ECONOMIC INEQUALITY IN THE US: THE CASE OF HACKER AND PIERSON
Hacker and Pierson make their compelling case trying to answer the question on the
causes of the dramatic widening in income inequality in the United States since
the late 1970s. They delve into this argument passionately but also with a scientific
acumen that is hard to find when talking about such debatable topics. At first,
the authors affirm that the catchphrase
“inequality has grown” doesn’t give the big picture of what has happened.
They thus resort to the metaphor of the rungs of a ladder: supporting evidence, to the authors the first two rungs-namely, the top 1% incomes-have been growing apart for decades with regard to the middle class. Then, Hacker and Pierson boil down the main causes that have brought about this situation. In doing so, the authors demonstrate convincingly that the usual suspects—foreign trade and financial globalization, technological changes in the workplace, increased education at the top—are largely innocent of the charges against them.
How
many times have we been told the story that the main driving force between
inequality in income is education? Tons of papers and books on the return on
education and the idea that education matters in determining economic rewards swept
away by a simple and startling statistic: although 29 percent of Americans have
college degrees, 40 percent of the income gains over the last 30 years have
gone to the top 1%. That is to say, even accounting for “skill-biasedtechnological change”, a huge amount of inequality keeps occurring among
workers who are part of the educational elite. As a result, within-group
inequality seems to account for a major part in inequality distribution in the
US since the 1970s, and the case for SBTC becomes weak.
In solving the
puzzle of the factors behind the rise of inequality, where the top 1% saw its
income increase by 250%, whereas the middle class economic gains have
stagnated, Hacker and Pierson are crystal clear in their answer: American
politics. They come to the conclusion that, over the last 30
years, an organizational revolution within American politics took place.
According to the
two authors’ research, the government, regardless of its political orientation,
has utterly supported a situation giving rise to an economy that showers rich
on the wealthy.
For at least the
period of the so-called “the Glorious Thirty Years”, in the US income have gone
up at roughly the same rate: that’s why this period is labelled Broadland,
where almost everybody was participating in prosperity and enjoying the fruits
of America’s success. Starting from the mid-70s, the situation has been bucking
this trend: a sustained hyper-concentration of income at the top, with limited
benefits for the non-rich, which created stagnant social mobility, and massive
gains for the richest. If until then politics has acted “like a rising tide that lifts all boats”, a “trickle-up” scenario
occurred, where the rich pulled away from the rest of Americans. From then on,
inequality has ballooned.
American politics
has thus started out catering to the interests of the wealthiest. To the
authors, what is ghastly is that those instruments available for the
government, instead of being used to level off income and redistribute gains
top-down, favored the few to the detriment of the many.
From the Bush tax
cuts of 2001 to the massive government bailouts of the financial system in
2008, many are the examples that drove the two authors to write this book.
Business, Wall
Street and ideological conservative organizations have ever since made inroads
into the Congress and pushed hard for free market policies and for cutting down
public expenditures. Simultaneously, a lot of organizations that used to
represent the middle class- from labor unions to broad-based civic
organizations and organizations at the local and grassroots level, have lost
momentum.
Thus, inequality
didn’t just happen, it has been politically engineered. Nevertheless, as the
two authors point out, politics and policy’s role has been consciously
downplayed. And politicians have shirked their responsibilities in creating
such a situation. Wrongly. An extra-explanation has been added to shield
politics: government and its policies would have no power in influencing
pre-tax income, even much less in swinging pre-tax income distribution. You are
completely off-topic, Hacker and Pierson state. Government and policy matter.
Government
could affect the distribution of “market income”, i.e. altering the minimum
wage, the regulation of corporate governance or the regulation of financial
markets. In short, government sets the rules the market has to comply with.
But, instead of working in favor of the common good, it decided to pull the
strings for the wealthiest. Look at the tax system, Hacker and Pierson say:
although the richest are hit hard by income taxes, overall, they pay less
federal taxes than they used to: government has indeed cut dramatically taxes
on payroll and corporate and estate taxes. As a result, progressivity at the
very top has become flatter rather than steeper, causing the wealthiest to pay
less overall. Not to mention the many existing loopholes through which rich
Americans could get away with filing their tax income return declaring less
taxable cash. In a country shaken by 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, Hacker and
Pierson say, it’s also worth mentioning the skewed corporate governance system
where executive compensation and severance packages are more than twice the
average for other rich nations.
To conclude, in
authors’ eyes the large imbalances in this winner-take-all-economy have been
propelled by what government has been doing since the mid 70s. The main take of
the two authors is that inequality in the US is fueled by rent-seeking
behaviors, cronyism and what in the school of public choice would be called “regulatory capture”: in short, when
individuals or group of individuals with high-stakes in the outcome of
regulatory decisions become predominant in regulatory agencies and prioritize
their rather than public interests. For the authors, the relationship
cause-effect is pretty straightforward: wealth remains the primary determinant
of power. That’s why the Hacker and Pierson ask the government should to take
center stage again, repel rent-seeking and exercise its power for the many, at
first establishing a fair tax system that would redistribute wealth top-down. Nevertheless,
other authors, such Cochrane, cast doubts on this explanation and openly
mention a lack of predictive accuracy and internal logic: if the matter of
debate is rent-seeking and the state’s patronage to the wealthiest, how on
earth is more government the solution? Wouldn’t more government intervention bring
about more cronyism, leading to more demand for tax lawyers, lobbyists and
loopholes?
Comments
Post a Comment