Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Great Divergence: A Study of Changing Income Inequality
By Timothy NoahSlate, September 2010
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/
Comparative Income DistributionLorenz Curve method
0= perfect equality | 100 = perfect inequalitySource: CIA Factbook [accessed 2/9/11]
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html
1 Namibia 70.7
2 South Africa 65.0
7 Haiti 59.2
18 El Salvador 52.4
28 Mexico 48.2
35 Rwanda 46.8
39 Uganda 45.7
41 Uruguay 45.2
42 United States 45.0
43 Cameroon 44.6
45 Iran 44.5
53 Russia 42.2
54 China 41.5
63 Jordan 39.7
67 Israel 39.2
74 Japan 38.1
76 Yemen 37.7
90 Egypt 34.4
92 United Kingdom 34.0
98 France 32.7
100 Canada 32.1
106 European Union 31.0
107 Netherlands 30.9
108 Ireland 30.7
109 Pakistan 30.6
110 Australia 30.5
119 Kazakhstan 28.8
125 Germany 27.0
133 Norway 25.0
134 Sweden 23.0
System Bias
• The organization of politics has consequences.
• The rules, and institutions, and procedures by which we organize our collective life as a nation are never neutral.
• Rather these rules, and institutions, and procedures allocate advantages and disadvantages to individuals and groups.
• The concept of system bias encourages us to explore who is advantaged and disadvantaged and whether those advantages and disadvantages are consistent with our values or with democratic theory or with the values of American political culture.
System Bias in Input Institutions
• Public Opinion & Public Opinion Polling• Interest Groups• Media• Voting & Other Citizen Participation• Political Parties • Campaigns• Elections
Parties & Party Systems
• What kind of party system? [two]– Causes: plurality elections in single-member districts– Consequences: must compromise to win, relative
moderation, minority views go unrepresented
• What kind of parties? [weak]– Causes: two party system, primary elections, local
elections– Consequences: lack of party discipline, officials better
at representation than governing, harder for voters to hold anyone accountable
System Bias in Input Institutions
• Public Opinion & Public Opinion Polling• Interest Groups• Media• Voting & Other Citizen Participation• Political Parties • Campaigns• Elections
Campaigns
• To whom are campaigns targeted?
• How are they financed?
• What are the consequences?
Elections
• How many are there?• Who is responsible for organizing and
running them?• What is the relationship between registration
and voting?• Who is responsible for getting voters
registered?• What are the consequences?
Source: Michael McDonald, George Mason Universityhttp://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm
Input Institutions
• How can we make them more democratic?
How Does System Bias Change?
********************The Example of Campaigns
and Elections
What Has Changed?From Party-Centered to Candidate-
Centered Campaigns
Campaigns Circa 1900
• Nominations: Who controlled?
• Political Organization: Who controlled?
• Mass Media: Who controlled?
Campaigns Circa 1900
• Nominations: Parties controlled who was nominated.
• Political Organization: Parties monopolized political organization though a system of precinct and block captains held together with the rewards of patronage.
• Mass Media: And parties controlled the flow of information to the voter through daily and weekly newspapers with clear party affiliation.
Campaigns Circa 1900
• What are the consequences?
• What kind of candidate will be successful given the system bias?
Campaigns Circa 1900
• Results: The old system was truly party centered. Parties chose the candidates, determined the issues, disseminated the information, organized and ran the campaigns.
• Candidate: To be successful a candidate had to bend his will to that of the party -- typically serving a long apprenticeship, working one’s way up in the party apparatus ala G.W. Plunkett.
Campaigns Circa 2000
• Nominations: Who controls?
• Political Organization: Who controls?
• Mass Media: Who controls?
Campaigns Circa 2000
• Nominations: We see a party that has lost its power to control who is nominated to primary election voters.
• Political Organization: We see a party whose monopoly of political organization has been destroyed by the rise of countless special interest groups and mass media.
• Mass Media: We see a party whose control of the media has vanished under a blizzard of competition. We see voters who get most of their information from the electronic mass media in 6-second sound bites on the network news and in 30-second spot commercials during campaigns.
Campaigns Circa 2000
• What are the consequences?
• What kind of candidate will be successful given the system bias?
Campaigns Circa 2000
• Results: Today parties appear to be at the mercy of candidates rather than candidates being at the mercy of parties.
• Where the presidency is concerned, a national convention meets and approves a platform. Then, like robots, the delegates cast their votes, and the winner in the primaries and caucuses becomes the candidate.
• The party's platform is forgotten. The candidate's views are what counts, and they may change from day to day in response to the perceived needs of the campaign.
Campaigns Circa 2000
• More Results: Modern campaigns are candidate-centered, and each candidate must rely on her own resources. It is the candidate who:– assembles an organization.– invents a platform. – produces media and buys broadcast time. – raises the money. – hires the experts who have displaced party functionaries in all
these areas. – pays the bills.
• Money is the first primary. Regardless of party, the voters are generally allowed to chose only among the candidates who have been pre-approved by wealthy contributors.
Campaigns Circa 2000
• Candidate: – Favors incumbents who have all the advantages of name
recognition and the perks of office.– Favors political outsiders who have high name recognition:
Ronald Reagan (actor), Arnold Schwarzenegger (body builder turned actor), Jesse Ventura (professional wrestler), George W. Bush (president’s son), Al Franken (humorist).
– Favors people who are handsome and glib, a candidate who is good with a sound bite and looks good saying it (Barak Obama).
– Favors people who can raise humongous sums of money. (Hillary Clinton & Barak Obama). And it helps to be fabulously rich yourself (Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, & Mitt Romney).
– Disfavors George Washington Plunkett, et al.
How Does System Bias Change?
• Change the rule, institution or procedure.
• What is the most persistent cause of change in the rules of government & politics?
• Change the context. Change the environment.
• What is the most persistent cause of change in the environment of government & politics? The most obvious reason that things are different now than they were 100 years ago?
How Does System Bias Change?
• Change the rule, institution or procedure.
•What is the most persistent cause of change in the rules of government & politics? --- POLITICS
• Change the context. Change the environment.
•What is the most persistent cause of change in the environment of government & politics? The most obvious reason that things are different now than they were 200 years ago? --- TECHNOLOGY
What’s Behind the Shift from Party-Centered
to Candidate-Centered Campaigns?
• POLITICS: “Progressive” Party Bashing– Primary Elections– Civil Service– Initiative, Referendum & Recall
• TECHNOLOGY– Electronic Media– Specialization of Campaign Functions
