According to exit polling in the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States, 57 percent of surveyed voters making less than 50,000 U.S. dollars reported voting for former Vice President Joe Biden. In the race to become the next president of the United States, 54 percent of voters with an income of 100,000 U.S. dollars or more reported voting for incumbent President Donald Trump.

According to exit polling in ten key states of the 2024 presidential election in the United States, 46 percent of voters with a 2023 household income of 30,000 U.S. dollars or less reported voting for Donald Trump. In comparison, 51 percent of voters with a total family income of 100,000 to 199,999 U.S. dollars reported voting for Kamala Harris.

Why do the rich and poor support different parties in some places? We argue that voting along class lines is more likely to occur where states can tax the income and assets of the wealthy. In low bureaucratic capacity states, the rich are less likely to participate in electoral politics because they have less to fear from redistributive policy. When wealthy citizens abstain from voting, politicians face a more impoverished electorate. Because politicians cannot credibly campaign on anti-tax platforms, they are less likely to emphasize redistribution and partisan preferences are less likely to diverge across income groups. Using cross-national survey data, we show there is more class voting in countries with greater bureaucratic capacity. We also show that class voting and fiscal capacity were correlated in the United States in the mid-1930s when state-level revenue collection and party systems were less dependent on national economic policy.

This graph shows the percentage of votes of the 2016 presidential elections in the United States on November 9, 2016, by income. According to the exit polls, about 53 percent of voters with an income of under 30,000 U.S. dollars voted for Hillary Clinton.

What difference does it make if the state makes people vote? The question is central to normative debates about the rights and duties of citizens in a democracy, and to contemporary policy debates in a number of Latin American countries over what actions states should take to encourage electoral participation. Focusing on a rare case of abolishing compulsory voting in Venezuela, this article shows that not forcing people to vote yielded a more unequal distribution of income. The evidence supports Arend Lijphart’s claim, advanced in his 1996 presidential address to the American Political Science Association, that compulsory voting can offset class bias in turnout and, in turn, contribute to the equality of influence.

Do electorates hold governments accountable for the distribution of economic welfare? Building on the finding of “class-biased economic voting” in the United States, we examine how OECD electorates respond to alternative distributions of income gains and losses. Drawing on individual-level electoral data and aggregate election results across 15 advanced democracies, we examine whether lower- and middle-income voters defend their distributive interests by punishing governments for concentrating income gains among the rich. We find no indication that non-rich voters punish rising inequality, and substantial evidence that electorates positively reward the concentration of aggregate income growth at the top. Our results suggest that governments commonly face political incentives systematically skewed in favor of inegalitarian economic outcomes. At the same time, we find that the electorate’s tolerance of rising inequality has its limits: class biases in economic voting diminish as the income shares of the rich grow in magnitude.

This poll, the second of three fielded January 2012, is a part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicits public opinion on a range of political and social issues. Respondents were asked how well Barack Obama was handling the presidency, foreign policy, the economy, and the threat of terrorism. Multiple questions addressed which Republican presidential candidates were favored, which were most likely to win against President Obama, which candidates were most trusted to handle various political issues, as well as whether President Obama and the Republicans in Congress were working together. Additional topics included the role of religion in elections, campaign financing, the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements, wealth distribution, and social class. Opinions were also sought about the most important problem facing the country at that time, and whether respondents felt the country was moving in the right direction. Finally, respondents were asked whether they voted in the 2008 presidential election and who they voted for, whether they had been contacted on behalf of any of the presidential candidates, and whether they were registered to vote. Demographic information includes sex, age, race, marital status, education level, household income, employment status, religious preference, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), political party affiliation, political philosophy, and whether respondents thought of themselves as born-again Christians.

In striking contrast to the notion that democracy is under threat because ‘the middle’ has been ‘squeezed’ over recent decades, Iversen and Soskice (2019) in their book, Democracy and Prosperity, present an optimistic account about the future of democracy. This paper examines their key assumption that the symbiosis between democracy and advanced capitalism is underpinned by electorally decisive middle-class voters that secure a constant share of economic growth. Using comprehensive data on income trends, it is shown that this claim does not stand up to scrutiny: median income has often lagged behind the mean in household surveys, rather than kept pace with it as Iversen and Soskice claim. Strong real income growth has generally not compensated the middle for lagging behind. The varying fortunes of the middle in securing its share of economic growth have implications for the broader debate about inequality and democracy.

The voter measurement study was conducted by USUMA on behalf of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. In the survey period 08.07.2020 to 30.12.2020, eligible voters aged 18 and over were surveyed in telephone interviews (CATI) on the following topics: Party identification as social identity, factors of the voting decision. Lifestyles according to Otte, positional issues of taxes and duties, immigration and climate, party identification, attitudes towards politics, state and society, party image, own image, political interest, closeness/dislike of parties, Sunday question and alternative voting intention. The respondents were selected using a disproportionately stratified random sample from an ADM selection frame including landline and mobile phone numbers (dual-frame sample).
Party identification; used to think better of the parties that are now rejected; party identification as a social identity (when I talk about the party, I usually say we rather than they, the party stands for my values and basic convictions, the party does a lot for people like me, the party was already voted for in my parents´ house, when things go badly for the party, I suffer with them); factors in the voting decision (e.g. convincing substantive positions, convincing candidates, feeling of solidarity, solves political problems, socially oriented, Christian-oriented, etc.); lifestyles according to Otte; the government should stick to planned measures even if the majority of citizens are against them; position statements on the topics of taxes and duties, immigration and combating climate change; closeness to/dislike of parties; attitudes towards politics, the state and society (it doesn´t matter whether I make provisions for old age, the money won´t be enough in old age (only for non-retirees), I can´t influence how much pension/money I will receive in old age, rarely does anything happen in politics that benefits the little man, MPs are hardly interested in the problems of the people who elect them, politicians say this or that depending on how it suits them); party images and own image (e.g. stability, prosperity, predictability, reliability, security, consistency, proper governance, etc.); political interest; party preference (Sunday question); alternative voting intention.

Demography: sex; age; employment situation; short-time work; situation if not employed; current unemployment as a result of the coronavirus crisis in Germany; highest general school-leaving qualification; highest vocational qualification; denomination or religious community; other religious community (open); frequency of attending religious services; personal migration background or parents´ migration background; assessment of household income; financial consequences of a major purchase (no problem or major challenge); household size; number of children under 18 in the household.

Additionally coded were: respondent ID; district; federal state; weight; rated parties (random selection); unpopular parties (random selection); filter (split half); number of cell phone numbers via which the respondent can be reached personally by phone; number of landline phone numbers via which the respondent can be reached personally at home; political municipality size class.

This data collection focuses on the federal budget deficit and on issues dealing with the rich and the poor in America. Respondents were asked if they approved of the way George Bush, Democrats in Congress, and Republicans in Congress were handling the the federal budget deficit, and who was more to blame for the larger deficit. Additionally, respondents were asked how much money it takes to be rich in the United States, whether they would want to be rich, how likely it was that they would ever be rich or poor, whether the percentage of Americans who are rich was increasing, and whether they respected and admired rich people. Other questions asked respondents if they characterized rich people as more likely to be honest, snobbish, intelligent, and a variety of other traits, whether respondents would be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who was a millionaire/self-made millionaire, and which political party better represented the interests of poor, rich, and middle class people. Background information on respondents includes political alignment, 1988 presidential vote choice, registered voter status, education, age, religion, social class, marital status, number of people in the household, labor union membership, employment status, race, income, sex, and state/region of residence.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

This dataset comprises the results of a survey of a cross section of the Northern Ireland population. Respondents were asked questions on a range of political attitudes and behaviour. The survey was conducted directly after the Northern Ireland Assembly Election 2016 and asks the following: full voting information as gathered via a mock ballot paper, full set of demographic questions including social class, religion, education, gender and suchlike, battery of political attitude questions on ethnonational, economic and moral themes, question on voting behaviour in the EU referendum, questions on political accountability, ethnic representation, candidate traits and other politically relevant questions.

Background information on the Power-Sharing and Voting: Conflict, Accountability and Electoral Behaviour at the 2015 Northern Ireland Assembly Election project:
When citizens in Northern Ireland cast their vote in the 2015 Northern Ireland Assembly election, almost two decades had passed since the Good Friday/ Belfast Agreement of 1998 established devolution and power-sharing. Thus, a rigorous analysis of the 2015 Assembly election allows careful consideration of the impact of the 'peace process' and the associated implementation of power-sharing governing structures.

The project investigates whether power-sharing has actually led to good quality electoral democracy for the people of Northern Ireland or has instead merely cemented and strengthened ethnic divisions. In the investigation, a number of specific questions are addressed.

• 1) Have the power-sharing institutions maintained or reduced the importance of ethno-national (Protestant British versus Catholic Irish) campaigning and voting at election time? The study compares the strength of ethno-national voting over the 1998-2015 period by linking the 2015 study to earlier ESRC funded studies in 1998 and 2003. The project assesses whether there has been an increase over time in 'cross bloc' voting (Protestants giving lower preference votes to nationalist parties, or Catholics giving lower preference votes to unionist parties). Also, it assesses whether the importance of ethno-national ideology (voting on the basis of nationalist versus unionist beliefs) has become more or less important over time. Furthermore, it compares ethno-national ideology to non-conflict ideologies (such as economic left-right views or moral liberal-conservative views).
• 2) Is electoral accountability possible? If there is only one party in government, it is easy for voters to identify who to hold responsible for government performance. In coalition governments it is harder for voters to clearly see which party to blame if things are going badly (or reward if things are going well). This difficulty is particularly acute when all of the parties are in Government and none are in Opposition, as is the case in Northern Ireland. We assess whether it is actually possible for voters to hold decision-makers to account in such a context.
• 3) Is there an emotional basis to voting? Following on from questions 1 and 2 the project assesses the conditions under which voters rely on either ethno-national voting or peformance-based voting. It investigates the role of emotions and assess whether anger is associated with voting on the basis of the ethno-national conflict while fear is associated with performance-based voting.
• 4) Does power-sharing discourage participation? Does the absence of a clear Opposition lead to reluctance to engage in politics? Also, does the sense that powersharing benefits one community over the other lead to alienation from politics, or non-electoral forms of political protest?
• 5) What are Northern Ireland citizens' attitudes to political reform (such as developing a strong Opposition that would hold the Government to account, or the regulation of sensitive cultural matters such as flag flying and parades)? How do citizens form such attitudes? Why is it that disagreement with suggested reform can spiral into violent street protest?

Answering these questions is important for understanding how democracy operates in the sensitive setting of Northern Ireland. The answers are also important for broader understanding of how to respond to violent ethnic conflict around the world. The 'Northern Ireland Model' is often held up as an impressive example of successful power-sharing and peace building. This analysis will provide a detailed critique of the quality of electoral democracy in the Northern Ireland example that will be important for peace builders around the world (including organisations such as the United Nations). The project will also maximise the relevance of the work for ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland, second level school teachers and students, Northern Ireland newspapers, documentary makers, and the...

This poll, fielded October 10-13, 2008, is a part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. This poll interviewed 1,070 adults nationwide, including 972 registered voters, about the way George W. Bush was handling the presidency and the economy, the condition of the national economy, and whether the country was moving in the right direction. Registered voters were asked how much attention they were paying to the 2008 presidential campaign, whether they had voted in a presidential primary or caucus that year, the likelihood that they would vote in the general election, and for whom they would vote if the general election were held that day. Views were sought on presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, vice-presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, the Democratic and Republican parties, and members of the United States Congress. A series of questions asked whether their opinions of the presidential candidates had changed in the past few weeks and whether anything about the candidates' background bothered them, including Obama's alleged association with Bill Ayers, a former member of the radical domestic group called the Weathermen, and McCain's involvement as one of the five senators known as the Keating Five in the savings and loan controversy in the late 1980s and early 1990s. All respondents were polled on whether they had watched the second presidential debate held October 7, 2008, who they thought won, and the likelihood that they would watch the next presidential debate on October 15, 2008. Additional topics addressed feelings about the economic bailout plan, concerns about job loss in the household, and whether their household income was sufficient to pay their bills. Those with a mortgage on their home were asked how concerned they were about not being able to pay it. Demographic variables include sex, age, race, education level, marital status, household income, perceived social class, political party affiliation, political philosophy, voter registration status and participation history, religious preference, frequency of religious attendance, and whether respondents considered themselves to be a born-again Christian, and whether a child under 18 was living in the household.

Systematic analysis of change in political opinions and behaviour of the Dutch electorate. Pre-election wave: reading of newspapers / tv newscast exposure / most important national problems / party identification and membership / evaluation of government policy on economic situation, labour market, personal income situation / political issues ( perception of main parties standpoint, own stand ): abortion, nuclear plants, differences in income / voting in last European Parliament elections / voting in last national election / coalition preference / opinion on cleaning pollution / sympathy rating of parties and leading politicians / party identification of parents / Post-election wave, additional variables: voting behaviour / time of vote decision / voting stability / political issues ( perception of main parties stand, own stand ): euthanasia, NATO nuclear arms on Dutch territory / expectations regarding own income situation, general prosperity and influence of coalition on that / prevalence of reduction of unemployment versus reduction of government debts / knowledge of, opinions on leading politicians / left, right rating of political parties / sense of political efficacy / civic competence, participation / party campaign activities / membership of and participation in extra-parliamentary organizations / influence of religion / pillarization - compartmentalization / confessionalism / secularism / self centredness / importance of national political goals /sympathy rating of politicians Background variables: basic characteristics/ residence/ housing situation/ household characteristics/ occupation/employment/ income/capital assets/ education/ social class/ politics/ religion/ readership, mass media, and 'cultural' exposure/ organizational membership.
The data- and documentation files of this dataset can be downloaded via the option Data Files.

Assessing electoral change in the Netherlands. First wave: reading of newspapers / tv newscast exposure / most important national problems / party identification and membership / evaluation of government policy on economic situation, labour market, personal income situation / political issues (perception of main parties standpoint, own stand): abortion, nuclear plants, differences in income / opinion on cleaning pollution / sympathy rating of parties and leading politicians / party identification of parents. Second wave, additional variables: voting behaviour / time of vote decision / voting stability / political issues ( perception of main parties stand, own stand ): euthanasia, NATO nuclear arms on Dutch territory / expectations regarding own income situation, general prosperity and influence of coalition on that / prevalence of reduction of unemployment versus reduction of government debts / knowledge of, opinions on leading politicians / left, right rating of political parties / sense of political efficacy / civic competence, participation / party campaign activities / membership of and participation in extra-parliamentary organizations / influence of religion / pillarization - compartmentalization / confessionalism / secularism / self centredness / importance of national political goals / sympathy rating of politicians. Third wave: political interest, media exposure / most important national problem / voting behaviour second chamber 1994, interest in campaign / evaluation of government policy on economic situation, labour market, respondents personal finances / political issues: euthanasia, income differences (perception of main parties standpoint- own stand) / left-right rating of political parties / expected effects of various party coalitions on the economy and respondents personal finances / reduction of budget deficit versus employment / evaluation of cooperation of parties in cabinets / image of leading politicians / chance respondent will ever vote for other party / post materialism / political efficacy / political cynicism / protection of the environment / civic competence, political participation. Background variables: basic characteristics/ residence/ household characteristics/ occupation/employment/ income/capital assets/ education/ social class/ politics/ religion/ readership, mass media, and 'cultural' exposure/ organizational membership.
The data- and documentation files of this dataset can be downloaded via the option Data Files.

Assessing electoral change in the Netherlands. First wave: Political interest / national problems of importance to respondent / voting behaviour in the past / party identification and membership / vote intention / sense of political efficacy / left, right rating / expectations of election outcome. Second wave: Political interest / national problems / voting behaviour 1977 / party identification / vote intention / coalition preference / political knowledge ( identification of leading politicians and their function ) / faith in prospective premiers / political efficacy / left, right rating / expectations election outcome / political issues: economy ( unemployment, inflation ) / abortion / nuclear energy ( closing nuclear plants ) / income differences / which party offers best solution for solving: unemployment / crime / pollution / housing shortage / welfare fraud / evasion welfare levies ( tax ) / nuclear weapons / religion / confessionalism / satisfaction with government / social participation. Third wave: political interest / national problems / voting behaviour 1977 and 1981 / party identification / coalition preference / faith in prospective premiers / political efficacy / left, right rating / sense of civic competence / civic political participation / materialist values / women's emancipation ( liberation ) / legitimacy of social protest and government reaction / political distrust / political cynicism / religion / confessionalism. Fourth wave: Political interest / national problems / party identification and membership / left, right rating / voting behaviour 1981, 1982 / coalition preference / political issues: unemployment / income policy / women's emancipation / political knowledge / faith in prospective premiers / abortion / nuclear energy / income differences / nuclear arms ( weapons, armaments ) / party identification / political distrust and cynicism / social protest / effect of tv debates / future voting. Fifth wave: political interest / party identification / political efficacy / religion / confessionalism / left-right rating / effects of and satisfaction with government policy / voting behaviour 1986 / coalition preference / faith in prospective premiers / political issues: abortion / nuclear energy / differences in income / nuclear armaments / future voting probability / experience with unemployment. Background variables: basic characteristics/ residence/ housing situation/ household characteristics/ occupation/employment/ income/capital assets/ education/ social class/ politics/ religion/ organizational membership.
The data- and documentation files of this dataset can be downloaded via the option Data Files.

The post-election survey focused on voting trends and decision-making in the 1993 New Zealand general election. Voters were questioned on: parties/politicians and the politics and issues of each; economic policy; attitudes to other policies and values; their attitudes on the extent of representation and the level of participation; party preferences and voting; the role of elections and types of electoral reforms. Background variables include age, sex, country of birth, place of residence, racial, religious and class identity, personal income, marital status, level of education, employment status, income, spouse’s employment status and income.

Variables include: age category; religion; literacy (ability to read and write); education; monthly household income; opinion of Indira Gandhi, Desai, Patil, Chavan, Nadar; opinion of Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister; occupation; biggest problems of people today; importance of voting; what would R do as leader in government, in local government; duty to country; individual's avenues of protest to government; R's experience influencing local or national decisions; problems for government solution, incl. uneducated children, high interest rates, housing conditions, unemployment, overpopulation, social inequalities; government officials' treatment of citizens with problems; identification of Congress Party members, national leaders; should laws always be obeyed; control of government by P.S.P., Jan Sangh, Communists, Swatantra party, would help, harm, or have no effect on country; opinion of election alliances by opposition parties to defeat Congress Party; preferred party coalition to defeat Congress Party; political party membership; ideals and aims of independence, are they being achieved; political party preference; election vote intention today; last election vote recall, for Lok Sabha; city; monthly income needed by family of four, comparison with R's family income; sex; rural/urban; most appropriate political positions for Radhakrishnan, I. Gandhi, Nadar, Desai, Chavan; predictions for 1967; is standard of living rising or falling.

ard 1 variables include: sex; size of family; number of voters in the household; age group; occupation; social class; education; religion; income group; state; rural/urban; interest in politics; political activity; political party preference; change in economic condition since 1952, since 1957 elections; reason for worsening economic condition; has R's income fallen, why; has standard of living achieved R's expectations; what has R been unable to obtain; reason for short-fall; which political party can best provide cheaper food, more jobs, better income, more benefits; was Congress right to introduce prohibition, impose ceiling on land holding, seek production through land co-operatives, increase direct and indirect taxation, take basic industries into public sector, restrict the private sector; justification for Congress curtailing the private sector, which field would R prefer further restricted; why should private sector not be further restricted. Card 2 variables include: opinion of Nehru, Prakash Narayan, Desai, Shastri, Patil, Krishna Menon, Chavan, Ram; who would R favour as next Prime Minister to succeed Nehru; if none, why; election vote intention today for Lok Sabha, State Legislature; 1952 election vote recall; 1957 election vote recall; reasons for voting behaviour, past and present; would R prefer a non-socialist liberal party or a leftist party as opposition to the Congress, why; can cold war between US and USSR be ended soon, what should India's role be; role of political leaders in cold war, including Kennedy, Khruschev, Mao Tse Tung, Nasser, deGaulle, Adenauer, Ayub Khan; opinion of United States, Russia, Great Britain, West Germany, France, China, Japan.

Voting behavior, political system and economic reforms. Topics: Watching news programs and reading newspaper; mood in the last few days; family´s current material situation; economic situation of town/region and country; general situation; market reforms; opinion on Yeltsin, Duma, Prime Minister and government; political situation; life satisfaction; expected improvements in the next 12 months; Russia out of control; democracy vs. order; trust in politicians; rating of Yeltsin and Chernomirdin; expectations concerning politics and economy in the next few months; the biggest problems of the society; possibility of mass demonstrations and taking part; voting intention for/against Yeltsin and reasons; income growth compared to the prices; money per capita needed; subsistence level; price trends; time to purchase goods and save money; economic situation in the last and in the next 6 months; economic situation in Russia in 12 months and in 5 years; renouncing from necessary things, holiday trips etc; assumed income level of poor families; domestic vs. imported goods, clothes and household goods; place of shopping; spending money; savings and shares in investment funds; save money in near future; assumed income level of a rich family; ideal number of children; way of increasing the number of children; planned number of children; having another child in the next 2-3 years; unplanned pregnancy; conditions for having another child; birth rate control; voting intention in the presidential elections; Yeltsin or Zyuganov; suspected election result; Zyuganov or Yavlinski; next Russian President; class self placement; sources of income; problem of lacking orders in the company; poor supplies of equipment and raw supplies; irregular work; leaders´ inability; selling products in the company; theft in the firm; high wages vs. social security; work preferences; importance of work; intensity of work; conditions for being successful at work; keeping job vs. unemployment; interpersonal relationship at work; involving in any conflicts last year; conflicts between the company´s management and the work team; conflicts between members of staff; most frequent reasons for conflict; way of solving the conflicts; opinion on strikes; second job; motivation of the workers; possibilities of initiative; successful groups in Russia; main income of the family; telephone; high and low self placement five years ago, today and in five years; religion; staying at home in June; voting in presidential election; voting decision in 1995 elections; region.

Trends and consequences of the social change; individual attitudes, values, orientations and social behavior. Cumulative data set. Topics: Job status; labor situation; social prestige; socio-economic position (scale); place of work characterized in terms of ownership, branch of industry and size; experiences and periods of unemployment; job status of his/her spouse and parents; occupational intergenerational mobility; first job, evaluation of the place of work and occupation within one's own value system, job security; satisfaction with the job; education of parents and spouse; perception of the role of education; school ownership (state/private) and place; degrees and occupational titles obtained; social background; geographical mobility; marriage and family structure; attitudes towards family and the situation of women; socialization; one's own economic situation and that of the family; individual and household income; dwelling situation; position of household goods; debt and savings of the household; satisfaction with individual income and the economic situation of the family; current state of changes of the economic situation in Poland; economic distributive justice; distribution of incomes; acceptance of economic inequalities among different occupations and social strata; social position and its changes; encompassing class-strata identification; one's own present and past social position; self-evaluation of occupational, economic and educational status in comparison to that of the parents; judgment on social structure, social inequalities and systemic changes in Poland; assessment of factors determining success in life; perception of mechanisms creating social inequalities and determining levels of poverty and wealth; voting behavior and preferences; participation in presidential elections of 1990 1991, 1993, 1995 and in 1997 parliamentary elections and constitutional referendum; vote intention 1999; efficacy of the political system and democracy; trust in main social and political institutions; criteria for governing distribution of budgetary funds for different public goals; political and ideological orientations; interest in politics and public life; preferred political goals; postulated role of government in economy and public life; opinions on communism and socialism; self-identification on a left-right scale, tolerance toward communists, atheists and militarists; threats to Poland's independence from other countries; religious denomination and frequency of religious practices; strength of belief; belief in a life after death; trust in the Catholic Church, evaluation of the church and denominational organization influence on public life; tolerance toward atheists; attitudes toward contemporary ethical dilemmas (abortion, divorce, euthanasia, capital punishment) and law-abidance; satisfaction with one's own life in society; satisfaction with different domains of life (family, marriage, social, economic and professional situation) and their importance to the individual; measures of painful and joyful experiences; the will to live; joyfulness and happiness; trust in other people; state of health; smoking and alcohol consumption. In addition separate modules from the international comparative research project ISSP are included in the cumulative data set: Social Inequalities (1992), Environmental Protection (1993), Family and Social Roles of Women (1994), Sexual Experiences suplement (1994), National Identity (1995), Work Orientations II (split A in 1997) and Role of Government III (split B in 1997), Social Inequalities III (split A in 1999) and Religion (split B in 1999).