Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T22:48:00.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Income Inequality and State Parties: Who Gets Represented?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2021

Gerald C. Wright Open the ORCID record for Gerald C. Wright [Opens in a new window]  and
Elizabeth Rigby
Gerald C. Wright*
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
Elizabeth Rigby
Affiliation:
The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
*
Corresponding Author: Gerald C. Wright, Indiana University, 1100 E 7th St., Woodburn Hall 210, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent studies of representation at the national and state levels have provided evidence that elected officials' votes, political parties' platforms, and enacted policy choices are more responsive to the preferences of the affluent, while those with average incomes and the poor have little or no impact on the political process. Yet, this research on the dominance of the affluent has overlooked key partisan differences in the electorate. In this era of hyperpartisanship, we argue that representation occurs through the party system, and we test whether taking this reality into account changes the story of policy dominance by the rich. We combine data on public preferences and state party positions to test for income bias in parties' representation of their own co-partisans. The results show an interesting pattern in which underrepresentation of the poor is driven by Democratic parties pushing the more liberal social policy stances of rich Democrats and Republican parties reflecting the particularly conservative economic policy preferences of rich Republicans. Thus, we have ample evidence that the wealthy, more often than not, do call the shots, but that the degree to which this disproportionate party responsiveness produces less representative policies depends on the party in power and the policy dimension being considered. We conclude by linking this pattern of influence and “coincidental representation” to familiar changes which define the transformation of the New Deal party system.

Keywords

partiesrepresentationeconomic inequalitypublic policyparty organizationspartiesand interest groups
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 395 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, Christopher H. 1977. “Measuring Representation: Perils of the Correlation Coefficient.” American Journal of Political Science 21 (4): 805–15..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1978. “Measuring Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 22 (3): 475–510..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Jones, Philip Edward. 2010. “Constituents' Responses to Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (3): 583–97..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Rodden, Jonathan, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2006. “Purple America.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (2): 97–118..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III. 2001. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 136–59..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C. 2010. “Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress.” American Political Science Review 104 (3): 519–42..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2006. “What's the Matter with.” What's the Matter with Kansas? Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1:201–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy: the Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2016. Unequal Democracy, 2nd edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatti, Yosef, and Erikson, Robert S. 2011. “How Poorly Are the Poor Represented in the Us Senate?” In Who Gets Represented?, eds. Enns, Peter and Wlezien, Christopher. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 223–246.Google Scholar
Birkhead, Nathaniel A. 2015. “The Role of Ideology in State Legislative Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 40 (1): 55–82..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David W., Han, Hahrie, and Pope, Jeremy C. 2007. “Primary Elections and Candidate Ideology: Out of Step with the Primary Electorate?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 32 (1): 79–106..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, Eric, Ross, Stephen L., and Washington, Ebonya. 2013. “Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?” American Economic Journal-Economic Policy 5 (2): 53–76..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice. 2015. “From Mass Preferences to Policy.” Annual Review of Political Science 18 (1): 147–65..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David W., and Cogan, John F. 2002. “Out of Step, out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members' Voting.” American Political Science Review 96 (1): 127–40..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and D'Amico, Nicholas J. 2015. “The New Look in Political Ideology Research.” Annual Review of Political Science 18 (1): 205–16..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D. 2006. “Representation in Congress: Constituents and Roll Calls in the 106th House.” Journal of Politics 68 (2): 397–409..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Enns, Peter K. 2015. “Relative Policy Support and Coincidental Representation.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (4): 1053–64..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1978. “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Behavior: A Reexamination of the Miller-Stokes Representation Data.” American Journal of Political Science 22 (3): 511–35..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1981. “Measuring Constituency Opinion: The 1978 U. S. Congressional Election Survey.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 6 (2): 235–45..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael, and Stimson, James A. 2002. The Macro Polity of Cambridge Studies in Political Psychology and Public Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C. 1980. “Policy Representation of Constituency Interests.” Political Behavior 2 (1): 91–106..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C. 2000. “Representation of Constituency Ideology in Congress.” In Continuity and Change in U.S. House Elections, eds. Brady, David, Cogan, John F., and Fiorina, Morris P. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 148–77.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C. 2009. “Voters, Candidates, and Issues in Congressional Elections.” In Congress Reconsidered, eds. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 71–95.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, Stanley, and Johnston, Christopher. 2014. “Understanding the Determinants of Political Ideology: Implications of Structural Complexity.” Political Psychology 35 (3): 337–58..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flavin, Patrick. 2012. “Income Inequality and Policy Representation in the American States.” American Politics Research 40 (1): 29–59..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Thomas. 2004. What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2005. “Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (5): 778–96..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2011. “Policy Consequences of Representational Inequality.” In Who Gets Represented?, ed. Gilens, Martin. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 247–84.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2015. “The Insufficiency of ”Democracy by Coincidence“: A Response to Peter K. Enns.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (4): 1065–71..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin, and Page, Benjamin I. 2014. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics 12:564–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grumbach, Jacob M. 2018. “From Backwaters to Major Policymakers: Policy Polarization in the States, 1970–2014.” Perspectives on Politics 16 (2): 416–35..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Andrew B. 2015. “What Happens When Extremists Win Primaries?” American Political Science Review 109 (1): 18–42..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.” The American Political Science Review 95 (3): 619–31..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, Robert E. 2004. “Challenger Emergence, Incumbent Success, and Electoral Accountability in State Legislative Elections.” Journal of Politics 66 (4): 1283–1303..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, Robert E. 2008. “Policy Responsiveness and Incumbent Reelection in State Legislatures.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 858–73..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollibaugh, Gary E., Rothenberg, Lawrence S., and Rulison, Kristin K. 2013. “Does It Really Hurt to Be out of Step?” Political Research Quarterly 66 (4): 856–67..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, David A., and Laura, Stoker. 2011. “The Political Geography of Party Resurgence.” In Who Get Represented? eds. Enns, Peter K. and Wlezien, Christopher. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 93–128.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, Mason, Lilliana, and Aar⊘e, Lene. 2015. “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity.” American Political Science Review 109 (1): 1–17..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussey, Wesley, and Zaller, John. 2011. “Who Do Parties Represent?” In Who Gets Represented?, eds. Enns, Peter and Wlezien, Christopher. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 311–44.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Westwood, Sean J. 2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 690–707..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence, and Page, Benjamin I. 2005. “Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?” American Political Science Review 99 (1): 107–23..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, Bruce E., Magleby, David B., Nelson, Candice J., Orr, Elizabeth, Westlye, Mark C., and Wolfinger, Raymond E. 2009. “The Partisan Affinities of Independent ‘Leaners.‘” British Journal of Political Science 16 (2): 155–85..Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., and Carsey, Thomas M. 2002. “Party Polarization and ”Conflict Extension“ in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 46:786–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas M., and Horowitz, Juliana Menasce. 2006. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science 9:83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupton, Robert N., Myers, William M., and Thornton, Judd R. 2015. “Political Sophistication and the Dimensionality of Elite and Mass Attitudes, 1980-2004.” The Journal of Politics 77 (2): 368–80..Google Scholar
Miler, Kristina. 2016. “Legislative Responsiveness to Constituency Change.” American Politics Research 44(5):816–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” The American Political Science Review 57 (1): 45–56..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2018. “State Partisan Composition.” https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/partisan-composition.aspx (accessed March 2, 2020).Google Scholar
New York Times. 2012, November 22. “State Government Control since 1938.” https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/23/us/state-government-control-since-1938.html?ref=politicsGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, Jesse H., and Schaffner, Brian F. 2017. “Testing Models of Unequal Representation: Democratic Populists and Republican Oligarchs?” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 12: 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigby, Elizabeth, and Wright, Gerald C. 2011. “Whose Statehouse Democracy? Policy Responsiveness to Poor Versus Rich Constituents in Poor Versus Rich States.” In Who Gets Represented?, eds. Enns, Peter and Wlezian, Christopher. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 189–222.Google Scholar
Rigby, Elizabeth, and Wright, Gerald C. 2013. “Political Parties and Representation of the Poor in the American States.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (3): 552–65..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royston, Patrick. 2005. “Multiple Imputation of Missing Values: Update.” The Stata Journal 5: 188–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 530–51..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr., and Ting, Michael M. 2002. “An Informational Rationale for Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 90–110..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stonecash, Jeffrey M. 2000. Class and Party in American Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sulkin, Tracy, Testa, Paul, and Usry, Kaye. 2015. “What Gets Rewarded? Legislative Activity and Constituency Approval.” Political Research Quarterly 68 (4): 690–702..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2013. “Measuring Constituent Policy Preferences in Congress, State Legislatures, and Cities.” The Journal of Politics 75 (2): 330–42..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treier, Shawn, and Hillygus, D. Sunshine. 2009. “The Nature of Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (4): 679–703..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 981–1000..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher, and Soroka, Stuart N. 2011. “Inequality in Policy Responsiveness?” In Who Gets Represented?, eds. Wlezien, Christopher and Soroka, Stuart N. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 285–310.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Chrostopher, and Soroka, Stuart. 2008. “On the Limits to Inequality in Representation.” PS: Political Science and Politics 41:319–27.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 1989a. “Level-of-Analysis Effects on Explanations of Voting: The Case of the 1982 Us Senate Elections.” British Journal of Political Science 19 (3): 381–98..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 1989b. “Policy Voting in the U. S. Senate: Who Is Represented?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 14 (4): 465–86..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C., and Berkman, Michael B. 1986. “Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections.” The American Political Science Review 80 (2): 567–88..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Wright and Rigby supplementary material

Appendix

Download Wright and Rigby supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 294.9 KB