Populism, defined by a rhetoric of “the people” versus “the elite,” has gained traction across Western democracies. This paper examines the relationship between populist attitudes and both subjective beliefs about social mobility and objective measures of social mobility in individuals' local areas. Through a new US survey, I collect 3,450 respondent-generated narratives of upward mobility and classify them as “luck-based” or “effort-based” using a large language model. I then link this data with electoral outcomes and social mobility measures at the county-level. Lower local mobility is associated with higher support for populist attitudes and Trump vote shares. Moreover, individuals in low-mobility areas are more likely to perceive national social mobility as limited, suggesting that local conditions shape broader economic beliefs. Individuals who perceive mobility as low are more likely to attribute social ascent to luck rather than effort. To identify the causal effect of such beliefs on populism, I conduct a survey experiment in which 2,000 respondents are randomly exposed to luck-based ascent narratives. Exposure raises populist attitudes by decreasing beliefs in the role of merit, particularly among men, individuals without a college degree, and those without upward mobility experience. These findings suggest that low social mobility fosters populism by shifting beliefs about economic fairness and opportunity.
No prior registration necessary. If you have any questions, please contact Amanda Slater at slater[at]hertie-school[dot]org.
This event is part of the Political Economy Lunch Seminar series.