US Gov't is not responsive to average citizens, says new study

[Jake]

I was surprised to see two faces on the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night: Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, two of the more respected political scientists in all of academia. They are both quantitative researchers and they were there to promote...a scientifically rigorous research article. I point this out because there are often academics on these shows, but this is usually to promote their "I have tenure and now write non-academic drivel to make money off of my reputation" books. Instead, they were there to promote an article coming out in Perspectives on Politics, arguably the most presitigous journal in the field.

 

What were their findings? Well, they were bleak. They tested four different theories of democracy: "majoritarian electoral democracy," "economic elite domination," "majoritarian pluralism," and "biased pluralism." The latter two refer to two interest group-based approaches to democracy, which means a way to think about electoral politics by looking at interest groups, which might seem to have more sway than individual voters - "majoritarian pluralism" would be a system in which there is a marketplace of ideas between interest groups that is generally fair. "Biased pluralism" would be such a marketplace in which a few groups dominate more than their numbers would dictate.

 

The former pair of theories refer to populist approaches - majoritarian electoral democracy is basically your ideal of democracy, in which majority opinion tends to be represented in legislative outcomes. Economic elite domination means that the tastes/preferences of the wealthiest are represented in legislative outcomes.

 

The findings in a nutshell: there is strong evidence in support of economic elite domination and biased pluralism. I'll let the researchers speak for themselves a little bit...

 

By directly pitting the predictions of ideal-type theories against each other within a single statistical model (using a unique data set that includes imperfect but useful measures of the key independent variables for nearly two thousand policy issues), we have been able to produce some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

 

Interest groups do have substantial independent impacts on policy, and a few groups (particularly labor unions) represent average citizens’ views reasonably well. But the interest group system as a whole does not. Over-all, net interest group alignments are not significantly related to the preferences of average citizens. The net alignments of the most influential, business oriented groups are negatively related to the average citizen’s wishes. So existing interest groups do not serve effectively as transmission belts for the wishes of the populace as a whole.

 

The key here is that the researchers had access to absolutely perfect data and over a very long period of time. They had nearly 2,000 cases over the course of 13 years in which representative samples of Americans were asked to express a favor/oppose opinion on policy issues that lend themselves to that kind of opinion (issues with significant shades of gray were excluded) and, in each case, the researchers had income information on those people expressing those opinions. Now with a decent amount of time since the surveys have finished, we have a pretty good impression of whether government was ever going to listen to those opinions (nobody is holding out hope for the public opinion of 2002 to finally make its presence felt in Congress).

 

Furthermore, the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of “affluent” citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically elite citizens who wield the actual influence.

 

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule -- at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose.

 

This is a particularly striking point. Benjamin Page, the researcher I'm more familiar with out of the two, has made a name for himself by demonstrating the responsiveness of politics to the opinions of the average citizen. This research contradicts his previous research in a big way by adding this new variable (tastes of the elite) and contrasting it with the average citizen. The government only seems responsive to the average citizen because, occasionally, average citizens and elites have the same opinion. When you just look at the cases where elites and average people disagree, average people usually lose.

 

A possible objection to populistic democracy is that average citizens are inattentive to politics and ignorant about public policy; why should we worry if their poorly informed preferences do not influence policy making? Perhaps economic elites and interest group leaders enjoy greater policy expertise than the average citizen does. Perhaps they know better which policies will benefit everyone, and perhaps they seek the common good, rather than selfish ends, when deciding which policies to support.

 

But we tend to doubt it. We believe instead that – collectively – ordinary citizens generally know their own values and interests pretty well, and that their expressed policy preferences are worthy of respect. Moreover, we are not so sure about the informational advantages of elites. Yes, detailed policy knowledge tends to rise with income and status. Surely wealthy Americans and corporate executives tend to know a lot about tax and regulatory policies that directly affect them. But how much do they know about the human impact of Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, or unemployment insurance, none of which is likely to be crucial to their own well-being? Most important, we see no reason to think that informational expertise is always accompanied by an inclination to transcend one's own interests or a determination to work for the common good.

 

An important thing to think about for those that might just say that it's a good thing that we might be ruled by elites. Elites are not intrinsically any more likely to be selfless or benevolent, not to even mention the extent to which they may not understand the lived realities of the people they may or may not be interested in helping.

 

Full study, in near-final draft form, available here: https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%2...es%203-7-14.pdf

[Balta1701]

Just so it's said, my initial response is "why am I hearing about this before peer review"?

[LDF]

With all due respect to this post and your writing it, it is very plain that you are very educated, but to most who are not

in, as you say the economic elict. knew of this. the only time any politician give us the time and day is when election time

comes around. I will say this hold true to most in the political parties in America.

[Balta1701]

With all due respect to this post and your writing it, it is very plain that you are very educated, but to most who are not

in, as you say the economic elict. knew of this. the only time any politician give us the time and day is when election time

comes around. I will say this hold true to most in the political parties in America.

If you follow this non-peer-reviewed "study", the politicians are no longer even giving you the time of day when election time runs around unless you're writing a check.

[Jenksismyhero]

Rich people are generally business owners who are looking for some kind of government break/exception. It would make sense that specific requests for change in the law are met more frequently than an average citizen, who wants what specifically? I would think the average citizen (me) wants about 15 different things, but can't really articulate them to anyone in power or lobby them to change/create the law.

 

In other words: "lower my taxes, i'm tired of giving the government more money" is not going to work on anyone, but "lower taxes on sale of X good which will allow me to create 1,000 jobs" will.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[CrimsonWeltall]

In other words: "lower my taxes, i'm tired of giving the government more money" is not going to work on anyone, but "lower taxes on sale of X good which will allow me to create 1,000 jobs" will.

 

Correction:

 

In other words: "lower my taxes, i'm tired of giving the government more money" is not going to work on anyone, but "lower my taxes, i'll fund your campaign" will.

[StrangeSox]

Rich people are generally business owners who are looking for some kind of government break/exception. It would make sense that specific requests for change in the law are met more frequently than an average citizen, who wants what specifically? I would think the average citizen (me) wants about 15 different things, but can't really articulate them to anyone in power or lobby them to change/create the law.

 

In other words: "lower my taxes, i'm tired of giving the government more money" is not going to work on anyone, but "lower taxes on sale of X good which will allow me to create 1,000 jobs" will.

Who are you kidding, the business owners are doing the former, not the latter.

[StrangeSox]

If you follow this non-peer-reviewed "study", the politicians are no longer even giving you the time of day when election time runs around unless you're writing a check.

something something does not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption

 

edit: I didn't think it was all that uncommon to publish drafts and working papers?

Edited May 1, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Who are you kidding, the business owners are doing the former, not the latter.

 

I'm sure they do both, but the government doesn't pass a bill that says "lower taxes for anyone making 3 million or more a year." It's always tied to a specific request.

 

[Balta1701]

I'm sure they do both, but the government doesn't pass a bill that says "lower taxes for anyone making 3 million or more a year." It's always tied to a specific request.

? Pretty much every Republican candidate I can remember for president has proposed large tax cuts on the uppermost income bracket and those were passed in 2001 and 2003. The scale of those tax cuts were such that 1% of what was cut would readily pay for >10 presidential elections.

[Jenksismyhero]

? Pretty much every Republican candidate I can remember for president has proposed large tax cuts on the uppermost income bracket and those were passed in 2001 and 2003. The scale of those tax cuts were such that 1% of what was cut would readily pay for >10 presidential elections.

 

Not specifically. They wanted tax breaks for everyone. And when people specified they wanted taxes raised on people making over x, they responding that they didn't. I've never, ever heard a republican candidate say they wanted to cut taxes on the rich and NOT the middle/lower class.

 

Most legislation passed is for small, specific items. They're not huge sweeping laws that impact every person. And the people asking for/lobbying for those changes are people with businesses/industry interests. And of course people with businesses/industry interests are the ones giving money to campaigns. They have an interest in doing so.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[cabiness42]

At some point in the future, when I am no longer employed by the government, I will tell you guys some stuff that will blow your minds.

[StrangeSox]

Not specifically. They wanted tax breaks for everyone. And when people specified they wanted taxes raised on people making over x, they responding that they didn't. I've never, ever heard a republican candidate say they wanted to cut taxes on the rich and NOT the middle/lower class.

something something estate tax reform while blocking payroll tax cuts

[Jenksismyhero]

something something estate tax reform while blocking payroll tax cuts

 

Well, getting rid of the estate tax has been a long standing argument. Did they change it only for those over a certain amount? If so, I don't remember reading about that.

[StrangeSox]

The estate tax only applies to the wealthy in the first place. The Republicans just made it even better for them by increasing the exemptions and lowering the maximum rate.

 

see also: capital gains tax rate, which is almost exclusively beneficial to the wealthy.

 

edit: of course the political rhetoric may not always be so explicit as "we want to cut taxes for the Job Creators so that they can trickle down the wealth," but it often is and even when it isn't the effects of their proposals are pretty clear.

Edited May 1, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Jake]

Just so it's said, my initial response is "why am I hearing about this before peer review"?

 

My impression is that this has already passed the internal and external double-blind peer review process and is now in final revisions as it awaits printing

[Jenksismyhero]

The estate tax only applies to the wealthy in the first place. The Republicans just made it even better for them by increasing the exemptions and lowering the maximum rate.

 

see also: capital gains tax rate, which is almost exclusively beneficial to the wealthy.

 

edit: of course the political rhetoric may not always be so explicit as "we want to cut taxes for the Job Creators so that they can trickle down the wealth," but it often is and even when it isn't the effects of their proposals are pretty clear.

 

Ok, so the problem is the wealthy were able to change legislation of a tax aimed at them. That, again, is a specific request that the "average citizen" isn't going to have. Same with capital gains (even though there's been a push to abolish that for everyone).

 

I'm not saying this article doesn't point to an issue, i'm just saying it seems rather obvious. People who want specific change can often times get it. Your average citizen doesn't want one specific change.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not sure why we should assume that only the wealthy have "specific requests" and the non-wealthy don't.

 

edit: insomuch as the wealthy represent a special interest group and "average citizen" doesn't represent anything in particular, you may have a point. But there are plenty of advocacy/interest groups out there that have very specific policy requests but do not have the influence of the wealthy.

Edited May 1, 2014 by StrangeSox

[LDF]

Oh man ..... do I love this thread ..... time has change, when people could talk about a subject without getting hung

or take to the wood shed, and most importantly, by many who are smart.

 

keep up the good work everyone.

Edited May 1, 2014 by LDF

[iamshack]

The new gilded age

 

Thought this was interesting after seeing these posts...

[Texsox]

A couple bi-partisan issues that are shaping this economy and I believe they are tied together.

 

Much of our economy is based on the idea that highly valued companies employ a lot of employees. For the most part in the past companies valued at $100,000,000 employed more people than companies which were valued at $10,000,000. That is not true anymore. We've seen companies change hands for over $1 billion that had fewer employees than the corner convenience store.

 

Another factor is cheap technology now allows companies to increase their profits with fewer and fewer employees. Employees are now often times the most expensive resource a company has. If there are increased profits, there is little need to employ more people to increase profits even more. We could also add that an employee in a low wage area can do the job as effectively as a person in the US.

 

We have this theory that if we allow the richest people to keep more of their wealth they will create jobs here. Why would they?

 

We have to rethink our tax code and economy from the ground up. We're using 19th Century thinking to 21st Century problems.

 

End of non partisan thoughts.

 

I remember way back in the old days the predictions were that robots and technology would bring about the 30 hour work week. Instead we have 40+ hour work weeks with many professionals working 50 or more hours. Was this because employees demanded it or employers? Companies are employing fewer and fewer people as profits increase. We need solutions based on this. If we are to continue to cut taxes then figure out a way to pay for everything.