Do the Affluent Override Average Americans? Measuring Policy Disagreement and Unequal Influence

Abstract

Objective. In this article, I seek to adjudicate between contradictory findings in studies of unequal responsiveness that focus on policy issues over which affluent and average Americans disagree. Methods. I assess the impact of 22 definitions of policy disagreement and two methods of measuring policy influence-based on win rates and policy change rates-on analyses of unequal responsiveness. Results. Win rates are an unreliable measure of influence and comparing policy change rates across cases of agreement and disagreement minimizes bias and allows for a more direct measure of relative independent policy influence. When income groups disagree over proposed policy changes, the preferences of the affluent-but not those of the middle-significantly impact the likelihood that the policies are implemented. Conclusion. My results support previous findings that the affluent have substantial influence over policy making while average Americans have little to no influence.

Gender Gaps in Policy Responsiveness

“…See Bashir (2015), Enns (2015), and Branham et al (2017). Bowman (2020) has extensively tested these possibilities and found that the main alternative—win rates for subgroups—is inconsistent across different definitions of disagreement and heavily affected by status quo bias. We also present results that consider status quo bias.…”

Party Positions, Income Inequality, and Voter Turnout in Canada, 1984-2015

“…Nevertheless, this article sheds further light on the detrimental effects of inequality on democracy. A primary function of elections is the distribution of power and mounting American evidence demonstrates their governments are far more responsive to the wealthy over everyone else (Bartels, 2008;Bowman, 2020;Gilens, 2012;Hacker & Pierson, 2010). It would appear from this study that Canada is treading down a similar path to its southern neighbor.…”

“…Mounting evidence also demonstrates that governments are far more responsive to the wealthy over everyone else (Bartels, 2008;Bowman, 2020;Gilens, 2012;Hacker & Pierson, 2010;Schakel, 2019). Thus, the nature of the relationship between income inequality and voting is important because widening income inequality can concentrate political and decision-making power in the hands of a few.…”

Conducting the Heavenly Chorus: Constituent Contact and Provoked Petitioning in Congress

“…Representatives often respond more to wealthy citizens, interest groups, and members of their own political parties than to the public writ large (Bartels 2008;Gilens 2012;Gilens and Page 2014;Lax, Phillips, and Zelizer 2019;Stokes 2020). After controlling for affluent Americans' and interest groups' preferences, scholars do not find a relationship between the middle class's preferences and public policy decisions (Gilens and Page 2014;Bowman 2020). Representatives are also more likely to be responsive to non-minority than minority constituents (Butler and Broockman 2011;Broockman 2013;Butler 2014;Costa 2017), a bias that cannot be explained by the demographic composition of representatives' districts (Einstein and Glick 2017;Mendez and Grose 2018).…”