters with extra-European foreign origins (mostly Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa). In 2016, the US democratic candidate(Clinton) obtains 37% of the vote among Whites, 64% of the vote among Latinos/others, and 89% of the vote among Blacks.
Source: calculs de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post électorales 1956 2017 (élections présidentielles et législatives)

Figure 4.1a. Political conflict in Britain: legislative elections 1945-2017
56%
52%
48%
44%
40%
Labour36%
Conservative
32%
Liberal/Lib-Dem
28%
SNP
24%
UKIP
20%
Other
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Percentage of popular vote obtained by labour, conservative, liberal/lib-dem and other parties in British legislative elections 19452017. SNP: Scottish National Party. UKIP: UK Independance Party. Other parties include greens, other regionalist parties, etc.
Source: see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict. Other e l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles etlégislatives) 1956 les partis de gauche (SFIO-PS PCF MRG divers gauche et écologistes extrême-gauche) obtiennent un score 12 point

Figure 4.1b. Political conflict in Britain: labour vs conservative (1945-2017)
74%
LabourConservative

70%
66%
62%
58%
54%
50%
46%
42%
38%
34%

Attlee 57%
Churchill 43%

Thatcher 54%
Callaghan 46%

Blair 58%
Major 42%

May 51%
Corbyn 49%

30%
26%1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Percentage of popular vote obtained by labour and conservative parties in British legislative elections1945-2017 (excluding otherparties). Source: see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict. de l'auteur à partir des enquêtes post-électorales 1956-2017 (élections présidentielles etlégislatives). 1956, les partis de gauche (SFIO-PS, PCF, MRG, divers gauche et écologistes, extrême-gauche) obtiennent un score 12 point

6%
4%
2%

Figure 4.2a. Voting for the labour party in Britain, 1955-2017:
female vote turning from right to left
Difference between (% voting
labour among women) and (%voting labour among men)

0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
-10%
-12%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1955, the labour party obtained a score that was 11 points lower among women than among men; in 2017, the scoreof the labour party is 4 points higher among women. score 12 point

40%
36%
32%
28%

Figure 4.2b. Voting for the labour party in Britain, 1955-2017:
youth vote leaning to the left, but volatile
Difference between (% voting labour
among 18-to-34-year-old) and (% voting
labour among 65-year-old+)

24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1959, the labour party obtained a score that was 9 points higher among the 18-to-34-year-old than among the 65-year-old and over; in 2017, the score of the labour party is 39 points higher among the 18-to-34-year-old. score 12 point

14%
10%
6%
2%

Figure 4.3a. Voting for the labour party in Britain, 1955-2017:from the worker party to the high-education party
Difference between (% voting labour among univ.
grad.) and (% voting labour among non-univ grad)
After controles for age, sex
After controls for age, sex, income, ethnic group

-2%
-6%
-10%
-14%
-18%
-22%
-26%
-30%
-34%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1955, the labour party obtained a score that was 26 points lower among university graduates than among nonuniversity graduates; in 2017, the score of the labour party is 6 points higher among university graduates. Controls alter levels but
do not affect trends. Note: here "university graduates" include both technical and general higher-education degrees.score 12 point

Figure 4.3b. Voting for the labour party in Britain, 1955-2017:from the worker party to the high-education party

18%
Diff. betw. (% voting labour among univ. grad.) and (% voting labour among non-univ grad)
14%
After controles for age, sex
After controls for age, sex, income, ethnic group10%
After controls for age, sex, income, ethnic group, wealth
6%
2%
-2%
-6%
-10%
-14%
-18%
-22%
-26%
-30%
-34%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1955, the labour party obtained a score that was 26 points lower among university graduates than among nonuniversity graduates; in 2017, the score of the labour party is 6 points higher among university graduates. Controls alter levels but
do not affect trends. Note: here "university graduates" include both technical and general higher-education degrees.score 12 point

Figure 4.3c. Voting for the labour party in Britain, 1955-2017:from the worker party to the high-education party

18%
Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% education
14%
voters) and (% voting labour among bottom 90% education voters)
After controles for age, sex
10%
After controls for age, sex, income, ethnic group
6%
2%
-2%
-6%
-10%
-14%
-18%
-22%
-26%
-30%
-34%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1955, the labour party obtained a score that was 25 points lower among top 10% education voters than among bottom
90% education voters (registered voters are ranked by highest degree); in 2017, the score of the labour party is 13 points higher
among top 10% education voters. Controls alter levels but do not affect trends.

16%
12%
8%

Figure 4.3d. Voting for left-wing & democratic parties in France, Britain, US
1948-2017: from the worker party to the high-education party
France: Difference between (% univ.graduatesvoting left) and (% non-univ.graduates voting left)
US: Same with democratic party vote
Britain: same with labour party vote

4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French, US and British post-electoral surveys 1948-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PC, Rad., green, extr.-left) obtain a score that is 17 points lower among university
graduates than among non-university graduates in France; in 2012, their score is 9 points higher among university graduates. The
evolution is similar for the democratic vote in the US and the labour vote in Britain. score 12 point

24%
20%
16%
12%

Figure 4.3e. Voting for left-wing & democratic parties in France, Britain, US
1948-2017: from the worker party to the high-education party
France: difference between (% univ.graduates voting left)and (% non-univ.graduates voting left) (after controls)
US: same with democratic party vote (after controls)
Britain: same with labour party vote (after controls)

8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French, US and British post-electoral surveys 1948-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PC, Rad., etc.) obtain a score that is 14 points lower among university graduates
than among non-university graduates in France; in 2012, their score is 13 points higher among university graduates (after controls
for age, sex, income, wealth, father's occupation). The evolution is similar for democratic vote in the US and labour vote in Britain.
12 i tFigure 4.3f. Voting for left-wing & democratic parties in France, Britain, US
1948-2017: from the worker party to the high-education party

24%
France: Difference between (% left vote among top 10% education
20%
voters) and (% left vote among bottom 90% education voters)
US: same with democratic party vote
16%
Britain: same with labour party vote
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French, US and British post-electoral surveys 1948-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left-wing parties (SFIO-PS, PC, Rad., green, extr.-left) obtain a score that is 14 points lower among top 10%
education voters than among bottom 90% education voters in France; in 2012, their score is 9 points higher among top 10%
education voters. The evolution is similar for the democratic vote in the US and the labour vote in Britain. score 12 point

Figure 4.3g. Voting for left-wing & democratic parties in France, Britain, US
1948-2017: from the worker party to the high-education party
20%

France: difference btw (% left vote among top 10% education voters)and (% left vote among bottom 90% education voters) (after controls)
US: same with democratic party vote (after controls)

16%

Britain: same with labour party vote (after controls)

24%

12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French, US and British post-electoral surveys 1948-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1956, left parties (SFIO-PS, PC, Rad., etc.) obtain a score that is 14 points lower among top 10% education voters thanamong bottom 90% education voters in France; in 2012, their score is 13 points higher among top 10% educ.voters (after controls
for age, sex, income, wealth, father's occupation). The evolution is similar for democratic vote in the US and labour vote in Britain.
12 i t

% vote for labour vs. conservative by income decile

Figure 4.4a. Vote for labour party by income decile in the UK, 1955-2017

90%

1955

1959

1964

1966

80%

1970

1974

1979

1983

70%

1987

1992

1997

2001

2005

2010

2015

2017

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

D9

D10

Top5% Top1%

Source: author's computations using UK post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the profile of voting for the labour vs. conservative (excluding other votes) by income percentile is generally downward
sloping, especially at the level of the top 10%, and particularly at the beginning of the period (from the 1950s to the 1980s). 7(élections présidentielles et législatives).

Figure 4.4b. High-income vote in Britain, 1955-2017:
before and after controls

10%
Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% income
6%
voters) and (% voting labour among bottom 90% voters)
2%
After controles for age, sex-2%-6%
After controls for age, sex, education, ethnic group
-10%
-14%
-18%
-22%
-26%
-30%
-34%
-38%
-42%
-46%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 1955, the labour party obtained a score that was 30 points lower among top 10% income voters than among bottom
90% income voters; in 2017, the score of the labour party is 12 points lower among top 10% income voters.12 point

Figure 4.4c. High-income vote in Britain, 1955-2017:
before and after controls

14%
Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% income voters) and (% voting
10%
labour among bottom 90% voters)
After controles for age, sex
6%
2%
After controls for age, sex, education, ethnic group-2%
After controls for age, sex, income, ethnic group, wealth
-6%
-10%
-14%
-18%
-22%
-26%
-30%
-34%
-38%
-42%
-46%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict
Reading: in 1955, the labour party obtained a score that was 30 points lower among top 10% income voters than among bottom
90% income voters; in 2017, the score of the labour party is 12 points lower among top 10% income voters.12 point

Figure 4.5a. Political conflict in Britain, 1955-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

16%
Difference between (% voting labour among university graduates) and (%12%
voting labour among non-university graduates)
8%
Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% income voters) and4%(% voting labour among bottom 90% bottom voters)
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
-32%
-36%
-40%
-44%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the labour vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become associated tohigh education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become associated withhigh income voters in the future, but at this stage this seems less likely in Britain than in France or the US. score 12 point

16%

Figure 4.5b. Political conflict in Britain, 1955-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

12%

Difference between (% voting labour among university graduates) and (%voting labour among non-university graduates) (after controls)8%

Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% income voters) and(% voting labour among bottom 90% bottom voters) (after controls)

4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the labour vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become associated tohigh education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become associated withhigh income voters in the future, but at this stage this seems less likely in Britain than in France or the US. score 12 point

Figure 4.5c. Political conflict in Britain, 1955-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

20%
Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% education voters)16%
and (% voting labour among bottom 90% education voters)
12%
Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% income voters) and8%(% voting labour among bottom 90% bottom voters)
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
-32%
-36%
-40%
-44%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the labour vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become associated tohigh education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become associated withhigh income voters in the future, but at this stage this seems less likely in Britain than in France or the US. score 12 point

16%

Figure 4.5d. Political conflict in Britain, 1955-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

12%

Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% education voters)and (% voting labour among bottom 90% education voters) (after controls)8%

Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% income voters) and(% voting labour among bottom 90% bottom voters) (after controls)

4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the labour vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become associated tohigh education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become associated withhigh income voters in the future, but at this stage this seems less likely in Britain than in France or the US. score 12 point

Figure 4.5e. Political conflict in Britain, 1955-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

16%
Difference between (% voting labour among university graduates) and12%(% voting labour among non-university graduates)
8%
Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% income voters)4%and (% voting labour among bottom 90% bottom voters)
Difference between (% voting labour among top wealth holders) and0%(% voting labour among bottom wealth holders)
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
-32%
-36%
-40%
-44%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the labour vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become associated tohigh education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become associated withhigh income voters in the future, but at this stage this seems less likely in Britain than in France or the US. score 12 point

Figure 4.5f. Political conflict in Britain, 1955-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

20%
Difference between (% voting labour among university graduates) and (%16%
voting labour among non-university graduates) (after controls)
12%
Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% income voters) and(% voting labour among bottom 90% bottom voters) (after controls)8%
Difference between (% voting labour among top wealth holders) and (%4%
voting labour among bottom wealth holders) (after controls)
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
-32%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the labour vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become associated tohigh education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become associated withhigh income voters in the future, but at this stage this seems less likely in Britain than in France or the US. score 12 point

Figure 4.5g. Political conflict in Britain, 1955-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

24%
Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% education voters)20%
and (% voting labour among bottom 90% education voters)
16%
Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% income voters) and12%(% voting labour among bottom 90% bottom voters)
8%
Difference between (% voting labour among bottom wealth holders) and4%(% voting labour among bottom wealth holders)
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
-32%
-36%
-40%
-44%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the labour vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become associated tohigh education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become associated withhigh income voters in the future, but at this stage this seems less likely in Britain than in France or the US. score 12 point

Figure 4.5h. Political conflict in Britain, 1955-2017:
toward a multiple-elite party system, or a great reversal?

24%
Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% education voters)20%
and (% voting labour among bottom 90% education voters) (after controls)
Difference between (% voting labour among top 10% income voters) and16%(% voting labour among bottom 90% bottom voters) (after controls)
12%
Difference between (% voting labour among top wealth holders) and (%8%
voting labour among bottom wealth holders) (after controls)
4%
0%
-4%
-8%
-12%
-16%
-20%
-24%
-28%
-32%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (BES) (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: the labour vote used to be associated with low education and low income voters; it has gradually become associated tohigh education voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party system (education vs income); it might also become associated withhigh income voters in the future, but at this stage this seems less likely in Britain than in France or the US. score 12 point

Figure 4.6a. Labour vote by religion in Britain 1964-2017
100%

Christians

Other religions

No religion

Islam

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

96% 1% 3%

1964

67% 1% 31% 1%

57% 4% 37% 2%

47% 3% 47% 3%

43% 4% 48% 5%

1979

1997

2010

2017

Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 2017, the labour party obtains 39% of the vote among self-reported Christians (inc. Anglicans, other Protestants,
Catholics), 56% among voters reporting other religions (Judaïsm, Hinduism, etc., except Islam), 54% among voters reporting no
religion, and 96% among self-reported Muslims. Before 1979, Islam is included with other religions.: calculs de l'auteur à partir desFigure 4.6b. Labour vote by ethnic group in Britain 1979-2017
100%

WhitesAfricans-Caribbeans

Indians-Pakistanis

Other

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

98% 1% 1%

96% 2% 2%

1979

1987

94% 2% 3% 1%

90% 3% 5% 2%

89% 3% 6% 2%

1997

2010

2017

Source: author's computations using British post-electoral surveys 1963-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in 2017, the labour party obtains 41% of the vote among self-reported ethnic "Whites", 81% among among "AfricansCaribbeans", 82% among "Indians-Pakistanis-Bengladeshis" and 69% among "Other" (including "Chinese", "Arabs", etc.).
Note: in 2017, 5% of voters refused to answer the ethnic identity question (and 77% of them voted Labour) (not shown here).Source:

90%

Figure A1. Political participation in France, US, Britain 1948-2017

85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%

France (presidential elections)France (legislative elections)
US (presidential elections)
Britain (general elections)30%
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French and US post-electoral surveys 1948-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: Turnout has been relatively stable around 75%-85% for presidential elections in France, but it has fallen below 50% forlegislative elections. Britisu turnout has fallen and increased again since 2010. US turnout has fluctuated around 50%-60%. score
12 point

24%

Figure A2. Political participation in France, US, Britain 1948-2017:
top 50% vs bottom 50% income voters

20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
-4%
-8%

France: difference btw (% turnout among top 50% income
voters) and (% turnout among bottom 50% income voters)
US: same difference
Britain: same difference-12%1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: author's computations using French and US post-electoral surveys 1948-2017 (see piketty.pse.ens.fr/conflict)Reading: in the 1950s-1960s, electoral turnout was only 2%-3% larger among top 50% income voters as compared to bottom 50%
income voters in Britain and France; in the 2010s the gap has grown to about 10%-12% and is approaching US levels. score 12
point