Over the past twenty years, there has been much discussion about two of the most important recent trends in American politics: the increase in income inequality in the United States and the increase in ideological and partisan polarization, particularly in the U.S. House. These two national-level trends are commonly thought to be positively related. But, there are few tested theoretical connections between them, and it is potentially problematic to infer individual-level behavior from these aggregate-level trends. In fact, an examination of the literature reveals, at least, three different theoretical outcomes for district-level income inequality on voter and congressional ideological positions. I explore these district-level theoretical and empirical possibilities as well as test them over decades with three different measures of income inequality. I argue and demonstrate that higher district levels of income inequality are related to higher levels of ideological liberalism in the U.S. House. This stands in contrast to the national-level trends, but it tracks closely to traditional understandings of congressional behavior.
AldrichJohn H.1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
2.
AnsolabehereStephende FigueiredoJohn M.SnyderJames M.2003. “Why is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?” Journal of Economic Perspectives17 (1): 105–30.
3.
AnsolabehereStephenSnyderJamesStewartCharlesIII. 2001. “Candidate Positioning in the U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science45 (1): 136–59.
4.
APSA Task Force Report. 2004. “American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality.” Perspectives on Politics2 (4): 651–66.
5.
AtkinsonAnthony B.PikettyThomasSaezEmmanuel. 2011. “Top Incomes in the Long-run of History.” Journal of Economic Literature49 (1): 3–71.
6.
BartelsLarry M.2006. “Is the Water Rising? Reflections on Inequality and American Democracy.” PS: Political Science and Politics39 (1): 39–42.
7.
BartelsLarry M.2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
8.
BénabouRoland. 2000. “Unequal Societies: Income Distribution and the Social Contract.” American Economic Review90 (1): 96–129.
9.
BishinBenjamin G.2009. Tyranny of the Minority: The Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
10.
BishopBill. 2009. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-minded America Is Tearing Us Apart. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
11.
BoixCarles. 2003. Democracy and Redistribution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BrandoliniAndreaSmeedingTimothy M.2006. “Patterns of Economic Inequality in Western Democracies: Some Facts on Levels and Trends.” PS: Political Science and Politics39 (1): 21–26.
13.
CavailléCharlotteTrumpKris-Stella. 2015. “The Two Facets of Social Policy Preferences.” The Journal of Politics77 (1): 146–60.
14.
ChakerAlaa. 2017. “Rising Income Inequality Increasing Political Polarization? A State-level Analysis over Two Decades.” Journal of Applied Business and Economics19 (2): 20–34.
15.
DahlRobert. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
16.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
17.
DucaJohn V.SavingJason L.2015. “Income Inequality and Political Polarization: Time Series Evidence over Nine Decades.” The Review of Income and Wealth62 (3): 445–66.
18.
FennoRichard F.1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
19.
FiorinaMorris P.2002. “Parties and Partisanship: A 40-year Retrospective.” Political Behavior2 (2): 93–115.
20.
FrankoWilliam W.2016. “Political Context, Government Redistribution, and the Public’s Response to Growing Economic Inequality.” The Journal of Politics78 (4): 957–73.
21.
FrankoWilliamKellyNathan J.WitkoChristopher. 2016. “Class Bias in Voter Turnout, Representation, and Income Inequality.” Perspectives on Politics14 (2): 351–68.
22.
FrankoWilliamTolbertCaroline J.WitkoChristopher. 2013. “Inequality, Self-interest and Public Support for ‘Robin Hood’ Tax Policies.” Political Research Quarterly66 (4): 923–37.
23.
GarandJames C.2010. “Income Inequality, Party Polarization, and Roll-call Voting in the U.S. Senate.” The Journal of Politics72 (4):1109–1128.
24.
GelmanAndrew. 2008. Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
25.
GelmanAndrewKenworthyLaneSuYu-Sung. 2010. “Income Inequality and Partisan Voting in the United States.” Social Science Quarterly91 (5): 1203–19.
26.
GilensMartin. 2000. Why American Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Boulder: Westview Press.
27.
GilensMartin. 2005. “Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly69 (5): 778–96.
28.
GilensMartin. 2009. “Preference Gaps and Inequality in Representation.” PS: Political Science and Politics42 (2): 335–41.
29.
HackerJacob S.2006. “Inequality, American Democracy, and American Political Science: The Need for Cumulative Research.” PS: Political Science and Politics39 (1): 47–49.
30.
HayesThomas J.2013. “Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality the Case of the U.S. Senate.” Political Research Quarterly66 (3): 585–99.
31.
JohnstonChristian D.NewmanBenjamin J.2016. “Economic Inequality and U.S. Public Policy Mood across Space and Time.” American Politics Research44 (1): 164–91.
32.
JonesDavid R.McDermottMonika L.2009. Americans, Congress, and Democratic Responsiveness: Public Evaluations of Congress and Electoral Connections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
33.
KangShin-GooPowellG. BinghamJr.2010. “Representation and Policy Responsiveness: The Median Voter, Election Rules, and Redistributive Welfare Spending.” The Journal of Politics72 (4): 1014–28.
34.
KellyNathan J.2009. The Politics of Economic Inequality in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
KellyNathan J.EnnsPeter K.2010. “Inequality and the Dynamics of Public Opinion: The Self-Reinforcing Link between Economic Inequality and Mass Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science54 (4): 855–70.
36.
KenworthyLaneMcCallLeslie. 2008. “Inequality, Public Opinion and Redistribution.” Socio-Economic Review6 (1): 35–68.
37.
KenworthyLanePontussonJonas. 2005. “Rising Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution in Affluent Countries.” Perspectives on Politics3 (3): 449–71.
38.
KuznetsSimon. 1955. “Economic Growth and Income Inequality.” American Economic Review45 (1): 1–28.
39.
KwonRoy. 2015. “Does Radical Partisan Politics Affect National Income Distributions? Congressional Polarization and Income Inequality in the United States, 1913- 2008.” Social Science Quarterly96 (1): 49–64.
40.
LacyDean. 2014. “Moochers and Makers in the Voting Booth: Who Benefits from Federal Spending and How Did They Vote in the 2012 Presidential Election.” Public Opinion Quarterly78 (Suppl. 1): 255–75.
41.
LadewigJeffrey W.2005. “Conditional Party Government and the Homogeneity of Constituent Interests.” The Journal of Politics67 (4): 1006–29.
42.
LadewigJeffrey W.2006. “Domestic Influences on International Trade Policy: Factor Mobility in the United States, 1963 to 1992.” International Organization60 (1): 69–103.
43.
LarcineseValentino. 2005. “Electoral Competition and Redistribution with Rationally Informed Voters.” Contributions to Economic Analysis and Policy4 (1): 1–28.
44.
LarcineseValentino. 2007. “Voting over Redistribution and the Size of the Welfare State: The Role of Turnout.” Political Studies55 (3): 568–85.
LijphartArend. 1997. “Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma.” American Political Science Review91 (1): 1–14.
47.
LuttigMatthew. 2013. “The Structure of Inequality and Americans’ Attitudes toward Redistribution.” Public Opinion Quarterly77 (3): 811–21.
48.
MacedoStephenKarpowitzChristopher F.2006. “The Local Roots of American Inequality.” PS: Political Science and Politics39 (1): 59–64.
49.
MayhewDavid. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
50.
McCallLeslie. 2013. The Undeserving Rich: American Beliefs about Inequality, Opportunity, and Redistribution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51.
McCallLeslieKenworthyLane. 2009. “Americans’ Social Policy Preferences in the Era of Rising Inequality.” Perspectives on Politics7 (3): 459–84.
52.
McCartyNolanPooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.
53.
McCartyNolanPooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 2009. “Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?” American Journal of Political Science53 (3): 666–80.
54.
MeltzerAllan H.RichardScott F.1981. “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government.” Journal of Political Economy89 (5): 914–27.
55.
MinkoffScott L.LyonsJeffrey. 2017. “Living with Inequality: Neighborhood Income Diversity and Perceptions of the Income Gap.” American Politics Research47 (2): 329–61.
56.
MoeneKarl OveWallersteinMichael. 2001. “Inequality, Social Insurance, and Redistribution.” American Political Science Review95 (4): 859–74.
NewmanBenjamin J. 2020. “Inequality Growth and Economic Policy Liberalism: An Updated Test of a Classic Theory.” The Journal of Politics82 (2): 765–70.
59.
NewmanBenjamin J.HayesThomas J.2019. “Durable Democracy? Economic Inequality and Democratic Account-ability in the New Gilded Age.” Political Behavior41 (1): 5–30.
60.
NewmanBenjamin J.JohnstonChristian D.LownPatrick L.2015. “False Consciousness or Class Awareness? Local Income Inequality, Personal Economic Position, and Belief in American Meritocracy.” American Journal of Political Science59 (2): 326–40.
61.
NewmanBenjamin J.ShahSonoLauterbachErinn. 2018. “Who Sees an Hourglass? Assessing Citizens’ Perception of Local Economic Inequality.” Research & Politics5 (3): 1–7.
62.
NokkenTimothy P.PooleKeith T.2004. “Congressional Party Defection in American History.” Legislative Studies Quarterly29 (4): 545–68.
63.
PikettyThomasSaezEmmanuel. 2003. “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998.” Quarterly Journal of Economics118 (1): 1–39.
64.
PooleKeith T.2007. “Changing Minds? Not in Congress!” Public Choice131 (3–4): 435–51.
65.
PooleKeith T.RomerThomas. 1993. “Ideology, ‘Shirking,’ and Representation.” Public Choice77 (1): 185–96.
66.
PooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 1997. A Political-economic History of Roll-call Voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
67.
ReardonSean F.BischoffKendra. 2011. “Income Inequality and Income Segregation.” American Journal of Sociology116 (4): 1092–1153.
68.
RohdeDavid W.1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
69.
SchlozmanKay LehmanVerbaSidneyBradyHenry E.2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
70.
SoltFrederick. 2008. “Economic Inequality and Democratic Political Engagement.” American Journal of Political Science52 (1): 48–60.
71.
SossJoeJacobsLawrence A.2009. “The Place of Inequality: Non-participation in the American Polity.” Political Science Quarterly124 (1): 95–125.
72.
StonecashJeffrey M.2000. Class and Party in American Politics. Boulder: Westview Press.
73.
TheriaultSean M.2008. Party Polarization in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
74.
UraJoseph DanielEllisChristopher R.2008. “Income, Preferences, and the Dynamics of Policy Responsiveness.” PS: Political Science and Politics41 (4): 785–94.
75.
UslanerEric M.BrownMitchel. 2005. “Inequality, Trust, and Civic Engagement.” American Politics Research33 (6): 868–94.
76.
WeirMargaret. 2004. “Challenging Inequality.” Perspective on Politics2 (4): 677–81.
77.
XuPingGarandJames C.2010. “Economic Context and Americans’ Perceptions of Income Inequality.” Social Science Quarterly91 (5): 1220–41.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
