IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/polsoc/v38y2010i2p152-204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Winner-Take-All Politics: Public Policy, Political Organization, and the Precipitous Rise of Top Incomes in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Jacob S. Hacker

    (Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA, jacob.hacker@yale.edu)

  • Paul Pierson

    (University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA, pierson@berkeley.edu)

Abstract

The dramatic rise in inequality in the United States over the past generation has occasioned considerable attention from economists, but strikingly little from students of American politics. This has started to change: in recent years, a small but growing body of political science research on rising inequality has challenged standard economic accounts that emphasize apolitical processes of economic change. For all the sophistication of this new scholarship, however, it too fails to provide a compelling account of the political sources and effects of rising inequality. In particular, these studies share with dominant economic accounts three weaknesses: (1) they downplay the distinctive feature of American inequality —namely, the extreme concentration of income gains at the top of the economic ladder; (2) they miss the profound role of government policy in creating this “winner-take-all†pattern; and (3) they give little attention or weight to the dramatic long-term transformation of the organizational landscape of American politics that lies behind these changes in policy. These weaknesses are interrelated, stemming ultimately from a conception of politics that emphasizes the sway (or lack thereof) of the “median voter†in electoral politics, rather than the influence of organized interests in the process of policy making. A perspective centered on organizational and policy change —one that identifies the major policy shifts that have bolstered the economic standing of those at the top and then links those shifts to concrete organizational efforts by resourceful private interests —fares much better at explaining why the American political economy has become distinctively winner-take-all.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson, 2010. "Winner-Take-All Politics: Public Policy, Political Organization, and the Precipitous Rise of Top Incomes in the United States," Politics & Society, , vol. 38(2), pages 152-204, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:polsoc:v:38:y:2010:i:2:p:152-204
    DOI: 10.1177/0032329210365042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032329210365042
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0032329210365042?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hacker, Jacob S., 2004. "Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 243-260, May.
    2. Jacobs, Lawrence R. & Page, Benjamin I., 2005. "Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(1), pages 107-123, February.
    3. Bachrach, Peter & Baratz, Morton S., 1963. "Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(3), pages 632-642, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benjamin Goldsmith & Yusaku Horiuchi, 2011. "In Search of Soft Power: Does Foreign Public Opinion Matter for U.S. Foreign Policy," Crawford School Research Papers 1108, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    2. Ilana Shpaizman, 2020. "The end–means nexus and policy conversion: evidence from two cases in Israeli immigrant integration policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 713-733, December.
    3. Frimpong Boamah, Emmanuel, 2018. "Constitutional economics of Ghana’s decentralization," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 256-267.
    4. Gore, Radhika, 2021. "Ensuring the ordinary: Politics and public service in municipal primary care in India," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    5. Elliott, William, 2013. "The effects of economic instability on children's educational outcomes," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 461-471.
    6. Elliott, William & Friedline, Terri & Nam, Ilsung, 2013. "Probability of living through a period of economic instability," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 453-460.
    7. Jenkins, Stephen P., 2011. "Has the Instability of Personal Incomes been Increasing?," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 218, pages 33-43, October.
    8. Elsässer, Lea & Hense, Svenja & Schäfer, Armin, 2018. "Government of the people, by the elite, for the rich: Unequal responsiveness in an unlikely case," MPIfG Discussion Paper 18/5, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    9. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    10. Scharpf, Fritz W., 2014. "No exit from the euro-rescuing trap?," MPIfG Discussion Paper 14/4, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    11. Jeffry Frieden & Stefanie Walter, 2019. "Analyzing inter-state negotiations in the Eurozone crisis and beyond," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(1), pages 134-151, March.
    12. González, Felipe, 2017. "Privatized Keynesianism or conspicuous consumption? Status anxiety and the financialization of consumption in Chile," MPIfG Discussion Paper 17/3, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    13. Rosina K Foli & Frank L K Ohemeng, 2022. "“Provide our basic needs or we go out”: the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, inequality, and social policy in Ghana [Easing of lockdown a relief to Ghana’s poor—despite fears it is premature]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(2), pages 217-230.
    14. Schrecker, Ted & Chapman, Audrey R. & Labonté, Ronald & De Vogli, Roberto, 2010. "Advancing health equity in the global marketplace: How human rights can help," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(8), pages 1520-1526, October.
    15. Daniel Béland & Alex Waddan, 2008. "The Politics of Social Policy Reform in the United States: The Clinton and the W. Bush Presidencies Reconsidered," Social and Economic Dimensions of an Aging Population Research Papers 232, McMaster University.
    16. Felix Strebel & Thomas Widmer, 2012. "Visibility and facticity in policy diffusion: going beyond the prevailing binarity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(4), pages 385-398, December.
    17. Léna Pellandini-Simányi & Adam Banai, 2021. "Reluctant financialisaton: Financialisaton without financialised subjectivities in Hungary and the United States," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(4), pages 785-808, June.
    18. Joao A. Ribeiro & Robert W. Scapens, 2004. "Power, ERP systems and resistance to management accounting: a case study," FEP Working Papers 141, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    19. Carlos Scartascini & Mariano Tommasi & Ernesto Stein, 2010. "Veto Players and Policy Trade-Offs- An Intertemporal Approach to Study the Effects of Political Institutions on Policy," Research Department Publications 4660, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    20. Peter Mascini & Eelco Van Wijk, 2009. "Responsive regulation at the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority: An empirical assessment of assumptions underlying the theory," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 27-47, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:polsoc:v:38:y:2010:i:2:p:152-204. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.