Featured

Economic Inequality and Political Power (Part 3 of 3)

August 29, 2012 1890

In response to the disproportionate influence of the well-off that I document in Affluence & Influence some have argued that policy reflects (and perhaps should reflect) the preferences of the affluent because affluent Americans are better informed, or because they care more, or because they are more likely to engage politically by voting, contacting their representatives, or working on political campaigns. None of these explanations can account for much of the representational inequality I found.

Faith in the wisdom of the affluent to guide public policy has been sorely tested by the enormous costs in money and human suffering resulting from the Great Recession. (Affluent Americans have been more enthusiastic about deregulation in general, and of the financial industry in particular, than the less well-off.) My data cast further doubt on the notion that representational inequality arises from the greater knowledge or better judgment of those with higher incomes. If government responds not simply to the most affluent but to the most knowledgeable citizens, we would expect education to be a stronger moderator of the preference/policy link than income. In fact, I find the opposite: when both are taken into account, income is a far stronger determinant of influence over policy outcomes than is education (see below).

As far as caring about policy outcomes is concerned, there is no evidence that I’m aware of that suggests that middle-class or poor Americans care less about policy outcomes than the well-off. When the 2004 ANES asked “How important is this issue to you personally?” with regard to half a dozen prominent policy issues, there were no differences across income levels. Similarly, my own data show no difference in the proportion of respondents at different income levels expressing “strong” versus “somewhat” favorable or unfavorable views toward proposed policy changes.

Poor people do vote at lower rates than middle-income or affluent Americans, and other forms of individual political engagement, like working on campaigns and contacting elected officials, also vary by income level. But Larry Bartels’ analyses of Senators’ voting patterns and the preferences of their low, middle, and high income constituents shows that little of the representational inequality he documents can be accounted for by class differences in turnout, political knowledge, or contacting elected officials (see Larry’s masterful book Unequal Democracy).

Moreover, the relationship between income and political engagement does not parallel the relationship between income and influence over policymaking. As the charts below indicate, it is the poor who are distinctively low in voting and campaign work, but as my first post showed, it is high income Americans who are distinctive in their ability to shape government policy.

What most distinguishes the affluent is, of course, their money. And unlike other forms of political participation, donations to campaigns, parties, PACs, and lobbying organizations are highly skewed toward the most affluent Americans:

Electoral campaigns are extraordinarily expensive, and they have become considerably more so over time. The “professionalization” of political campaigns, with their increased focus on paid advertising and sophisticated targeting operations, has increased the value of money relative to other resources (like the ability to mobilize large numbers of volunteers). The growing need for campaign cash has combined with a growing economic inequality that has concentrated more of the country’s wealth in the hands of fewer of its citizens. Together these developments threaten to produce a vicious cycle in which affluent Americans shape policy in ways that enhance their existing advantages and further their ability to determine the course of government policymaking.

Can anything be done to make policymakers more equally responsive to the preferences of all Americans?

….

Read the rest of this article at The Monkey Cage

by Martin Gilens

Read Related Articles

Economic Inequality and Political Power (Part 1 of 3)

Why the Stevens Op-Ed is Wrong

Danny Dorling on Inequality

New Study Supports Link Between Inequality and Crime

Related Articles

Popular Paper Examines Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Analysis
Impact
July 10, 2025

Popular Paper Examines Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Analysis

Read Now
Why Men Have a Bigger Carbon Footprint Than Women  
Insights
July 8, 2025

Why Men Have a Bigger Carbon Footprint Than Women  

Read Now
Examining How Open Research Affects Vulnerable Participants
Impact
July 8, 2025

Examining How Open Research Affects Vulnerable Participants

Read Now
Anna Harvey Stepping Down as SSRC President
Infrastructure
June 18, 2025

Anna Harvey Stepping Down as SSRC President

Read Now
Closing the Gender Pay Gap: Why Intermediaries Matter

Closing the Gender Pay Gap: Why Intermediaries Matter

Despite decades of reform, gender pay gaps (GPGs) remain a stubborn and unjust feature of labour markets globally. On average, women are […]

Read Now
Degrading Sites of Punishment and Pain: The Case for Abolishing Prisons

Degrading Sites of Punishment and Pain: The Case for Abolishing Prisons

Prisons have been in crisis in England and Wales for 200 years. The state has responded with piecemeal, ‘pragmatic’ reforms which have […]

Read Now
Who Gets to Flourish? 

Who Gets to Flourish? 

In this month’s issue of The Evidence newsletter, Josephine Lethbridge examines how gender shapes experiences of human flourishing.  A recently published international […]

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments