Inequality as a Political Phenomenon
posted by Frank Pasquale
When the great and good talk about inequality, they often presume that at its root is a skills differential between rich and poor. The former are supposedly much more educated than the latter, and this explains income gaps.
There are certain situations where returns to education are clear. However, a growing body of work makes it clear that political decisions are a key part of the equation as well. Consider Larry Bartels’s recent work (here reviewed by Dan Balz):
[T]here is a partisan pattern to the size of the gap between the rich and the poor. Over the past half-century, he concludes, Republican presidents have allowed income inequality to expand, while Democratic presidents generally have not.
Lest anyone think this book is a partisan hit job by a left-wing academic, Bartels goes to great pains in his introduction to preempt the counterattack he expects from critics on the right. “I began the project as an unusually apolitical political scientist,” he writes, noting that the last time he voted was in 1984, “and that was for Ronald Reagan.” He adds that in doing this work, “I was quite surprised to discover how often and how profoundly partisan differences in ideologies and values have shaped key policy decisions and economic outcomes. I have done my best to follow my evidence where it led me.”
No wonder “more than three-fourths (77.2 per cent) of US workers say they feel unrepresented by the political system on workplace issues.” They are likely becoming ever more skeptical of the “education remedy” for addressing inequality. Until the Neal Stephensonian nano-revolution is complete, we can’t all make our daily bread as manipulators of symbols. Adequate wages and health care for participants in the real economy–whatever their level of education–are a must.
June 24, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Posted in: Economic Analysis of Law, Education
Print This Post
Responses (5)
Orin Kerr - June 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Is income inequality good or bad?
If Frank and I make the same salary, and Frank gets a big raise and I get only a medium-sized raise, both Frank and I are richer. And yet the raises have created income inequality. In that case, aren’t we both better off with inequality, though?
Daniel S. Goldberg - June 24, 2008 at 4:22 pm
While most people can agree that not all inequalities are inherently unjust, there is a sizeable body of data showing a non-artifactual and robust correlation between the overall income inequalities of a society and its health. The details of this relationship remain quite cloudy in many areas, which is in part why the correlation itself remains an intensely-studied phenomenon, which it has been for over 20 years.
But the existence of the correlation is robust, persistent, and is almost certainly not an artifact. The bottom line is that there is very good reason for doubting on the population level that significant income inequalities are good for “everyone” in the pareto optimal sense Orin suggests. Societies with larger socioeconomic disparities generally fare worse in the vast majority of health indicia one chooses to use.
There are a number of good sources for this argument, though I’m particularly partial to Ichiro Kawachi’s book, “The Wealth of Nations.” Some of Sen’s work is also excellent on this.
Orin Kerr - June 24, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Thanks, Daniel. Just to be clear, when you refer to the correlation between income inequality and health, you mean that societies with low inequality tend to have better physical health than societies with high inequality, right? If so, is the idea that they correlate with something else, or that inequality determines physical health? (And if the latter, how?)
Daniel S. Goldberg - June 25, 2008 at 1:42 am
Orin, your questions got me started on a lengthy and somewhat desultory response, so I moved it to my own blog here:
http://www.medhumanities.org/2008/06/on-income-inequ.html
Patrick S. O'Donnell - June 25, 2008 at 9:38 am
Orin (and anyone else interested in this discussion):
I’ve put together a short (hence manageable) list of books that should help persuade one of Daniel’s claims made here and filled out in his post at the Medical Humanities Blog (i.e., of the salience of equality/inequality issues when it comes to achieving public health goals):
Anand, Sudhir, Fabienne Peter, and Amartya Sen, eds. Public Health, Ethics, and Equity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
Daniels, Norman. Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
Davis, Marion, Carolyn Clancy and Larry R. Churchill, eds. Ethical Dimensions of Health Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
Farmer, Paul. Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999).
Farmer, Paul. Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003).
Henderson, Gail E., et al., eds. The Social Medicine Reader, 3 Vols. (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005).
Marmot, Michael and Richard G. Wilkinson, eds. Social Determinants of Health (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006 ed.).
Smith, Richard, et al., eds. Global Public Goods for Health (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).
Leave a Reply