UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE The Representational Sources of Political Inequality A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Thomas Joseph Hayes June 2012 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Benjamin G. Bishin, Chairperson Dr. John Cioffi Dr. Christopher Dennis Copyright by Thomas Joseph Hayes 2012 The Dissertation of Thomas Joseph Hayes is approved: ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Committee Chairperson University of California, Riverside Acknowledgements This dissertation could not have been possible without the help and support of colleagues, friends, and family. Most significantly, my work benefited from the guidance of my dissertation advisor Ben Bishin. The idea for this dissertation came about as a result of a project in his seminar in Representation. Ben is a scholar who I hope to emulate as I begin my journey as an academic, not just in terms of research, but also in terms of the pedagogical approach to helping students “think big.” Many other professors at UCR aided the work in this dissertation and I would like to thank Martin Johnson, Kevin Esterling, Feryal Cherif, Antoine Yoshinaka, John Medearis, Augustine Kposowa, and John Cioffi for their helpful comments and suggestions. Bernie Grofman gave insightful feedback to my chapter on representation. Chris Dennis helped spur ideas, gave wonderful feedback, and helped me along the way of writing the dissertation. My fellow graduate students deserve much credit for pushing me along the way. Chris Haynes, Antonio Ugues, Jr., Masahiro Omae, Yun Wang, Mayia Shulga, Byran Martin, Cristina Nicolescu Waggonner, and Tommy Wong gave insightful comments on drafts of chapters and during many presentations of my work. D. Xavier Medina Vidal helped me at every stage of the dissertation process, from the prospectus to the final defense. My family has been a wonderful support system over the years and I could not have accomplished so much without their continued support. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my friends (who are like family) Jamil Bilem and Leigh Bowles, for both their encouragement and comments on my dissertation. iv ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Representational Sources of Political Inequality by Thomas Joseph Hayes Doctor of Philosophy, Graduate Program in Political Science University of California, Riverside, June 2012 Dr. Benjamin G. Bishin, Chairperson This dissertation investigates the sources of political inequality by examining different aspects of the American governmental system, specifically individuals (e.g. voters), institutions (e.g. Congress), and the interaction between the two (e.g. responsiveness). As the American government was set up to be a representative democracy, the main focus is on the role of representation in the U.S. political system and the degree to which certain groups receive higher levels of responsiveness and other groups do not. Moreover, this dissertation answers three important questions related to inequality: How pervasive is political inequality? Does the public view inequality as a problem? What accounts for legislator bias toward different groups? v Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………page 1 Chapter 2…………….……………………………………………page 17 Chapter 3…………….……………………………………………page 77 Chapter 4…………….……………………………………………page 125 Chapter 5: Conclusion……….……………………………………page 165 vi List of Tables Table 1 Comparison of Political Equality at Founding and Modern Era ……………………………………….……………………………………………page 70 Table 2 Bivariate Relationship for Percent Supporting Reducing Inequality (Education, Age, Race, Gender).....…………………….……………………………………………page 82 Table 3 Bivariate Relationship for Percent Supporting Reducing Inequality (Party ID & Ideology)……………….…………….……………………………………………page 82 Table 4 Bivariate Relationship for Percent Supporting Reducing (Class & Personal Economic Situation)………………….……………………………………………page 83 Table 5 Summary statistics for state Constituency Opinion ……………………………………….…………………………………………….page 137 Table 6 Differential Responsiveness of Senators to Constituency Opinion (107th-111th Congresses)…………….…………….…………………………………………….page 141 Table 7 Differential Responsiveness of Senators to Constituency Opinion with additional controls (107th-111th Congresses)….………………………………………………..page 144 Table 8 Partisan Differences in Responsiveness to Constituency Opinion (107th-111th Congresses)…………….…………….…………………………………………….page 149 Table 9 W-NOMINATE estimates for the 107th Senate (before and after Jeffords party switch)………………….…………….……………………………………………page 149 Table 10 Senator Responsiveness to Constituency Opinion (107th Congress ………………………………………….…………………………………………page 154 vii List of Figures Figure 1 Inflation Adjusted Household Incomes (After-Tax), 1979-2006…………..page 4 Figure 2 Gini Coefficient for the United States (1952-2004)………………………..page 5 Figure 3 Top Tenth (P 90-100) and Fifth Percentile (P95-100) of Income Share (exluding capital gains), 1917-2008…………….……………………………………………...page 51 Figure 4 Support for Reducing Income Differences between Rich and Poor by Gender and Age …………………….…………….…………………………………………….page 92 Figure 5 Support for Reducing Income Differences Between Rich and Poor by Party Identification & Ideology…………………………………………………….page 94 Figure 6 Support for Reducing Income Differences between Rich and Poor by Class ……………………………………….…………………………………………….page 97 Figure 7 Support for Reducing Income Differences between Rich and Poor by Personal Economic Situation & Rating of the Nation’s Economy..………………………….page 98 Figure 8 Predicted Probabilities for Various Inequality Related GSS Questions ………………………..…………….……………………………………………..page 102 Figure 9 Predicted Probabilities for Inequality Related GSS Questions by Satisfaction with Personal Economic Situation ……….……………………………………………..page 104 Figure 10 Inflation Adjusted Household Incomes (After-Tax), 1979 2006…………………………………….……………………………………………page 128 Figure 11 Senators' Responsiveness to Income Groups (107th-111th Congresses)……………..…………….……………………………………………page 142 Figure 12 Predicted Senator Responsiveness by Economic Class for 110th Congress ……………………………………….…………………………………………….page 143 Figure 13 Senators' Responsiveness to Income Groups (with controls, 107th-111th Congresses)…………….…………….…………………………………………….page 147 Figure 14 Average Tax Rates by Income Groups, 1960-2004 ………………………….…………….……………………………………………page 174 Figure 15 Comparison of Average weekly earnings of Union and Non-Union Workers ……………………………………….…………………………………………….page 178 viii Chapter 1 Introduction Democracy arose from men thinking that if they are equal in any respect they are equal in all respects. -Aristotle The Declaration of Independence promised that all American citizens would enjoy equal political rights. Nearly every generation has returned to this promise and struggled to elevate the performance of American democracy to its high ideals. But in our time, the promise of American democracy is threatened again…the risk is that rising economic inequality will solidify longstanding disparities in political voice and influence, and perhaps exacerbate such disparities. -Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy, American Political Science Association 2004 In the early 1960’s the United States government developed a measure of poverty that has long served as a social indicator that affects views of the well-being of the country. This measure informed many public policies and programs meant to help the least well-off. The measure has long been criticized for its many flaws. This poverty measure did not take into account the differing needs of workers and non-workers, the costs associated with a lack of health coverage, geographic variation, rising costs of living, or governmental programs such as food stamps or social security. In 2011, the Census developed the ‘Supplemental Poverty Measure,’ a new measure of poverty that took many of these factors into account. 1 The picture of American poverty portrayed by this new measure is striking. The biggest difference between the new measure and the old showed that 51 million people were living with incomes less than 50 percent above the poverty line (76 percent higher than the official measure). Individuals across America were struggling in places traditionally thought immune from poverty—such as in the suburbs and among home owners. In response, the Census developed a new term, called the ‘near poor,’ which labeled over 100 million Americans (nearly 1 in 3) either in poverty or just above the threshold (DeParle et al. 2011). After the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, many more Americans were struggling that previously thought. During this same time period, however, the wealthy in America prospered at an astonishing rate. In 2010, for example, 93 percent of the income created in the country went to the top 1 percent of tax payers (those earning more than $352,000). Focusing on the top 1 percent does not tell the whole story of the degree to which the wealthy prospered. In that same year, 37 percent of the income created in the country went to the top .01 percent, or about 15,000 households earning more than $23.8 million (Piketty and Saez 2012). In the wake of a recession and time in which many struggled, the wealthiest of the wealthy were doing exceptionally well. The American creed has often highlighted the fact that the system is fair because of high economic