Over the last century measures of income inequality and the ideological gulf between Democrats and Republicans in Congress have risen and fallen virtually in lockstep. Is political polarization reinforcing inequality? Gerald C. Wright and Elizabeth Rigby will study the effect of political polarization on redistributive policies and the representation of the poor, based on data from all 50 state legislatures.
Although income inequality has soared since 1970, inequality in educational spending across school districts has fallen considerably, brought about mainly through centralization of educational finance at the level of state governments. But very little is known about the long-term effects of redistributing school expenditures. Sean Corcoran, Thomas Romer, and Howard Rosenthal will investigate whether centralization has weakened electoral support for the public school system and undermined the overall level of educational expenditure.
Over the past thirty years, there has been a significant change in the federal government’s distribution of taxes and transfers, largely in favor of the elderly and the affluent. Political scientist Suzanne Mettler conjectures that this shift may have affected the ways that different groups of citizens experience and participate in the political process. If so, the historic change in the welfare state may have influenced not only economic inequality, but political inequality as well.
As economic inequality has increased in the U.S. over the past three decades, measures of political polarization between the two parties based on roll call votes in Congress have risen. Yet, it remains to be seen whether the legislative behavior of representatives in Congress is tied to the economic circumstances of their constituents, and whether increasing economic disparities between congressional districts can be linked to rising political polarization.
The muted political response to rising inequality has remained an enormous puzzle for more than a quarter century. A number of theories have been set forth to explain why those in the lower tiers of the income distribution have not challenged this trend through increased political mobilization or overwhelming support for redistributive policies. With an award from the Foundation, political scientist Wendy Rahn will write a book on how broadened stock ownership may contribute to disparities in political participation and the polarization of America’s policy preferences.
Research on environmental inequality shows that low-income groups and racial minorities face disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards. One possible cause of disparities in exposure to pollution involves ineffective or biased government regulators, but few studies provide clear evidence of this sort of inequality. With an award from the Foundation, Political scientist David Konisky will analyze federal and state enforcement for the three primary U.S.
The success of the campaign to repeal the U.S. inheritance tax is often attributed to clever framing. By calling it a “death tax” instead of an “estate tax,” advocates of repeal implied that the tax was levied on everyone – when in fact only 1.3 percent of the richest estates were subject to the tax. Similar framing tactics might account for some of the apparent inconsistencies in American political attitudes about inequality and redistribution.
In 2001 and 2003, the U.S. Congress passed two of the largest tax cuts in history. The total cost to the Treasury from 2001 through 2013 is projected at over $4.5 trillion—more than twice the federal government’s total annual budget. Despite the escalating national debt and the elimination of the federal budget surplus, this drastic shift in fiscal policy was broadly supported by ordinary Americans.
Scholars have long debated the so-called Robin Hood paradox: advanced democracies with low levels of inequality tend to redistribute more, while those nations with high levels of inequality redistribute less. In an ideal world, however, the correlation should go the other way, as the most unequal democracies have the greatest need for redistribution. How can we understand this puzzling yet persistent relationship between income inequality and redistribution?
Asians and Pacific Islanders currently represent 4.4 percent of the U.S. population, but they made up only two percent of the electorate in the 2004 national election. A large segment of the population is foreign born, which restricts formal electoral participation, but as the population grows so should the pool of potential voters. Yet at every level of education and income, Asian Americans continue to register and vote at rates lower than the general population. Political scientists Jane Junn (Rutgers University), Taeku Lee (University of California, Berkeley), S.