Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T11:18:05.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restoring the Tradition of Rigor and Relevance to Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2006

Lawrence R. Jacobs  and
Theda Skocpol
Lawrence R. Jacobs
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Theda Skocpol
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

American society has witnessed an extraordinary widening of economic inequality in the period since World War II that is unmatched among advanced industrialized countries. In 2003, the most affluent fifth received 47.6% of family income, the middle class (the third and fourth fifths) earned 15.5% and 23.3%, respectively, while the bottom two quintiles each received less than 10%. (Twenty-one percent of family income went to the top 5%.) In other words, the richest 20% obtained nearly half of the country's income. That income (and wealth) is unevenly distributed is neither new nor necessarily disturbing. What is remarkable is the large and unmistakable increase in the concentration of income at the top (Mishel, Bernstein, and Allegretto 2005).

Type
SYMPOSIUM
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 27 - 31
Copyright
© 2006 The American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

APSA Task Force on Inequality, and American Democracy. 2004. “American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (December): 651–666Google Scholar
Bang, Henrik. 1998. “David Easton's Postmodern Images.” Political Theory 26 (3): 281–316.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2006. “Is the Water Rising? Reflections on Inequality and American Democracy.” PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January): 39–42.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “Economic Inequality and Political Representation.” Presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston. www.princeton.edu.floyd.lib.umn.edu/[similar]bartels/papers.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., Beth L. Leech, and Christine Mahoney. 2003. “The Co-Evolution of Groups and Government.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Berry, Jeffrey M., and David F. Arons. 2003. A Voice for Nonprofits. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Lawrence R. Jacobs, and Eric Ostermeier. 2004. “Candidate Strategies to Prime Issues and Image.” Journal of Politics 66 (4): 1180–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, David 1953. The Political System. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
Freeman, Richard. 2004. “ What Me Vote?” In Social Inequality, ed. Kathryn Neckerman. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. Forthcoming. “Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S. 2002. The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Howard, Christopher. 1997. The Hidden Welfare State: Tax Expenditures and Social Policy in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Theda Skocpol, eds. 2005a. Inequality and American Democracy: What We Know and What We Need to Learn. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Theda Skocpol 2005b. “ Studying Inequality and American Democracy: Findings and Challenges.” In Inequality and American Democracy: What We Know and What We Need to Learn, eds. Lawrence R. Jacobs and Theda Skocpol. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 214–236.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 2000. Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Benjamin I. Page. 2005. “Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?” American Political Science Review 99 (February): 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighley, Jan, and Jonathan Nagler. 1992. “Socioeconomic Class Bias in Turnout, 1964–1988: The Voters Remain the Same.” American Political Science Review 86: 725–36.Google Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne, and Joe Soss. 2004. “The Consequences of Public Policy for Democratic Citizenship: Bridging Policy Studies and Mass Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (March): 55–73.Google Scholar
Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein, and Sylvia Allegretto. 2005. The State of Working America, 2004/2005. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Neustadt, Richard. 2000. “ A Preachment from Retirement.” In Presidential Power: Forging the Presidency for the 21st Century, eds. Robert Y. Shapiro, Martha Kumar, and Lawrence R. Jacobs. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I. 1996. Who Deliberates? Mass Media in Modern Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Piven, Frances Fox. 2006. “Response to ‘American Democracy in an Age of Inequality’.” PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January): 43–46.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 2003. “APSA Presidential Address: The Public Role of Political Science.” Perspective on Politics 1 (June): 249–256.Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay Lehman. 2006. “On Inequality and Political Voice: Response to Stephen Earl Bennett's Critique.” PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January): 55–57.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1997. On Inequality, Enlarged Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 2004. “Voice and Inequality: The Transformation of American Civic Democracy.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (March): 1–18.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel. 2001. “ Campaign Financing of Ballot Initiatives in the American States.” In The Dangerous Democracy? The Battle over Ballot Initiatives in America, eds. Larry Sabato and Bruce Larson. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. Jr. 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Weissberg, Robert. 2006. “Politicized Pseudo Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January): 33–37.Google Scholar