Skip to main content

[]

Intended for healthcare professionals
Skip to main content
Restricted access
Research article
First published online March 7, 2018

Poor and powerless: Economic and political inequality in cross-national perspective, 1981–2011

Abstract

Abstract

The relationship between economic and political inequality has long concerned social scientists, but research remains limited in scope. Most studies focus on isolated cases, highly restricted subsamples, or subunits within countries. Using data for up to 136 countries between 1981 and 2011, this study analyzes whether and how income inequality affects the distribution of political power for, and respect for the civil liberties of, a society’s rich and poor people. When income inequality is high, do rich people command greater political power and enjoy stronger civil liberties than poor people do? To answer these questions, the study uses both pooled regression analyses and two-stage models with instrumental variables to identify causal effects. The results are decisive: income inequality is inimical to both political and civil equality. These findings hold for developed as well as developing countries and for democratic as well as nondemocratic countries.

Résumé

Si les chercheurs en sciences sociales s’intéressent depuis longtemps au rapport entre inégalité économique et inégalité politique, la portée des recherches existantes reste cependant limitée. La plupart des travaux portent sur des cas isolés, des sous-échantillons extrêmement restreints ou des sous-unités à l’intérieur d’un pays. Sur la base de données concernant jusqu’à 136 pays entre 1981 et 2011, nous analysons dans cet article dans quelle mesure les inégalités de revenu ont un effet sur la distribution du pouvoir politique pour les riches et les pauvres d’une société, et sur le respect qu’ils peuvent avoir pour les libertés publiques. Lorsque les inégalités de revenu sont importantes, les riches bénéficient-ils d’un plus grand pouvoir politique et de plus solides libertés publiques que les pauvres? Afin de répondre à ces questions, nous faisons appel à la fois à des analyses de régression groupées et à des modèles en deux étapes à variables instrumentales pour identifier les effets de causalité. Les résultats sont clairs: les inégalités de revenu sont préjudiciables à l’égalité aussi bien politique que civile, et ce, aussi bien dans les pays développés que dans les pays en développement, et dans les pays démocratiques autant que dans les pays non démocratiques.

Resumen

La relación entre la desigualdad económica y política siempre ha preocupado a los científicos sociales, pero las investigaciones siguen siendo de alcance limitado. La mayoría de los estudios se centran en casos aislados, submuestras altamente restringidas o subunidades dentro de los países. Usando datos de hasta 136 países entre 1981 y 2011, este articulo analiza cómo y de qué manera la desigualdad de ingresos afecta a la distribución del poder político entre ricos y pobres en la sociedad y el respeto a las libertades civiles de ambos grupos. Cuando la desigualdad de ingresos es alta, ¿tienen los ricos un mayor poder político y disfrutan de libertades civiles más amplias que los pobres? Para responder estas preguntas, se utilizan análisis de regresión con datos agrupados y modelos de dos etapas con variables instrumentales para identificar los efectos causales. Los resultados son claros: la desigualdad de ingresos es contraria a la igualdad política y civil. Estos resultados son válidos tanto para países desarrollados como en desarrollo y tanto para países democráticos como no democráticos.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

Abouharb MR, Cingranelli D (2007) Human Rights and Structural Adjustment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acemoglu D, Robinson J (2000) Why did the West extend the franchise? Democracy, inequality, and growth in historical perspective. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(4): 1167–1199.
Acemoglu D, Robinson J (2006). Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Acemoglu D, Bautista M, Querubín P, Robinson J (2008) Economic and political inequality in development: The case of Cundinamarca, Colombia. In: Helpman E (ed.) Institutions and Economic Performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 181–245.
Acemoglu D, Naidu S, Restrepo P, Robinson J (2015) Democracy, redistribution, and inequality. In: Atkinson A, Bourguignon F (eds) Handbook of Income Distribution. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 1885–1966.
Alderson A, Nielsen F (1999) Income inequality, development, and dependence: A reconsideration. American Sociological Review 64(4): 606–631.
Alderson A, Nielsen F (2002) Globalization and the great U-turn: Income inequality trends in 16 OECD countries. American Journal of Sociology 107: 1244–1299.
Angrist J, Pischke J-S (2009) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Avendano M (2012) Correlation or causation? Income inequality and infant mortality in fixed effects models in the period 1960–2008 in 34 OECD countries. Social Science Medicine 75(4): 754–760.
Balaev M (2009) The effects of international trade on democracy: A panel study of the post-Soviet world-system. Sociological Perspectives 52(3): 337–362.
Bartels L (2016) Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Berlin I (1969) Four Essays on Liberty. London: Oxford University Press.
Bollen K (1980) Issues in the comparative measurement of political democracy. American Sociological Review 45(3): 370–390.
Bollen K, Jackman R (1985) Political democracy and the size distribution of income. American Sociological Review 50(4): 438–457.
Bollen K, Paxton P (1998) Detection and determinants of bias in subjective measures. American Sociological Review 63(3): 465–478.
Bradley D, Huber E, Moller S, et al. (2003) Distribution and redistribution in postindustrial democracies. World Politics 55: 193–228.
Brady D (2009) Rich Democracies, Poor People: How Politics Explain Poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brady D, Beckfield J, Seeleib-Kaiser M (2005) Economic globalization and the welfare state in affluent democracies, 1975–2001. American Sociological Review 70: 921–948.
Brown C (2009) Democracy’s friend or foe? The effects of recent IMF conditional lending in Latin America. International Political Science Review 30(4): 431–457.
Calhoun C (2013) Occupy Wall Street in perspective. British Journal of Sociology 64(1): 26–38.
Cingranelli D, Richards D, Clay KC (2014) Short variable descriptions for indicators in the Cingranelli–Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Dataset. Available at: www.humanrightsdata.com (accessed 28 August 2014).
Citizens United v. Federal Electoral Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
Clawson D (2009) Money and politics. In: Manza J, Sauder M (eds) Inequality and Society: Social Science Perspectives on Social Stratification. New York: W.W. Norton, pp. 819–831.
Coppedge M, Gerring J, Lindberg S, et al. (2017) V-Dem methodology, version 7.1. Available at: www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/f2/82/f282f504-c3c8–4fff-8277-e9fda9d54934/methodology_v71.pdf (accessed 3 January 2018).
Cruz C, Keefer P, Scartascini C (2016) Database of Political Institutions 2015: Codebook. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
Domhoff GW (2006) Who Rules America? Power, Politics, and Social Change. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Driscoll J, Kraay A (1998) Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Review of Economics and Statistics 80(4): 549–560.
Fourcade-Gourinchas M, Babb S (2002) The rebirth of the liberal creed: Paths to neoliberalism in four countries. American Journal of Sociology 108(3): 533–579.
Gastwirth J (2017) Is the Gini index of inequality overly sensitive to changes in the middle of the income distribution? Statistics and Public Policy 4(1): 1–11.
Gilens M (2012) Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gilens M, Page B (2014) Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics 12(3): 564–581.
Goesling B (2001) Changing income inequalities within and between nations: New evidence. American Sociological Review 66: 745–761.
Goodin R, Dryzek J (1980) Rational participation: The politics of relative power. British Journal of Political Science 10(3): 273–292.
Gustafsson B, Johansson M (1999) In search of smoking guns: What makes income inequality vary over time in different countries? American Sociological Review 64(4): 585–605.
Hafner-Burton E, Tsutsui K (2005) Human rights in a globalizing world: The paradox of empty promises. American Journal of Sociology 110: 1373–1411.
Henisz W, Zelner B, Guillén M (2005) The worldwide diffusion of market-oriented infrastructure reform, 1977–1999. American Sociological Review 70(6): 871–897.
Hicks A (1999) Social Democracy and Welfare Capitalism: A Century of Income Security Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hicks A, Misra J (1993) Political resources and the growth of welfare in affluent capitalist democracies, 1960–1982. American Journal of Sociology 99(3): 668–710.
Huber E, Stephens J (2001) Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Huber E, Stephens J (2012) Democracy and the Left: Social Policy and Inequality in Latin America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Inglehart R, Norris P (2016) Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash. In: American Political Science Association Annual Meetings, Philadelphia.
Kentikelenis A, Stubbs T, King L (2016) IMF conditionality and development policy space, 1985–2014. Review of International Political Economy 23(4): 543–582.
Korpi W (1983) The Democratic Class Struggle. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Korpi W, Palme J (2003) New politics and class politics in the context of austerity and globalization: Welfare state regress in 18 countries, 1975–1995. American Political Science Review 97: 425–446.
Lobmayer P, Wilkinson R (2000) Income, inequality and mortality in 14 developed countries. Sociology of Health and Illness 22(4): 401–414.
Lowrey A (2017) Is it better to be poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi delta? The Atlantic, 8 March. Available at: www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/03/angus-deaton-qa/518880/ (accessed 13 July 2017).
Mahutga M, Bandelj N (2008) Foreign investment and income inequality: The natural experiment of Central and Eastern Europe. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 49(6): 429–454.
Marshall M, Gurr T, Jaggers K (2013) Polity IV Project: Dataset Users’ Manual. Vienna, VA: Center for Systemic Peace.
Marshall TH (1992 [1950]) Citizenship and Social Class. London: Pluto.
Meltzer A, Richard S (1981) A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy 89(5): 914–927.
Mills CW (1956) The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
Moller S, Huber E, Stephens J, et al. (2003) Determinants of relative poverty in advanced capitalist democracies. American Sociological Review 68(1): 22–51.
Muller E (1988) Democracy, economic development, and income inequality. American Sociological Review 53(1): 50–68.
Newey W, West K (1994) Automatic lag selection in covariance matrix estimation. Review of Economic Studies 61: 631–653.
Oberdabernig D (2013) Revisiting the effects of IMF programs on poverty and inequality. World Development 46: 113–142.
Pemstein D, Marquardt K, Tzelgov E, et al. (2015) The V-Dem measurement model: Latent variable analysis for cross-national and cross-temporal expert-coded data. Available at: www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/67/30/6730d372–7952–4c41-ac15-cc3ad0111830/v-dem_working_paper_2015_21.pdf (accessed 3 January 2018).
Przeworski A (2009) Conquered or granted? A history of suffrage extensions. British Journal of Political Science 39(2): 291–321.
Reuveny R, Li Q (2003) Economic openness, democracy, and income inequality: An empirical analysis. Comparative Political Studies 36(5): 575–601.
Ross M (2006) Is democracy good for the poor? American Journal of Political Science 50(4): 860–874.
Rosset J, Giger N, Bernauer J (2013) More money, fewer problems? Cross-level effects of economic deprivation on political representation. West European Politics 36(4): 817–835.
Rudra N (2008) Globalization and the Race to the Bottom in Developing Countries. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ruggie J (1982) International regimes, transactions, and change: Embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. International Organization 36(2): 379–415.
Schaffer M (2010) XTIVREG2: Stata module to perform extended IV/2SLS, GMM and AC/HAC, LIML and k-class regression for panel data models. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s456501.html (accessed 7 November 2013).
Simpson M (1990) Political rights and income inequality: A cross-national test. American Sociological Review 55(5): 682–693.
Solt F (2008) Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. American Journal of Political Science 52(1): 48–60.
Solt F (2009) Standardizing the World Income Inequality database. Social Science Quarterly 90(2): 231–242.
Stock J, Yogo M (2005) Asymptotic distributions of instrumental variables statistics with many weak instruments. In: Andrews DWK, Stock JH (eds) Identification and Inference for Econometric Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–120.
Swank D (2008) Tax policy in an era of internationalization: An assessment of a conditional diffusion model of the spread of neoliberalism. In: Simmons B, Dobbin F, Garrett G (eds) The Global Diffusion of Markets and Democracy. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, pp. 64–103.
Union of International Associations (UIA) (various years) Yearbook of International Organizations. Brussels: UIA.
United Nations (2013) UNCTAD Statistics. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
Vreeland J (2002) The effect of IMF programs on labor. World Development 30(1): 121–139.
Williamson J (2009) A short history of the Washington Consensus. Law and Business Review of the Americas 15: 7–23.
Winters J, Page B (2009) Oligarchy in the United States? Perspectives on Politics 7(4): 731–751.
Wooldridge J (2013) Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Mason, OH: Thompson South-Western.
World Bank (2013) World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Wright EO, Rogers J (2011) American Society: How It Really Works. New York: W.W. Norton.
Wroe A (2016) Economic insecurity and political trust in the United States. American Politics Research 44(1): 131–163.
Zingales L (2017) Towards a political theory of the firm. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31(3): 113–130.

Biographies

Wade M Cole is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Utah. A macrosociologist, he conducts research in the areas of political, global, and transnational sociology, with a primary empirical focus on the causes and consequences of states’ human rights practices.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
Email Article Link
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: March 7, 2018
Issue published: May 2018

Keywords

  1. Civil liberties
  2. endogeneity
  3. income inequality
  4. political equality

Mots-clés

  1. Égalité politique
  2. endogénéité
  3. inégalités de revenu
  4. libertés publiques

Palabras Clave

  1. Desigualdad de ingresos
  2. endogeneidad
  3. igualdad política
  4. libertades civiles

Rights and permissions

© The Author(s) 2018.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Wade M Cole
Department of Sociology, University of Utah, USA

Notes

Wade M Cole, Department of Sociology, University of Utah, 380 S 1530 E, Room 301, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. Email: [email protected]

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in International Sociology.

View All Journal Metrics

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 3223

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 26 view articles Opens in new tab

Crossref: 20

  1. Social Determinants of School-to-School Differences in Opportunity to Learn (OTL): A Cross-National Study
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  2. Public Opinion and the Energy Transition in East Asia: The Case of Taiwan
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  3. Renewable energy, inequality and environmental degradation
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  4. Does political inequality undermine the environmental benefit of renewable energy?
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  5. Validity of the Meltzer and Richard hypothesis under captured democracy and policy regime hypotheses
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  6. The economic growth effects of foreign direct investment in developing countries, 1980–2019
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  7. Reinforcing Political Inequality Through Diversity Initiatives: A Field-Level Perspective
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ugandan women’s approaches to doing business and becoming entrepreneurs
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  9. Global income inequality and measuring values with the world values survey
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  10. Co-production and Voice in Policymaking: Participatory Processes in the European Periphery
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  11. View More

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Full Text

View Full Text