Who Pays the Price of Parenthood? with Pieter Vanhuysse

Who Pays the Price of Parenthood? with Pieter Vanhuysse

Hosts: Marius R. Busemeyer – Professor of Comparative Political Economy at the University of Konstanz and Speaker of the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”. Gabriele Spilker – Professor of International Politics at the University of Konstanz and Co-Speaker of the Cluster. Guest: Pieter Vanhuysse – Professor of Political Economy and Public Policy at the University of Southern Denmark and affiliated with the Danish Institute for Advanced Studies. His research connects political science, economics, sociology, and political demography. Episode Overview What does demography have to do with inequality? In this episode, Marius R. Busemeyer and Gabriele Spilker speak with Pieter Vanhuysse about welfare states, intergenerational transfers, and inequalities between parents and non-parents. Vanhuysse argues that welfare states are not only “Robin Hood” institutions redistributing between rich and poor. To a larger extent, they function as “piggy banks”: systems that redistribute resources across the life course. The episode explores why raising children creates public benefits for society, while many costs remain private.   Episode Highlights Welfare States as Piggy Banks · Across 22 European countries, most net welfare-state benefits are explained by age and life-cycle dynamics rather than class redistribution. · Working-age people finance pensions, healthcare, long-term care, education, and family policies. · Upward transfers are largely socialized; downward transfers to children remain more privatized. Children, Care, and Public Goods · Children become future workers, taxpayers, carers, and parents — making them a public good, not just a private choice. · Raising children requires public support, private money transfers, and unpaid time transfers. · Unpaid care and household work are often the largest, but least visible, parental contribution. Parents and Non-Parents · Looking only at taxes and benefits, parents appear to contribute less than non-parents. · Once private money and time transfers are included, the picture reverses: parents contribute more than two and a half times as much. · Vanhuysse describes this as an invisible “metaphorical tax on parenthood”.   Fertility, Family Policy, and Crisis · Even family-friendly Nordic welfare states are experiencing declining fertility rates. · Young adults face uncertainty, housing pressure, climate anxiety, war, digitalization, and economic insecurity. · Marginal reforms may not match the scale of the challenge.   Policy Implications · Supporting parents requires looking beyond classical family policy. · Societies need to value reproduction and care work alongside production and paid employment. · Welfare states must better recognize time, care, and generational responsibility. Links & Further Reading More about the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality [http://www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality] Further readings: o Vanhuysse, P. (2024): Debunking The ‘Stork Theory’: Why Do Low-Fertility Societies Tax Their Own Reproduction? [https://ifstudies.org/blog/debunking-the-stork-theory-why-do-low-fertility-societies-tax-their-own-reproduction] Institute for Family Studies, Octobre 8, 2024.  o Vanhuysse, P. (2024): The New Nordic Paradox: How Family-Friendly Welfare States Burden Parents The Most. [https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-new-nordic-paradox-how-family-friendly-welfare-states-burden-parents-the-most] Institute for Family Studies, Octobre 23, 2024. o Vanhuysse, P., Medgyesi, M., Gál, R.(2023): Taxing reproduction: the full transfer cost of rearing children [https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230759]. in Europe. R Soc Open Sci. 1 October 2023; 10 (10): 230759. o Vanhuysse P., Medgyesi M., Gal R. I. (2021): Welfare states as lifecycle redistribution machines: Decomposing the roles of age and socio-economic status shows that European tax-and-benefit systems primarily redistribute across age groups. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255760] PLoS ONE 16(8): e0255760.  Contact: cluster.inequality@uni-konstanz.de [cluster.inequality@uni-konstanz.de] New episodes every first Wednesday of the month – subscribe and stay tuned!

Research Highlights in a Nutshell. Live Podcast at the In_equality Conference

Hosts: Marius R. Busemeyer – Professor of Comparative Political Economy at the University of Konstanz and Speaker of the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”. Gabriele Spilker – Professor of International Politics at the University of Konstanz and Co-Speaker of the Cluster. Guests: Researchers from the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”, presenting key findings from projects on perceptions of inequality, workplace integration, political elites, and climate-related inequalities. Overview What have cluster researchers learned about the political causes and consequences of inequality in the Cluster’s first funding phase? In this special live episode, researchers present short insights from several major Cluster projects. The conversation shows how inequality is perceived, negotiated, and politicized — in surveys, workplaces, firms, parliaments, and climate-affected communities. Across the projects, one message stands out: inequality is not only about objective distributions of income, risk, or opportunity. It is also shaped by perceptions, institutions, political contexts, and ideas of fairness. Highlights · The Inequality Barometer – Marius R. Busemeyer: Perceptions matter: people often misperceive their own position in the income distribution, and these biases can shape political attitudes and voting behavior. · Automation and Conflict within Firms: The German Way – Sebastian Findeisen Automation does not automatically increase inequality — in Germany, firms with works councils often adopted technological change while providing job security and a fairer distribution of productivity gains. · Integration at Work – Florian Kunze: Political polarization can spill over into the workplace: migrant apprentices experience more social undermining in regions with stronger right-wing voting, negatively affecting their work satisfaction and exhaustion. · Political Elites and Inequality: Information, Heuristics and Policy – Maj-Britt Sterba: Politicians’ perceptions of inequality shape their support for redistribution — and legislators are often more ideologically polarized than citizens. · Perceptions of Wage Inequality – Thomas Hinz: Whether workers perceive their wages as fair depends strongly on absolute wage levels; relative comparisons matter mostly once basic material security is ensured. · Climate Inequalities in the Global South: from Perceptions to Protest – Gabriele Spilker: Climate change-induced environmental events and the related inequalities do not necessarily lead to protest; rather, environmental mobilization is most likely when degradation is severe, persistent, or linked to concrete health risks. Key Takeaways Objective factors are not the only game in town: Whether people support redistribution, accept automation, feel fairly paid, or mobilize against environmental harm depends on how inequality is perceived and interpreted. Institutions matter too: works councils, firms, political parties, and local communities can either reinforce or help mitigate the political consequences of inequality. The episode highlights the Cluster’s broad interdisciplinary approach — combining surveys, experiments, administrative data, fieldwork, and new datasets to understand inequality across different contexts. Links & Further Reading More about the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality [http://www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality] · In_equality Conference 2026: https://inequality-conference.de · Download the slides here: https://t1p.de/n8x55 [https://t1p.de/n8x55] Contact: cluster.inequality@uni-konstanz.de New episodes every first Wednesday of the month – subscribe and stay tuned!

Mythos Polarisierung? mit Steffen Mau

Hosts:  · Marius R. Busemeyer – Professor für Vergleichende Politische Ökonomie an der Universität Konstanz und Sprecher des Exzellenzclusters „The Politics of Inequality“. · Gabriele Spilker – Professorin für Globale Ungleichheit an der Universität Konstanz und Co-Sprecherin des Clusters. Gast: Steffen Mau – Professor für Makrosoziologie an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin und Direktor am Max-Planck-Institut Politik und Sozialwissenschaft in Göttingen.; forscht u. a. zu Ungleichheit, Transformation und gesellschaftlichen Konflikten. Zudem ist er der Gewinner des In_equality Research Award 2026 [https://inequality-conference.de/].  Episodenüberblick Ist unsere Gesellschaft wirklich so stark polarisiert, wie es öffentliche Debatten oft suggerieren? In dieser Folge sprechen Gabriele Spilker und Marius R. Busemeyer mit dem Soziologen Steffen Mau über Wahrnehmung und Realität gesellschaftlicher Spaltung. Ausgangspunkt ist Maus Buch „Triggerpunkte“, in dem er zeigt, dass viele Konflikte weniger tief sind als angenommen – und warum sie uns dennoch so zugespitzt erscheinen. Es geht um Ungleichheit, Migration, Diversität und Klimapolitik – und um die Frage, wie Politik mit gesellschaftlichen Spannungen umgehen kann. Episoden-Highlights * Was bedeutet Polarisierung? * Wahrnehmung vs. Realität * Vier Konfliktfelder („Triggerpunkte“) Mau unterscheidet vier zentrale Arenen gesellschaftlicher Konflikte:  * „oben–unten“ (ökonomische Ungleichheiten) - wenig Polarisierung – Kritik ist in fast allen sozialen Gruppen verbreitet. * „innen–außen“ (Migration) - mehr Konflikt, aber auch hier keine klaren „Lager“ entlang von Klassen. * „wir–sie“ (Diversität) - oft hoher Grundkonsens, bei gleichzeitigen Spannungen auf symbolischer Ebene. * „heute–morgen“ (Klimapolitik) - entwickelt sich zunehmend zu einer sozialen Gerechtigkeitsfrage. * Besonders brisant: Ungleichheit wird von vielen als großes Problem gesehen – politisch aber vergleichsweise wenig verhandelt. * Einstellungen vs. Wahlverhalten * Ost-West-Unterschiede neu gedacht Links & Quellen Mehr zum Exzellenzcluster „The Politics of Inequality“: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality [http://www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality] Weiterführende Literatur: * Lux, T., Mau, S., Jacobi, A. (2021). Neue Ungleichheitsfragen, neue Cleavages? Ein internationaler Vergleich der Einstellungen in vier Ungleichheitsfeldern. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11609-021-00456-4] Berliner Journal für Soziologie. Vol. 32, S. 173-212.  * Mau, S., Lux, T., Heide, J. (2024). Ost- und Westdeutsche für immer? Zu Wahrnehmungen von Unterschieden und Konflikten zwischen Ost- und Westdeutschen. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-024-00949-z?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26utm_medium%3Darticle] Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 76(1):1-23.  * Mau, S., Lux, T., Westheuser, L. (2023). Triggerpunkte. Konsens und Konflikt in der Gegenwartsgesellschaft. [https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/triggerpunkte-t-9783518029848] Suhrkamp Verlag. * Kontakt: cluster.inequality@uni-konstanz.de [cluster.inequality@uni-konstanz.de] Neue Folgen immer am ersten Mittwoch im Monat – jetzt abonnieren!

Can Inequality be fair? with David Rueda

Hosts: Marius R. Busemeyer – Professor of Comparative Political Economy at the University of Konstanz and Speaker of the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”. Gabriele Spilker – Professor of International Politics at the University of Konstanz and Co-Speaker of the Cluster. Guest: David Rueda – Professor of Comparative Politics at the University of Oxford and Fellow at Nuffield College; Senior Fellow at the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”. His research focuses on the political economy of redistribution, unions and social democracy, and perceptions of fairness and deservingness. Episode Overview Is inequality always seen as unfair? Or do people sometimes consider it justified? In this episode, Marius R. Busemeyer and Gabriele Spilker speak with David Rueda about fairness, meritocracy, and the political foundations of redistribution. Drawing on large-scale surveys and innovative lab experiments, Rueda shows that support for redistribution is not driven by income alone. While material self-interest matters, perceptions of fairness and deservingness play a crucial role in shaping attitudes toward taxation, welfare, and inequality. The episode also explores how concerns about crime, insecurity, and social order intersect with redistributive politics — and whether investing in redistribution may ultimately be more effective than investing in punishment. Episode Highlights Fairness, Merit, and Self-Interest * Inequality is more likely to be accepted when it is perceived as the outcome of effort and merit rather than luck. * Support for redistribution reflects both material self-interest and normative beliefs about fairness. Information and Inequality Perceptions * Survey experiments show that informing citizens about high levels of inequality increases support for redistribution among the poor. * Among the rich, the same information increases polarization: some become less supportive, others more supportive. What Happens in the Lab? * Participants perform a real effort task and earn income, which is then subject to taxation and redistribution with real monetary consequences. * Procedural fairness matters: affluent participants are more supportive of redistribution when the poor have worked but were disadvantaged by luck. Redistribution vs. Policing * In a second stage, participants can invest either in redistribution or in policing to deter theft. * When the rich underinvest in redistribution, they later spend more on policing. Implications for Welfare State Politics * Support for redistribution among the poor is relatively stable; shifts among the rich are crucial. * Perceptions of work, merit, and deservingness strongly shape affluent voters’ preferences. Links & Further Reading More about the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality [http://www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality] · Further information:  o   Fetscher, V. and Rueda, D. (2023): “For Richer and for Poorer: Income, Perceptions of Inequality and Support for Redistribution [https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/bk4zh]”. Preprint.  o   Rueda, D. and Stegmueller, D. (2019): “Who Wants What? Redistribution Preferences in Comparative Perspective [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108681339]”. Cambridge University Press. o   In_equality Colloquium with David Rueda: “Crime or redistribution: Fairness, effort and income [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Ek_Kz98WI]”. 8 Octobre 2024.  Contact: cluster.inequality@uni-konstanz.de New episodes every first Wednesday of the month – subscribe and stay tuned!

Wie politisch ist unser Einkaufszettel? mit Sebastian Koos

Hosts: Marius R. Busemeyer – Professor für Vergleichende Politische Ökonomie an der Universität Konstanz und Sprecher des Exzellenzclusters „The Politics of Inequality“. Gabriele Spilker – Professorin für Globale Ungleichheit an der Universität Konstanz und Co-Sprecherin des Clusters.  Gast: Sebastian Koos – Professor für Soziologie an der Universität Konstanz und Inhaber der Clusterprofessur „Social Movements“; er forscht u. a. zu sozialen Bewegungen und Nachhaltigkeit. Episodenüberblick Wie politisch ist unser Einkaufszettel? Und was unterscheidet „nachhaltigen“ von „politischem“ Konsum? In dieser Live-Folge – aufgenommen im Rahmen der Nachhaltigkeitstage an der Universität Konstanz – sprechen Gabriele Spilker und Marius R. Busemeyer mit dem Soziologen Sebastian Koos über Boykotte, Fair-Trade-Märkte, das Lieferkettengesetz und die Frage, ob Konsumentscheidungen tatsächlich gesellschaftlichen Wandel anstoßen können. Episoden-Highlights Politischer vs. nachhaltiger Konsum · Politischer Konsum: Kaufen oder Nichtkaufen als Mittel, um Unternehmen zu belohnen oder zu bestrafen (instrumentell, strategisch). · Nachhaltiger Konsum: Konsum so gestalten, dass ökologische und soziale Folgen möglichst gering bleiben. · Wichtigster Punkt: „Der nachhaltigste Konsum ist der, den man sich spart.“ Ungleichheitsdimension · Anders als bei Wahlen gilt nicht „one person, one vote“, sondern wer sich beteiligen kann hängt direkt von Kaufkraft, Wissen und Zeit ab. · Aus einer Gerechtigkeitsperspektive ist politischer Konsum daher ambivalent. Wer konsumiert politisch oder nachhaltig? · Politischer/ethischer Konsum ist voraussetzungsvoll: Bildung ist ein zentraler Faktor (Information, Labels, Wissen). · Einkommen und Klassenlage spielen mit hinein: Nachhaltiger Konsum kann Status ausdrücken – ist aber selten nur Status oder nur Moral. · Geschlechterunterschiede: Frauen zeigen häufiger „positives Kaufen“, Boykotts sind etwas ausgeglichener verteilt. · „Ethischer Konsum“ bedeutet je nach sozialer Lage Unterschiedliches – von Zertifikaten bis zu „gesund und sparsam für die Familie sorgen“. Wirksamkeit und Grenzen · Forschungslage zu Boykotts: gemischte Effekte – manchmal negativ, manchmal kaum messbar, manchmal sogar positiver PR-Effekt. · Häufig entscheidend: Reputation (Naming & Shaming) statt reine Umsatzverluste. Links & Quellen * Mehr zum Exzellenzcluster „The Politics of Inequality“: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality [http://www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality] * Weiterführende Literatur:  * Bartley, T., Koos, S., Samel, H., Setrini, G., & Summers, N. (2015). Looking behind the label: Global industries and the conscientious consumer. [https://iupress.org/9780253016560/looking-behind-the-label/] Indiana University Press. * Koos, S. (2021). Moralising markets, marketizing morality. The fair trade movement, product labeling and the emergence of ethical consumerism in Europe. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2020.1865235] Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 33(2), 168-192. * Koos, S. (2012). What drives political consumption in Europe? A multi-level analysis on individual characteristics, opportunity structures and globalization. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254078455_What_drives_political_consumption_in_Europe_A_multi-level_analysis_on_individual_characteristics_opportunity_structures_and_globalization] Acta sociologica, 55(1), 37-57. * Kontakt: cluster.inequality@uni-konstanz.de Neue Folgen immer am ersten Mittwoch im Monat – jetzt abonnieren!