Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans: A Study

Read entire report here.

Study Abstract: 

There can be little doubt that the wealthiest Americans exert more political influence than the less affluent do. But there has been little systematic evidence about precisely what sorts of public policies the wealthy want government to pursue, or how the policy preferences of wealthy Americans resemble or differ from the preferences of ordinary citizens.

Data from our recently completed SESA (Survey of Economically Successful Americans and the Common Good) pilot study indicate that the top 1% or so of U.S. wealth-holders differ rather sharply from the American public over a number of important policies concerning taxation, economic regulation, and especially social welfare programs.

The more rarified, top 1/10th of 1% or so of wealth-holders (people with $40 million or more in net worth) appear on the average to hold still more conservative views – views that are even more distinct from those of the general public.

We suggest that these distinctive policy preferences may help account for why several types of public policies in the United States appear to deviate markedly from what the average U.S. citizen wants government to do. We discuss the implications of our findings for democratic theory.

Findings begin on page 8.

Authors: 
Benjamin I. Page
Northwestern University
b-page@northwestern.edu

Larry M. Bartels
Vanderbilt University
larry.bartels@vanderbilt.edu

Jason Seawright
Northwestern University
j-seawright@northwestern.edu

For presentation at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association,
Seattle, Washington, Aug. 31-Sept. 4, 2011     REVISED 9/29/11

Q&A with Laurie Penny

Image via @PennyRed

"The freedom that's offered to everyone under the terms of neoliberalism [is] freedom for a few to self-actualize in an extremely narrow, homogenous way by shopping and consuming, whilst the rest of us work long hours for low wages or no wages.

Freedom from economic exploitation isn't the sexy kind of female empowerment, but without it we won't be moving forward.

And the way in which women's labour is used and abused—the concentration of women in low-paid or unpaid caring and domestic roles, for example, is not only one of the things that sustains patriarchy, it also sustains capitalism.

Without the work that women do for free, the markets would be on their knees in a day. And yet, it just goes to show that there is, in fact, plenty of work out there, it's just that most of it is being done by women, for free.

There used to be a serious campaign for wages for housework—imagine if we had that kind of economic analysis of feminism today!"

Read the entire interview here.