This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Inequality Undermines Democracy
Authored by Sean McElwee, originallyu posted at AlJazeera.com,
In recent years, several academic researchers have argued that rising inequality erodes democracy. But the lack of international data has made it difficult to show whether inequality in fact exacerbates the apparent lack of political responsiveness to popular sentiment. Even scholars concerned about economic inequality, such as sociologist Lane Kenworthy, often hesitate to argue that economic inequality might bleed into the political sphere. New cross-national research, however, suggests that higher inequality does indeed limit political representation.
In a 2014 study on political representation, political scientists Jan Rosset, Nathalie Giger and Julian Bernauer concluded, “In economically more unequal societies, the party system represents the preferences of relatively poor citizens worse than in more equal societies.” Similarly, political scientists Michael Donnelly and Zoe Lefkofridi found in a working paper that in Europe, “Changes in overall attitudes toward redistribution have very little effect on redistributive policies. Changes in socio-cultural policies are driven largely by change in the attitudes of the affluent, and only weakly (if at all) by the middle class or poor.” They find that when the people get what they want, it’s typically because their views correspond with the affluent, rather than policymakers directly responding to their concerns.
In another study of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, researcher Pablo Torija Jimenez looked at data in 24 countries over 30 years. He examined how different governmental structures influence happiness across income groups and found that today “politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness of the economic elite.” However, it was not always that way: In the past, left parties represented the poor, the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1 percent of earners, Jimenez reports.
In a recent working paper, political scientist Larry Bartels finds the effect of politician’s bias toward the rich has reduced real social spending per capita by 28 percent on average. Studying 23 OECD countries, Bartels finds that the rich are more likely to oppose spending increases, support budget cuts and reject promoting the welfare state — the idea that the government should ensure a decent standard of living.
The same tendencies occur at the state level. Patrick Flavin, a political scientist at Baylor University, examined political responsiveness in the U.S. at the state level. He found that inequality in a state strongly correlates with political representation: More unequal states tend to be less representative.
“The effect of income inequality is stronger than just about any other state contextual factor that I’ve looked at,” Flavin told me in a recent interview. “For example, it has a stronger predictive effect on the equality of political representation than the partisan composition of the state legislature/governor’s mansion, the median income of a state, or a state’s population.” Similarly, Elizabeth Rigby and Gerald Wright found that in more unequal states, Democrats tend to be less responsive to the poor.
Some political scientists have found more mixed results internationally. Political scientists James Adams and Lawrence Ezrow found that European democracies are more responsive to “opinion leaders,” or highly politically engaged citizens, than to class differences. “No evidence that European parties respond disproportionately to affluent or highly educated citizens, independently of their responsiveness to opinion leaders,” Adams and Ezrow wrote in 2009. That is, to the extent that the government is more responsive to the affluent, it is because of influential opinion makers among them. However, in a recent Monkey Cage post, Ezrow notes, “levels of economic inequality condition levels of political inequality.”
What’s the solution to rising inequality of responsiveness? More democracy, for one. In a study published last November, political scientists Yvette Peters and Sander J. Ensink examined political representation and responsiveness in 25 European countries. Using the European Social Survey from 2002 to 2010, they analyzed support for income redistribution policies across various categories.
“Governments tend to follow the preferences of the rich more than those of the poor,” Peters and Ensink write. “Higher levels of participation in elections seem to lead to reduced differential responsiveness, even though the effect of the poor and the rich on spending is not fully equalized.”
As I’ve argued previously, there is good reason to believe that increasing voter turnout among the poor and middle class will shift policy in their favor. For example, in a 2013 study, Loyola University’s Vincent Mahler found that voter turnout and class gaps both affect income redistribution.
Voter turnout, of course, will not entirely solve the problem of differential representation, but it can begin to alleviate it. When turnout is in the low 40s, as it is for many U.S. elections, politicians have no reason to fear losing their seat by only representing the donor class. By contrast, with mass participation, ignoring the desires of the public could cost a representative his seat. Using American National Election Studies data, Syracuse University political scientist Spencer Piston ran a unique analysis for Al Jazeera America. His data show that in terms of median income, the median non-voter is far poorer than the median voter — $32,500 per year compared with $57,500.
“Preferences of those with money are more likely to influence policy than the preferences of those without money, in no small part because the wealthy engage more in the political process,” Piston told me. “They vote more often, they donate more money, and they are in closer contact with public officials.” These data also understate the wealth of the donor class, since they include all donors. But the megadonors are increasing influential: the richest .01 percent of donors (25,000 people) were responsible for 42 percent of donations in 2012.
So while voting will partially alleviate political inequality, we also need campaign-finance reforms such as public financing and more robust disclosure rules. Lobbying reforms and limits on campaign contributions have a proven track record at the state level.
On the whole, there is a strong evidence to suspect that representative democracy is not compatible with deep economic inequality. The American Founding Fathers, classic progressives such as Presidents Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and commentators such as economist Thomas Piketty are right to worry about how inequality undermines democracy. As FDR warned, “Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.”
»
- 5810 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
What fucking democracy in the land of the free? It's a fascist, police state run by a troika of the MIC, Wall Street and Spooks.
Besides, the Fed systematically destroyed American society >> https://goo.gl/IoiSjv
I call bullshit on the idea that greater voter turnout leads to better election outcomes. The Soviet Union enjoyed voter turnout of 100%. Granted, if you didn't vote they would hunt you down and MAKE you vote, but still. There are three dimensions of control in a democracy: the voters, the people who select the candidates, and the people who count the votes. The least powerful of those three is--by far-- the voters.
True democracies only function properly when offices are filled by lot, not by election.
"Inequality Undermines Democracy"
In my opinion, it is monopoly over the issuance of currency - and then the media monopoly by the same culprits that naturally ensues - which undermines ANY form of government. The power of the purse when organized into a small tribe's hands inevitably brings about "inequality" of purchasing power... and if allowed to run its complete course, would wipe out even the last vestiges of the middle class leaving only supra-rich oligarchs and ultra-poor serfs (with a well-paid military presence to act as a buffer against insurrection). This, of course, was and is the intent of the international usurers from the beginning. These psychopaths are highly intelliegent and equally diabolical. Unless we attain a tipping point in the general populace's understanding of this crucial fact, the future outlook is grave.
Who rules America?
The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies, and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these state agencies have no legal right to possess.
Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called “Fourth Estate”—the mass media—functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/10/pers-j10.html
Snowden's documents revealed that the NSA spies on everyone:
The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks “destroy upon recognition” any communication provided by the NSA “that is either to or from an official of the US government.” It goes on to spell out that this includes “officials of the Executive Branch (including the White House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives and Senate (members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to, the Supreme Court).”
The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/13/surv-s13.html
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." -- William Colby, former CIA Director
Dr. Peter Phillips of Project Censored fame has made an extensive study of what he calls the Global Dominance Group. Here's a lecture in two parts discussing some of the major results of that study: http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/20380
Dr. Joe Farrell gives some good insights on the history of this select group of shysters who have been running international finance manipulating markets and controlling black markets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1svGIBKaE_0
And what democracy really? Pleeease!!!!!!!!
Paul Craig Roberts had a great take on this a while back. He pointed out that unions used to have significant political influence because of their financial resources. Democrats by and large sought their backing, and had to toe the line. Now, not so much. So, he observed, both parties began seeking out contributions from the same oligarchs. Even if you hate unions, it is a valid observation.
Inequality, I do love todays "buzz words".
So who's up for the President or the entire Harvard faculty or the NYT's editor & reporters or Hollyweird starz etc. making minimum wage? I do realize it's still over compensating them but my point is made ;-)
I get your point and I'm not your downvote, but in my view the MSM has hijacked the issue of "inequality." The real issue is the oligarch class that has more wealth than half the country. We were a successful, functioning society when we had a middle class. There were rich people, poor people, and a whole lot in between. And it's the whole lot in between that matters. The minimum wage is a distraction. The two big issues are loss of manufacturing base and offshoring in general, and financialization of the economy (in large part due to Fed policy).
Yes, it's been hijacked by a lot of people, personally I like the idea of paying people what they're worth. Get on a jet flown by a burger flipper and it may very well be "an interesting short ride" but hardly what was promised when one bought the ticket ;-)
Upward mobility in the US has seriously eroded over the last 40 years. Most of the wealth flows to what amounts to royalty -- the sons and daughters of connected people. They go to Harvard or Princeton, meet the right people, and end up running large companies they have no business running, and making tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars for the brilliant idea of offshoring and cutting back salaries to the rank and file. Large companies by and large also no longer promote from the field to executive status, but they dominate the economy. Meanwhile, small businesses are regulated and taxed to death precisely because the big companies that don't want the competition write the laws through their bought and paid for politicians.
LetThemEatRand I'd be interested to hear what your solution would be in broad strokes and whether it includes the preservation of liberty? Honest question. I like what you say but I don't see how it can be acted upon "morally".
Broad strokes -- tariffs and/or regulations to prevent offshoring based on wage arbitrage; dismantle the MIC; end the war on drugs; deregulate small business and flat tax; huge estate tax over some arbitrarily huge amount like $200M, otherwise no estate tax (to prevent dynastic wealth accumulation); dismantle the prison industrial complex (private prisons); meaningful campaign contribution limits; end the Fed. A few ideas.
Very good. Thanks! I'm hesitant about the taxes and regulation but it's a fair start.
Superwealth is definitely a neglected area for free market thinkers (I humbly include myself as a student).
If anyone is aware of academic work on this topic I would love to know about it.
I would add dismantle large banks, to your list. If they need size they can build consortiums for the particular business need/purpose at hand.
Right now, banks own us, they don't need to compete for our business. Banks should be utilities. Casinos should be Casinos...
Agreed. Glass-Steagall or better is needed.
Well, I'm not getting my "hopes" up on any compromise for real "change" (lol) and I've already made my plans however the thread has stayed agreeable so I'll just add to yours...
...the "purpose" of commercial banks was risk of investment...entailing THEIR RISK right down to the shareholder level not ours "collectively" or the governments, they bear the risk, they gain the entire profit OR loss.
Glass-Steagall was that wall.
End of replys.
What has changed?
Not that long ago you would have been called a socialist/commie by the "Galts" on this site.
It isn't part of "a Galt's" philosophy of life to obligate a third party to pay their way any more than if "a Galt" got a traffic ticket and said to the cop "that guy walking across the street over there will pay this ticket dammit!", so I don't know what your comment even winds up meaning.
Glass-Steagall was exactly what I said it was, it prohibited commercial banks (ie investment banks) from being bailed out by that guy walking across the street who had nothing to do with the cop, the car or the driver.
It didn't prohibit commercial banking, it just stipulated if they bet (invest) poorly it's on them, not you or me.
Exactly nothing has changed, only your interpretation of what you thought Glass-Steagall was.
In part, we've got a values/ethics crisis. Common decency, trustworthiness, and basic community ethical standards have eroded. It probably won't change until there's a profound crisis. Ethics talk will perk back up as people are picking up the pieces.
In part, we've got a values/ethics crisis. Common decency, trustworthiness, and basic community ethical standards have eroded. It probably won't change until there's a profound crisis. Ethics talk will perk back up as people are picking up the pieces.
In part, we've got a values/ethics crisis. Common decency, trustworthiness, and basic community ethical standards have eroded. It probably won't change until there's a profound crisis. Ethics talk will perk back up as people are picking up the pieces.
When liberals talk about "inequality" they think it is a matter of redistribution and fail to recognize criminal activity should not be allowed to begin with.
The perfect example is the DOJ fining Wall Street for fraudulent behavior instead of criminally prosecuting it so it does not happen again.
It is extremely disgusting to find so many clueless enablers in the Democratic bunch.
Both Teams are the same in this regard.
When liberals talk about "inequality"
Liberals are the only ones who talk about inequality.
I don't think that's true, and it certainly should not be true. A big part of the "inequality" discussion is equal application of law. I recall when TARP was floated during the W administration, the public of all persuasions was against it. Congress passed it anyway, because of Too Big to Fail. TBTF should not be a liberal or conservative issue. Likewise, the idea that no bankers went to jail is an issue of "inequality." The laws do not apply equally to bankers. And the same with Lois Lerner. She intentionally sent the IRS to harass political groups based upon ideology. She got off scott free. Inequality again.
How many parts of "inequality" are there? In my mind, inequality is not an outcome (end), but a conduit (means). Just like indebtedness is a means to moar debt.
I think inequality is both an outcome and a conduit. If you have a rigged system, you get an outcome that does not involve the best horse or boxer winning. We have a rigged system.
youve unintentionally hit on it.
Ropeadope indeed.
"When liberals talk about "inequality" they think it is a matter of redistribution and fail to recognize criminal activity"
Wrong. The blame goes not with liberals but with the information sources from which "liberals" and the reast of the 99% public become informed on the subject.
Which of the MSM that you know EVER talks about "criminal activity"-- except to say, if at all, that the largest fine in history was levied today. (let alone ever actually paid)
That we know that's bullshit is only a quirk of fate that we follow ZH or Naked Capitalism or GW, or whatever remains of the independent, non oligarch media. How are people who never heard of ZH etal, supposed to have any idea of wha'ts actually going on-- and how badly theyre being f-ked over by guys who are absolute theives and worse?
Liberals who dont understand/care that criminality is involved are just as confused and uninformed as a huge percentage of the rest of the population. Put the blame where it rightfully belongs-- on the MSM as the outlets through which crony capitalist bankster warmonger scumbags are allowed to distract and deceive with abandon.
Any government with the power to pick winners and losers will pick losers, arbitrarily at best, but more likely, capriciously. The answer is to reign in the power to pick winners and losers.
Inequality does not undermine democracy because democracy does not really exist. Faux democracy is actually Totalitarianism under the guise of 'democracy'. In brief, democracy is just a word that has been neutered, and bastardized too many times to count as anything real, or imagined.
They should name a new ice cream DEMOCRACY just for FUN.
You get what you accept.
If you want better, do NOT ACCEPT LESS !!!!!
Inequality is NATURE.
YOU are not my fucking equal unless you work harder, smarter, longer and have a lot of fucking luck. Or perhaps you have a greater facility appreciating where you are in the pecking order, greater facility in moving through the maze of bullshit we find ourselves saddled with, don't take it all personal and build something that everyone else will have penis (or clitoral) envy about and try to destroy. And don't take that personal either.
Finally....."Always look at the bright side of life" Just give a whistle and focus on the positive!
Back to work!
It's not how much wealth you have, it's how you got it. Cronyism and currency manipulation needs to be stopped. If you obtained your wealth honestly, well more power to you bro.
We're adults. No need to believe in fairy tales like "income equality." Closely allied to "Does your neighbor have a way bigger bank account?" are questions like: "Does your colleague have way more fun than you do?("fun inequality!"); does your friend have way more sex that you do? ("sex inequality! Time to start sharing!"); does your gym instructor have way bigger pecs than you do? ("muscle inequality!")
Its the crony capitalism that undermines
becuz these cabals pay huge money to politicians
which is actually a bribe but legalized to be called as election funding
Then the elected politicians forget public & start working for the rich corporates
Rich cabal corporates (the 666) then starts fleecing the public in various ways :
Sub-prime,
obamacare,
hiked medicine prices,
inappropriate taxes to make the state dispossess your assets,
selling arms & ammo to public,
new markets avenues aka legalized drugs,
student debts forcing students to prostitute,
QE - TBTF,
The people are severly in stress - vox populi vox dei
Rather people are powerless
Power is with DEBTOCRATS
Debtocracy rules
Demoncracy rules
Thank you for putting this point - akin to the correlation between democracy and monetary equality - into a statistical perspective. It's really just common sense that the degree of democracy expressed by a collective is going to be limited to and therefore defined by degree of equality of each participating member of the collective. No need to argue that some are naturally stronger, smarter and so on because chartoristics or traits such as physical strength or mental IQ are subjective or judgemental. Instead, let's stick with what is currently the most quantifiable factor of equality (of ability to participate), money. While one person's working 12 hours a day just to survive and therefore has no ability to even consider participating in the process, another is able to spend 24/7 to partipate because he/she has loads of money. Democracy as a collective expression of equality - as in the equal ability to participate - is within the current world system dirrectly correlated with wealth equality. Therefore, raising the degree of democracy is simply a matter of raisning the degree of wealth equality.
The United States Government IS an organized criminal enterprise controlled by organized moneyed interests.
The rich have a much longer time horizon than the poor. So it is very easy for the elected politicians to give them both what they want, near term benefits for the poor and longer term benefits for the rich, which will widen the wealth gap. In other words, democracy causes the wealth gap to widen because most people are not capable of deciding what is in their long term interests and are easily swayed by appeals to short term gratification and irrelevant issues. Even if a society started with everyone having equal wealth, if it is a representative democracy, it will eventually end up with a heavily skewed wealth distribution, with most of it controlled by a small number of people, people who had much longer time horizon and planning than the rest.
The masses are better off not having a choice in who gets elected. That way the government cannot pretend to be representing everyone. The political class is easily identifiable and in order to avoid a French Revolution style sacking of the entire political class in one go, they will be forced to at least consider the long term interests of the masses as well while planning to increase their own wealth. The French Revolution style sacking is a possibility even today, but the threshold required for such a mass uprising is much higher when there is an illusion of having a say in the governance by voting. A democracy with minimum wealth and education requirements to be a voter and a representative, might actually work better for everyone, than universal suffrage.
WTF is Democracy?
I live in a republic.
Now I'm gonna pull a rabbit out of my ass
Inequality undermines democracy.
And pushing for equality creates communism.
All that's happening is the end game of private ownership. Happens for evey society that allows the accumulation of private assets intergenerationally.
Not that it's a bad thing. Just not that fun to live at the end of this cycle.
Ultimately we'll reset it with a lot bloodshed, then go back to square one and everyone will be happy.
Everyone that's left, that is.