The Great Divergence:
A Study of Changing Income Inequality
By Timothy Noah
Slate, September 2010
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/
Comparative Income Distribution
Lorenz Curve method
0= perfect equality | 100 = perfect inequality
Source: CIA Factbook [accessed 2/9/11]
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html
1
Namibia
70.7
74
Japan
38.1
2
South Africa
65.0
76
Yemen
37.7
7
Haiti
59.2
90
Egypt
34.4
18
El Salvador
52.4
92
United Kingdom 34.0
28
Mexico
48.2
98
France
32.7
35
Rwanda
46.8
100
Canada
32.1
39
Uganda
45.7
106
European Union
31.0
41
Uruguay
45.2
107
Netherlands
30.9
42
United States
45.0
108
Ireland
30.7
43
Cameroon
44.6
109
Pakistan
30.6
45
Iran
44.5
110
Australia
30.5
53
Russia
42.2
119
Kazakhstan
28.8
54
China
41.5
125
Germany
27.0
63
Jordan
39.7
133
Norway
25.0
67
Israel
39.2
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 University
http://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 CandidateCentered 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