Mobility Optimism in an Age of Rising Inequality

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q3 SOCIOLOGY Sociological Quarterly Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI:10.1080/00380253.2020.1756520
Jeff Manza, Clem Brooks
{"title":"Mobility Optimism in an Age of Rising Inequality","authors":"Jeff Manza, Clem Brooks","doi":"10.1080/00380253.2020.1756520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Four decades of rising incomes at the top, combined with income stagnation and declining intergenerational social mobility for the majority of American households, have combined to produce what has been widely described as a “new gilded age” in the United States. Yet analyses of the best available survey data reveal little evidence of a proportional increase in policy demands for redistribution over time. What explains this puzzling pattern of non-responsiveness? One classical explanation, revived in recent economic literature, postulates that high and persisting levels of optimism about the chances for advancement and social mobility reduce Americans’ willingness to support redistributive public policies. Although seemingly paradoxical in the current economic environment, the “prospect of upward mobility” (POUM) hypothesis is consistent with cross-national survey evidence revealing relatively high levels of support for such beliefs. What about trends over-time? This raises an important and largely unexamined question: Have underlying beliefs about POUM also shaped Americans’ attitudes toward redistributive policies during the era of rising inequality? In this paper, we examine the POUM-policy preference link, and how it has changed in recent decades. We find that POUM beliefs have shaped how individuals form policy attitudes toward inequality and taxes, net of partisanship, income, and confidence in government. Study findings provide new and provocative evidence in support of the POUM hypothesis, and we discuss implications for models of inequality attitudes and more generally scholarship on the politics of rising inequality.","PeriodicalId":48007,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Quarterly","volume":"62 1","pages":"343 - 368"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00380253.2020.1756520","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2020.1756520","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

ABSTRACT Four decades of rising incomes at the top, combined with income stagnation and declining intergenerational social mobility for the majority of American households, have combined to produce what has been widely described as a “new gilded age” in the United States. Yet analyses of the best available survey data reveal little evidence of a proportional increase in policy demands for redistribution over time. What explains this puzzling pattern of non-responsiveness? One classical explanation, revived in recent economic literature, postulates that high and persisting levels of optimism about the chances for advancement and social mobility reduce Americans’ willingness to support redistributive public policies. Although seemingly paradoxical in the current economic environment, the “prospect of upward mobility” (POUM) hypothesis is consistent with cross-national survey evidence revealing relatively high levels of support for such beliefs. What about trends over-time? This raises an important and largely unexamined question: Have underlying beliefs about POUM also shaped Americans’ attitudes toward redistributive policies during the era of rising inequality? In this paper, we examine the POUM-policy preference link, and how it has changed in recent decades. We find that POUM beliefs have shaped how individuals form policy attitudes toward inequality and taxes, net of partisanship, income, and confidence in government. Study findings provide new and provocative evidence in support of the POUM hypothesis, and we discuss implications for models of inequality attitudes and more generally scholarship on the politics of rising inequality.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不平等加剧时代的流动性乐观主义
摘要四十年来,美国大多数家庭的最高收入不断增加,加上收入停滞和代际社会流动性下降,共同创造了一个被广泛称为“新镀金时代”的美国。然而,对现有最佳调查数据的分析几乎没有证据表明,随着时间的推移,再分配的政策需求会按比例增加。是什么解释了这种令人困惑的无反应模式?一种在最近的经济文献中重新出现的经典解释认为,对进步和社会流动性的高度和持续乐观会降低美国人支持再分配公共政策的意愿。尽管在当前的经济环境中似乎自相矛盾,但“向上流动的前景”(POUM)假说与跨国调查证据一致,这些证据表明对这种信念的支持程度相对较高。随着时间的推移,趋势如何?这提出了一个重要且基本上未经检验的问题:在不平等加剧的时代,对POUM的潜在信念是否也影响了美国人对再分配政策的态度?在本文中,我们研究了POUM政策偏好的联系,以及近几十年来它是如何变化的。我们发现,POUM信仰塑造了个人如何形成对不平等和税收的政策态度,扣除党派偏见、收入和对政府的信心。研究结果为支持POUM假说提供了新的挑衅性证据,我们讨论了对不平等态度模型的影响,以及对不平等加剧政治的更广泛的学术研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: The Sociological Quarterly is devoted to publishing cutting-edge research and theory in all areas of sociological inquiry. Our focus is on publishing the best in empirical research and sociological theory. We look for articles that advance the discipline and reach the widest possible audience. Since 1960, the contributors and readers of The Sociological Quarterly have made it one of the leading generalist journals in the field. Each issue is designed for efficient browsing and reading and the articles are helpful for teaching and classroom use.
期刊最新文献
Unconventional Work, Conventional Problems: Gig Microtask Work, Inequality, and the Flexibility Mystique Mooring Christian Nationalism: How Religious Institutions, Participation, and Beliefs Inform Christian Nationalism Labor Market Inequality, Debt, and the Consequences of Sub-Baccalaureate Higher Education How Local Perceptions Contribute to Urban Environmental Activism: Evidence from the Chicago Metropolitan Area Sad Puppies and SJWs: Symbolic Revolution and Challenges to Field Orthodoxy in the Struggle for Control of Science Fiction’s Hugo Awards
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1