Table 5 suggests that the population that perceives distribution as very unfair is more prone to actively demonstrate. Each of the four reasons to mobilize has positive and statistically different from zero coefficients. The magnitudes of the coefficients suggest this effect is larger in the case of protests for jobs, health and education, compared to exploitation of natural resources or to defend democratic rights, where the size of the coefficients is half as large. Table 5 also suggests that, on average, people are less prone to protest in countries with relatively higher levels of inequality. As with previous results, the relationship can go either way. For instance, relatively unequal countries might, in fact, have higher levels of inequality due to a lower propensity of its citizens to manifest against such disparities.

Although these results are encouraging, the analysis relies on ‘willingness’ to demonstrate. However, people might state they are very eager to protest, while in practice they might not do it. To partially overcome this issue, we analyze the relationship between unfairness and actually having mobilized in the past. In particular, we consider six different types of demonstrations: making a complaint to the media, making a complaint on social networks, signing a petition, refusing to pay taxes and being part of an authorized or unauthorized demonstration. We recode these variables so they take a value equal to 1 if the individual stated she had a past of mobilization, and 0 otherwise. Cross-country visual evidence is provided in Appendix Figure A9 while regression results are shown in Table 6.

Overall, both visual and regression analysis suggests unfairness perceptions are positively and significantly correlated with a past of activism. With the exception of illegal activities (columns 1 and 4),<sup>26</sup> and making a complaint to the media, all other coefficients have the expected sign and are statistically significant. In Appendix Tables A7 and A8 we replicate the regressions in Tables 5 and 6, but using as the regressor of interest the population that perceived distribution as unfair or very unfair. We observe two main differences. First, some of the coefficients stop being statistically different from zero (e.g., columns 3 and 4 from Table 5). Second, some of the coefficients actually turn negative and statistically significant (e.g., column 2 from Table 5, and columns 1-3 from Table 6). These two facts together suggest that activism is driven by the population with strong views about inequality (i.e., very unfair), and not by those who perceive it as just unfair.

Even though a strikingly high share of the population shares the view that income distribution is unfair, the fight against inequality does not seem to be a top priority among LA citizens. Every year, Latinobarómetro asks respondents what they think is their country's most important problem. Although there is a lot of heterogeneity both across countries and across time, insecurity and unemployment are consistently listed as the top priorities. In these rankings, reducing the high disparities between the rich and the poor is usually listed in the bottom half of the priorities, under other issues like 'education’ or ‘corruption.’

> 26 Perhaps, the lack of results with respect to illegal activities (columns 1 and 4) could be due to measurement error, as there are no incentives to report accurately a past of doing illegal activities.

27