New evidence that increasing economic inequality rises out of political partisanship

Political scientists at the University at Buffalo and Pennsylvania State University have published new research investigating how partisan differences in macroeconomic policy have contributed to substantial and rising economic inequality in the United States.

The of such policy decisions, researchers found, have a greater impact on people at the lower end of the economic spectrum, but are "significantly more muted" for those at the higher end of the spectrum.

The study, "Partisan Differences in the Distributional Effects of Economic Growth: Stock Market Performance, Unemployment, and Political Control of the Presidency," appeared in the Journal of Elections, Public Opinions and Parties on Feb. 15, 2015.

The authors are Harvey D. Palmer, PhD, associate professor of political science at UB, and Bryan J. Dettrey, a recent UB PhD graduate, now teaching at the School of Public Affairs at Penn State Harrisburg.

"All incumbents have the incentive to create in order to win re-election," Palmer says, "and they use a variety of policies to achieve this growth. Their policy choices - including those designed to manage the national economy - are usually in harmony with the demands of the core constituent groups of their party.

"We hypothesized that some groups benefit more and some less from the sets of policies chosen by the incumbent government to stimulate growth," he says.

"Our results support that proposition. They show that the economic policies of Republican presidents, for instance, have a stronger effect on stimulating performance than reducing ," says Palmer, "which is more likely to benefit Republicans than Democrats given that, on average, they have greater investment wealth.

"Economic growth under Democratic presidents, on the other hand, has a stronger effect on reducing unemployment," he says, "which tends to benefit Democratic constituencies more than Republican ones given that, on average, they face greater job insecurity."

"However, the risk of unemployment falls disproportionately toward the lower end of the income scale, further reducing the average relative wages of those in lower income brackets," Palmer says.

"Also, while the negative effects of unemployment can be long lasting, the negative effects of stock ownership are significantly more muted," Palmer says, "because even the leveling effects of more severe price corrections or downturns in the stock market do not compare to the long-term negative consequences of higher unemployment on income inequality."

As an initial test of their theoretical argument, Palmer and Dettrey investigated whether partisan differences exist in the statistical relationships between economic growth and stock and unemployment. This statistical analysis is based on monthly economic data from January 1951 to December 2010 (start of the Eisenhower administration through the second year of the Obama administration).

Consistent with Palmer and Dettrey's argument, the positive relationship between economic growth and stock market performance was signficantly greater under Republican presidents, while the negative relationship between economic growth and unemployment was significantly stronger under Democratic presidents.

Moreover, both researchers say this finding holds regardless of what assumption is made about the time lag in the effect of a change in partisan control on the nature and implementation of macroeconomic policy.

Palmer and Dettrey also reveal evidence through the application of a rolling subperiod modeling approach, which indicates that the partisan differences in the distributional consequences of macroeconomic policy increased from 1951 to 2010, reflecting the rise in income inequality in the U.S. over the past 30 years.


Explore further

Democratic, republican presidents have had similar economic records, says political scientist

More information: Journal of Elections, Public Opinions and Parties , www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10 … lCode=fbep20#preview
Citation: New evidence that increasing economic inequality rises out of political partisanship (2015, March 12) retrieved 18 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-03-evidence-economic-inequality-political-partisanship.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
22 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 13, 2015
"economic policies of Republican presidents, for instance, have a stronger effect on stimulating stock market performance". FALSE. Corporate profits in fact have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year). Moreover, average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end). http://www.forbes...emocrat/

Mar 13, 2015
It's called rent seeking.

The socialist Regulatory State makes it more profitable for business to suck up to socialist politicians than to create a product or service customers want to buy.

Politicians plunder wealth and redistribute to the rent seekers. Those that create the wealth loose and those the suck on the teat of state win.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more