|
Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age | 
| Author: Larry M. Bartels
Publisher: Princeton University Press
Category: Book
List Price: $29.95
Buy New: $19.77
You Save: $10.18 (34%)
New (33) Used (8) from $18.39
Rating:  12 reviews
Sales Rank: 12098
Media: Hardcover
Pages: 328
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.4
Dimensions (in): 9.3 x 6.4 x 1.2
ISBN: 0691136637
Dewey Decimal Number: 330.973
EAN: 9780691136639
ASIN: 0691136637
Publication Date: April 27, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Unequal Democracy debunks many myths about politics in contemporary America, using the widening gap between the rich and the poor to shed disturbing light on the workings of American democracy. Larry Bartels shows that increasing inequality is not simply the result of economic forces, but the product of broad-reaching policy choices in a political system dominated by partisan ideologies and the interests of the wealthy. Bartels demonstrates that elected officials respond to the views of affluent constituents but ignore the views of poor people. He shows that Republican presidents in particular have consistently produced much less income growth for middle-class and working-poor families than for affluent families, greatly increasing inequality. He provides revealing case studies of key policy shifts contributing to inequality, including the massive Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and the erosion of the minimum wage. Finally, he challenges conventional explanations for why many voters seem to vote against their own economic interests, contending that working-class voters have not been lured into the Republican camp by "values issues" like abortion and gay marriage, as commonly believed, but that Republican presidents have been remarkably successful in timing income growth to cater to short-sighted voters. Unequal Democracy is social science at its very best. It provides a deep and searching analysis of the political causes and consequences of America's growing income gap, and a sobering assessment of the capacity of the American political system to live up to its democratic ideals.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 7 more reviews...
 On Spreading the Wealth October 26, 2008
Izaak VanGaalen (San Francisco, CA USA)
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
In this study Princeton professor Larry Bartels makes the argument that lower- and middle-income groups consistently do better under Democratic administrations than under Republican. During the last sixty years (1948-present) the average annual growth of real GNP was 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents and 2.78 percent under Democratic presidents. He shows further that income inequality has gone sharply upward during Republican administrations and slightly downward during Democratic. Inequality has gone up significantly since 1980, years in which Republicans have won all but two presidential elections. He calls this the "new gilded age" because the top 1 percent now controls 20 percent of the wealth, a percentage not seen since the 1920's. Perhaps another sign that the economy is out of balance and heading for greater turbulence.
Republican economists will argue that this is merely a statistical aberration. They claim that presidents have little influence over the economy, and other forces such as monetary policy, oil prices, and technology are more determinative. Republicans view the market as a force of nature, whereas Democrats see it as a political construct. Bartels, being a Democrat, makes a strong case for government intervention to achieve greater balance and greater income equality.
Bartels shows that Democratic presidents have consistently produced their best results during their second year in office. This is because the spending programs put in place the first year usually produce their benfits the second. Not suprisingly income growth was virtually the same for both parties the first, third, and fourth years. The second year surge seems to have given Democrats the edge.
The question that comes to mind is that if Democrats are producing higher income growth and greater equality why did Republicans win 5 of the last 7 presidential elections? Bartels' answer is that the benefits of the second year are no longer part of the voter's consideration by the time elections roll around. Also by the fourth year Republican presidential candidates are making populist election year promises that make them indistinguishable for Democratic candidates. (Which party now is not in favor of bailouts and stimulus packages?)
Bartles makes an interseting argument. He argues that for those looking out for their economic interests it is not only important for Democrats to vote Democratic but Republicans - other than the top 1 percent - should also be voting Democratic. (Joe the Plumber included.) The upcoming presidential elections will probably prove Bartels theory correct.
Everyone Makes More Money When a Democrat is President October 23, 2008
Al Globus (Capitola, CA)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
A couple of things jumped out for me:
"comparing average annual real pre-tax (1) income growth (%) for families at various points in the income distribution" from 1948-2005:
-- First, everyone made more money under Democratic presidents, although the difference was small for the wealthiest (95th percentile).
-- Under Republicans, the wealthy do a lot better (2.12% increase per year for the 95th percentile) than those with less (0.43% increase for the 20th percentile).
-- Under Democrats the middle class, working class, and poor do a little better than the rich (2.38-2.64% increase compared to 2.12% for the 95th percentile).
Because these are percent per year, they compound. Over time Democratic presidents have narrowed the income gap whilst making everyone wealthier. Republican presidents have significantly widened the income gap and even the wealthy make less than under Democrats.
Bartels spends many pages showing that this is not a statistical fluke or the product of other factors. He also explains why each party's tax and fiscal policies lead to what we observe. This is a real effect of the party in power.
[...]
 Bartel's analysis oversimplifies October 21, 2008
A. Hamilton (Philadelphia, PA)
4 out of 8 found this review helpful
It's no coincidence that Larry Bartels is a political scientist -- not an economist. His book purports to show that American economic performance under Democratic administrations has been superior to performance under Republicans, across all income categories.
Apparently, this chart has a lot of liberals very excited. Too bad that it is complete nonsense.
Bartels grossly oversimplifiwa how economic policy actually impacts economic performance. The root of its problem lies in the inane assumption that the effect of policy on economic growth manifests itself with a one year lag. In other words, Bartels gives a political party credit for economic performance starting the year following it takes over the Presidency.
Let's explore this assumption. A president comes into power. By the time his first budget goes into effect, it is already October of that year. Does anyone really think that that initial budget has any signifiant impact on economic performance of the following year? And that only the budget is responsible for that economic performance?
Just to show the arbitrary nature (and impact) of the one year lag assumption, I ran growth numbers for a *two* year lag based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data, from 1945 to 2007. In that time period, average economic growth (for all income categories, to keep it simple) resulting under Democratic adminstrations was 2.02%. From Republican administrations, 2.08%.
The other major assumption that the study ignores is that it is Congress, not the Presidency, that holds the power of the budget. Asking who controlled Congress and what those policies were has just as much (or more) bearing on economic outcomes as who was in the White House. Similarly, the Fed controls monetary policy, which potentially has a greater economic impact that fiscal policy. Who has appointed the Federal Reserve Chairman and its Board of Governors? Are they employing a conservative or liberal ideological approach to monetary policy?
Additionally, Bartels' "analysis" just completely ignores history, again by making foolish assumptions about the data lag. For example, it's pretty widely accepted that the economic downturn and stagflation of the early 1970s was proximately caused by the financial demands of the Great Society and the Vietnam War, coupled with exogenous shocks to oil prices. Both the Great Society and America's deep involvement in Vietnam came courtesy of LBJ. So you can'tgive Nixon credit for bad economic performanceon his watch - the causes of rampant inflation and low growth at the time weren't his fault.
In the final analysis, the success of economic policy of respective Democratic and Republican administrations must be evaluated based on their long term impact. This is very difficult to measure because there are so many dfferent factors at work -- fiscla policy, monetary policy, technological innovation and impact on productivity, population and demographic change, commodities avilability, trade, etc.
Behind this complexity, however, the fact remains that basic economics tells us smaller government, lower taxes, and less wealth redistribution results in a larger pie for everyone. Nothing in the Bartels' "analysis" as should cause a rational observer to doubt that simple fact. If there's any doubt of this, compare the long term growth rates of the US versus Europe. Freer markets, smaller government, and lower taxes inevitably produce higher growth, lower unemployment, and lower inflation in the long run. If there's any doubt, here's a fact from a recent speech from the President of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet:
"Since 1996, the annual growth rate for the euro area has averaged 2.1% per year compared to 3.3% in the US."
The speech goes on to propose structural reforms in Europe to increase competition and promote innovation (including tax reform and labor market reform) -- the fundamentals of conservative economic doctrine.
http://americangerontocracy.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/better-economic-growth-under-the-democrats/
Judgement Day is Here. Vote with your Pocketbook. September 7, 2008
A. Thompson (Naples, FL United States)
3 out of 4 found this review helpful
The facts stand for themselves outside the realm of Partisan politics. Idealists hate facts. Fanatics hate facts. I Love facts. Whose ideas work the best is what I want. Most Americans would Love to make more money and do better each and every year. Who can argue against that except a suicidal maniac.
Insightful! September 6, 2008
Loyd E. Eskildson (Phoenix, AZ.)
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
"Unequal Democracy" presents the results of a six-year exploration of the political causes and consequences of economic inequality in America. It was inspired by the substantial escalation of this inequality in recent years. Total income going to the top 0.1% of income earners has more than tripled, from 3.2% in the late 1950s to 10.9% in 2005; that going to the top 1% rose from 10.2% to 21.8%. Further, this widening is accelerating. Despite this trend, 80% believe that though you may start out poor, if you work hard you can make lots of money - more than any other developed nation. This belief undermines motivation for change.
Bartels believes that the most significant domestic policy initiative of the past decade has been a massive government-engineered transfer of additional wealth from the lower and middle classes to the rich via substantial reduction in federal income taxes for the rich.
Economists have found little evidence that large disparities promote growth, or that progressive tax rates retard growth by discouraging economic effort.
Meanwhile, political campaigns have become dramatically more expensive, increasing the reliance of elected officials on those who can afford to help finance their re-election bids. At the same time, membership in labor groups, a previously countervailing force, has substantially declined.
On average over the past half century, real incomes of middle-class families grew 2X under Democrats vs. Republicans, and working poor families grew 6X faster under Democrats - even after allowing for differences in economic circumstances.
So why do those with lower incomes vote for Republicans? Bartels tells us that contrary to the theme of "What Happened to Kansas," moral values do not trump economics as a basis for lower-income voting behavior. Bartels offers evidence that the contradiction is explained by confusion generated by mixing "working class" (defined often as those w/o a college education) with lower-income. The working class has a lot of relatively high earners that are influenced by the moral values issues.
Bartels then contends that Republican success in presidential races is due to voters' overemphasis on election-year economic growth, vs. the superior longer-term performance of Democratic presidents, but lesser achievement during the last year of their terms.
Finally, its on to the estate ("death") tax. Actions to reduce and eliminate it during the early Bush II years represent about 15% of the impact of the overall tax reduction package. Bartels asserts that there is enormous misunderstanding about this tax regarding the wideness of its applicability. As a result, it is a wonder that it still exists.
Bottom Line: "Unequal Democracy" presents a carefully documented set of conclusions about an important and timely topic; its only drawback is that sometimes the statistics get too deep.
|
|
|
Can't find the right gift? Try a Gift Certificate
| |
