ONLY for Prof Washington Watson
Running Head: WEALTH INEQULITIES AND DEMOCRACY 0
Wealth Inequalities and Democracy Rough Draft
Your Name
GEN 499 General Education
Professor’s Name
6 February 2017
Introduction
Economic inequality refers to a condition whereby there is the disparity in the distribution of wealth and income between various groups of individuals in the society. This is usually related to the concept “the poor get poorer as the richer get richer.” This phrase more particularly refers to the gap in the distribution of assets or the income from the richest segment of the society and the poorest individuals in the nation. While income refers to the amount of money an individual or household earns per year, wealth refers to the value of that individual or household overall. The calculation of wealth is done by subtraction of debt from assets, and in various ways, it is a more accurate window into the racial and economic disparity in America as well as the entire world. While it is significant to understand the gaps in income as part of the cycle of drawbacks and benefits in the United States, wealth represents the command grounded on the financial resources that have been accumulated by the family over its lifetime together with wealth that has been inherited by individuals across generations (Loffredo, 2001, p. 147). When such resources are combined with the income, the opportunity can be created to secure the “good life” in whatever fashion is required—business, health, comfort, training, justice and many others
In spite of the fact that fundamental ideas have entered the consciousness of the public, the influences of the highly concentrated wealth are excitedly debated and not well conceptualized by the observers. Various studies attribute both the benefits and negative impacts of the pronounced degree of wealth inequality. Certain studies postulate that inequalities in income can be social beneficial despite high probabilities in its negative influences in the society.
The global trends have contributed to the rise in the concentration of wealth within small groups of individuals. Even though some techniques used in the calculation of the global economic inequalities indicates little variation in the distribution of wealth, various methods used in the calculation of wealth or income tend to produce different results. A good number of global wealth analysts have concluded that inequality is generally on the rise. For instance, in 2013, half of the global population owned almost half of all the global wealth.
Wealth and income are necessarily not correlated, and a great variation exists in wealth within categories of income. This paper will first discuss the factors leading to wealth inequalities before discussing the systematic factors that perpetuate and reflect the increasing gap between the poorer and wealthy individuals in the United States. The relationship between economic inequality and ethnicity/race forms the basic concern of this paper. In a capitalist system, certain individuals will possess more wealth as compared to other groups (Einstein, 2015, p. 32). The gap between the individuals who have been capable of earning money and accumulating wealth and the group of individuals who have been struggling to make ends meet has dramatically increased. The part of the culture of politics in America that dates back to the founding includes the belief grounded on rugged individualism. A good number of Americans believe poverty to be an abstract idea that refers to others. The poor groups do not believe themselves as poor. Within the American society, racism is another prominent issue that determines the amount of wealth acquired and accumulated by an individual. The gap in wealth distribution has also been increased by racism. Different scholars who study race refer to race to an element that is highly perpetuating the privilege and power of whites. The understanding of this can be enhanced by understanding bigotry and prejudice.
The three issues; bigotry, prejudice, and racism are related to the psychological elements of the daily lives of Americans. Racism also determines the way culture, institutions as well as social systems impacts on the historical oppression of the individuals of color in the United States and as a result, perpetuate inequality. The decision that was made during the founding of American have led to the construction of complex systems that was formally made mainly to harm Native Americans and African Americans. Even though the attitudes of people regarding racism have changed, the system still operates in a way that put more privilege to the white and at the same time disadvantaging the individuals of color.
The economic inequality in the first world countries such as America and the United Kingdom have been unstable. In 1915, 18% of all American national income was earned by the richest 1% of American. Their share significantly dropped in the 1930s and remained less than 10% to the end of 1970s. The again in 2007, this share by the rich increased to 24%. The gap was wider between the whites and the blacks, and the ration was approximately 12:1.7
The Decreased Democracy Due to Inequality
The increase in inequality exploits the poor and destroys the middle class. The global democracy index reduces with increased inequality in wealth among the individuals in the country. The study conducted by Economist Magazine’s Intelligence Unit in 2012 found that the global democracy is at a standstill due to the economic crisis that started in 2008. The democracy index of the United States was ranked twenty-first which was behind countries such as New Zealand. This was a drop from 2010 seventeenth position primarily due to poor performance in political participation and government functioning. Furthermore, the study placed America at the bottom of categories of full democracy because the country has been antagonistically influenced by increased political polarization and paralysis and brinksmanship in politics. Polarization in politics worsens the inequality. The study conducted by International Monetary Funds in 2011 in thirty nations on the same issue and indicated poor performance in the gap between the rich and poorer groups in the studied countries.
Democracy Ideals
The fundamentals of democracy are sharing of the power to shape decision-making in the country. This is the general conception of democracy. However, the expectation of the citizens to exercise this kind of power varies from one citizen to the other depending on various factors. The effectiveness of the governance of the country calls for the direct involvement of citizenry in the democratic deliberation and collective decision making. Wealth inequalities sabotage the ideal of political equality which is a fundamental factor for democracy. Several scholarly studies indicate that the government of many countries are only responsive to the preferences of the elites. Gilens (2012) asserts that inequalities exist among the citizens of every society. However, democracy is supposed to entail some degree of political equality. The ideal of political equality is not possible to be completely achieved when the country experiences wealth inequality. The rich individuals have a disproportionate access to politics. The source of political money is determined by the state of wealth of an individual. The legislative seats only advantage those who have money. The contribution to campaigns requires aspirants to contribute large sums of money that may not be available to the poorer population (Fetscher, 2016, p. 301). There are those rich people who donate some money to aid campaigns of certain candidates. Such kinds of people are the ones engaged in a decision-making process that affects the whole country thereby disadvantaging the poorer while giving undue advantages to the wealthier groups who contributed toward the political ambitions of the leaders in power.
The perfect equality is how responsive the policy makers are to fulfill the wishes of the public. A particular segment of individuals in a country may hold uncalled preferences on certain issues that negatively affects the community, violate fundamental democratic values or poor information may be given to a particular group that detriments that interests of such groups of individuals (Inglehart & Welzel, n.d., p. 41).
Wealth determines access to power
Globally, leaders are wealthy people. The two basic sources of power include numbers and the control an individual has over the nation’s use of forces. Media is usually focused on the wealthy people who want access to certain political seats. The poorer are ignored as they are assumed not to be able to contribute to the media coverage expense. Doing this gives undue fame to the wealthy individuals who later hoodwink the poorer community and get sent to power. In most cases, wealthier individuals can also buy access to the control of important institutions that determines who to lead. Such institutions include election control agencies and PR firms.
Studies also show that politicians are more responsive to the needs of the wealthier groups. Business leaders and experts are the ones having the greatest ability to sway the foreign policy while the general public has little or no influence. The government will always consider the decisions by these groups of individuals as they are seen as the contributors to the country’s economic growth. There is also bias in the representation of the public interest in the government as leaders are always more responsive to the issues and opinions of the wealthier constituents of the country. At the same time, the interests of the poorer people are ignored if at all their policies somewhat disagrees with the policies affecting the rich. The preference gap between the rich and the poor is increasingly widening. The government is only concerned what affects the wealthier individuals as they are the primary influencers of the economy. The complete unresponsiveness of the government to the demands of the poor a disturbing issue. The study by Martin Gilen, an American Political Scientist, indicates that the government policies will always favor the wealthier group of people in case the poorer policy diverge with the policies of the rich. These results of the study are compatible with the majoritarian and egalitarian policy in cases whereby the poorer holds attributes that systematically diverge from those held by both the middle class and the wealthier groups. If the needs of the poor were consistently at variance with the preference of the majority of Americans, the government’s lack to respond to their needs might practically be a reflection of a well-functioning democracy. The individuals who are middle-income earners are considered by the government that reflects their needs on the most issues affecting them. The way the government policy makers respond to the preferences of the middle class can function as the more suitable test of biases in representing different classes of people.
The way government deals with the middle-class if their preferences conflict with the policies of the wealthier is the same the way, the poorer are dealt with in case they have a diverging preference with the well-off. Americans usually want their preferences to be enacted in the government policies. On the policy questions whereby the low and middle-income individuals share similar needs with the high-income individuals, all of them are treated equally by the government. However, when the views of the low and middle income earning people differ with the views of the more affluent citizens, the policy of the government usually seems to be highly responsive to the preferences of the wealthy and virtually unconcerned with the requirements of the low and the middle-class individuals (Yang, 2009, p. 71).
The policies of the poor and the middle class are usually ignored even for instances where they have aligned interests. The above discussions show that less well-off individuals have little or no influence over the outcome of the policy when their needs are not in line with the needs of the affluent individuals. Furthers studies indicates that the above are true not only if the consideration for the poor and the middle class is done separately but also for the policies on which the poor and middle income earning individuals that are closely aligned to oppose the well-off individuals. The responsiveness to the preferences of the public by the policy makers is highly skewed to give favors to the wealthier, and this remains the fact even if such policies are isolated in such a way that the needs of the poor and the middle citizens correlate. The wealthier groups are the primary determinants of whether or not the change in policy is adopted. This explains the casual impact of the well-off group on the outcome of the policies. It means that policymakers consider the needs of the affluent and ignore the preferences of the other class of people in the society.
The interests of the affluent citizens concerning the foreign policy are protected against the preferences of the poor concerning the same policies. Policymaking in the domain of the foreign affairs and national security reflects a mixture of unpopular and popular decisions regarding weapon policy as well as the military engagement. In contrast, less responsiveness to the needs of the middles and low-class citizens whenever they have diverging preferences with the wealthier is accounted for greatly by policies on trade and foreign aids and varying views concerning the war on terror. Many studies documents are increasing gaps between the general preferences of the public regarding foreign policies and the preferences of the affluent and the government elites. If the foreign policy reflects the needs of all class of people in a country, the citizens can have a more protectionist policy for trade (Patriquin, 2015, p. 38).
The Congress is mostly controlled by the wealthier elites through lobbying. The plutocrats take advantage of their vast economic power to influence country’s politics. They do pursuance of political lobbying to strictly focus on the defense and also to expand their interests in the economy of the country. This is a very particular duty with every company or other interest groups to advocate for their self-interests such as to access to loopholes to evade tax or to push for subsidies. Also, these fights by wealthier elites are focused on reducing tax and weakening regulations for business operations. All these are meant to benefit specific individuals in the country and businesses and not the community as a whole.
The political interests of the affluent citizens and the poor usually do not converge. Even when the focus is not on their particular interests, wealthy individuals’ preferences still varies much with the general public needs. They usually tend to be profoundly concerned with the state and the federal budget deficits and much more desirous to reduce programs regarding social welfare such as health care and social security. Such wealthier individuals are not interested in the spending of the government to enhance education to the poor or provide a better access to college. They only favor relaxed business regulations and tax reduction policies. Furthermore, these elites are against policies encouraging redistribution of wealth and improvement of political inequality.
The other issue is the ignorance of the poor, and the middle class by the politicians after the elections are over. The study conducted by the political scientist, Ronald Formisano in 2015 determines the policy preferences of the well-off. The study shows how campaigning politicians become passionate about the concerns of the poor and the rights of people of color. Once they are elected, their concerns turns to meet the needs of the rich people
The poor and the middle-class politicians are disadvantaged in case they are competing with the wealthier for a particular seat because of the lack of legal limits of finances an individual can use in campaigns. The political voices of the ordinary citizens have been weakened by the failure of the American Supreme Court to set the maximum limit of funds for campaigns. This has given the wealthier individuals unfair advantages to influence the outcome of elections. There are no laws that limit that regulates the use of money in campaigns. Some cases have been submitted to courts to come up with laws for funding campaign and yet rulings were made against such cases for example; the 2010 Citizens United against the rule and regulations that were agreed upon by the Federal Election Commission concerning advocacy expenditure for campaigns. The other case was McCutcheon against the rulings by the Federal Election Commission authorized the individual donors to fund as many political candidates who longed for their help. There were laws previously that dictated the number of people, and the maximum amount of money donors could spend within a two-year election cycle. Shaun McCutcheon who is a coal baron and as well a Republican National Committee member came up with a suit to do away with such limits.
Consequently, inequalities in wealth distribution reduce participation in political affairs of the country by the poor, undermines the social fabric and as well threatens the democracy. William Ray (2015) explained how inequalities in income threaten democracy. The societies with large gaps in wealth between the low and high-class individuals are characterized by social problems as well as diminishing indicators of happiness and well-being. Every social health indicator in wealthy communities is directly related to the rate of economic inequality. In an unequal society, people usually minimize their engagement in the community life. Mental illnesses and other social problems are more in communities with varying classes of people. The American Journal of Political Science offers an analytic description of economic inequality and engagement in political issue in a country. The journal stipulates that higher inequalities in income levels powerfully depress the interest of people in participating in politics and that greater inequality in wealth distribution leads to enormous political inequality (Ferguson, 2013).
Solt (2006) explains how poor disengage themselves from politics. The winnowing of problems that happens with the as economic inequality increases may make some citizens assume politics to be less important to them and as well affect the engagements of the poor in politics. The expression of a political voice of an individual is directly related to his social class. The citizens with high-income levels, education, and occupational status are more likely to be politically articulate.
The affluent are also more like than the poor to possess resources and skills vital for participation. The rich and the well-educated stand a high chance of affording high financial costs, commanding skills, acquiring information and also taking advantage of any connection that is useful in ensuring the development of organizations. This means that groups of people who are well endowed with different forms of resources are capable of overcoming the hurdle posed to them by the logic of collective action as compared to the individuals with poor resources.
Solutions to these Problems
The interest groups are supposed to protect the poor because they have a direct link with the outcome of the policies. These interest groups and the wealthier members of the society usually shape the policymaking process by the federal government independently hence can influence the decision of the government on the preferences of the wealthier groups. In most cases, the poor are less educated, and they can be effectively represented by the interest groups who are aware of the actions of political leaders (Ferejohn, 2009, p. 773). The mission of the interest groups is to address the preferences of the disadvantaged members of the society. The unions can also lobby for the protection of the interest of the lower class. The unions include the International unions, national unions, and other regional unions. However, there is need to establish and promote centers for countervailing economic power for all citizens in the country. These centers can spearhead the protection of the small businesses from the stiff competition of the large firms and enhance the participation of the low and middle class in political issues. The Supreme Court is supposed to come up with clear rules and guidelines on the political campaign spending that can favor all class of people. Also, the political parties and the Federal Election Commission should harmonize election process that serves the interest and preferences of the poor. The participation of voluntary associations in the protection of the poor can enhance the political voices of the low and middle-class individuals. This is because these associations can develop politically necessary civic skills and fight for political participation by the poor. Furthermore, voluntary association is the primary drivers of the political voice expression.
Conclusion
Inequality in wealth influences democracy of citizens negatively. Individuals who are well endowed with wealth usually take advantage of controlling the political decisions of the country. They influence policies because the government always act in their favor. The poor and the middle class are only advantaged in case their preferences converge with the preferences of the affluent members. This limits the political interest of the poor as the wealthy utilize all chances to participate in politics to determine taxation levels and the capacity of business regulation. The oppression of the poor can be solved through the active participation of the interest groups, voluntary associations, enactment of laws regulating campaign funding and also through the continuous efforts of the unions.
References
Einstein, K. L. (2015). Inequality in America: Race, Poverty, and Fulfilling Democracy's Promise by Stephen M.Caliendo. Boulder, CO, Westview Press, 2014. 288 pp. Political Science Quarterly, 130(4), 773-774. doi:10.1002/polq.12419
Ferejohn, J. (2009). Is Inequality a Threat to Democracy? The Unsustainable American State, 34-52. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392135.003.0002
Ferguson, T. (2013). Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. By Martin Gilens. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. 348p. Perspectives on Politics, 11(01), 252-254. doi:10.1017/s153759271200309x
Fetscher, V. R. (2016). Book Review: Martin Gilens, Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in AmericaAffluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America by GilensMartin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014. 352pp., £16.95 (p/b), ISBN 978-0691162423. Political Studies Review, 14(2), 301-301. doi:10.1177/1478929916630922a
Hero, R. E. (2005). Crossroads of Equality: Race/Ethnicity and Cities in American Democracy. Urban Affairs Review, 40(6), 695-705. doi:10.1177/1078087405276719
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (n.d.). A Revised Theory of Modernization. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy, 15-47. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790881.004
Loffredo, S. (1993). Poverty, Democracy and Constitutional Law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 141(4), 1277. doi:10.2307/3312344
Loffredo, S. (2001). Poverty law and community activism: Notes from a law school clinic. (University of Pennsylvania law review, 150, 1.
Patriquin, L. (2015). Equality and Inequality. Economic Equality and Direct Democracy in Ancient Athens, 37-58. doi:10.1057/9781137503480_4Plutocracy in America: how increasing inequality destroys the middle class and exploits the poor. (2015). Choice Reviews Online, 53(05), 53-2278-53-2278. doi:10.5860/choice.194243
Yang, Y. (2009). Human Nature: the Foundation of Politics and Law. Journal of Politics and Law, 2(4). doi:10.5539/jpl.v2n4p162
