Running Head WEALTH INEQULITIES AND DEMOCRACY1WEALTH INEQULI.docx

Running Head: WEALTH INEQULITIES AND DEMOCRACY1
WEALTH INEQULITIES AND DEMOCRACY 14
Wealth Inequalities and Democracy Rough Draft
Your Name
GEN 499 General Education
Professor’s Name
6 February 2017
Introduction
Economic inequality refers to a condition whereby there is the
disparity in the distribution of wealth and income between
various groups of individuals in the society. This is usually
related to the concept “the poor get poorer as the richer get
richer.” This phrase more particularly refers to the gap in the
distribution of assets or the income from the richest segment of
the society and the poorest individuals in the nation. While
income refers to the amount of money an individual or
household earns per year, wealth refers to the value of that
individual or household overall. The calculation of wealth is

done by subtraction of debt from assets, and in various ways, it
is a more accurate window into the racial and economic
disparity in America as well as the entire world. While it is
significant to understand the gaps in income as part of the cycle
of drawbacks and benefits in the United States, wealth
represents the command grounded on the financial resources
that have been accumulated by the family over its lifetime
together with wealth that has been inherited by individuals
across generations (Loffredo, 2001, p. 147). When such
resources are combined with the income, the opportunity can be
created to secure the “good life” in whatever fashion is
required—business, health, comfort, training, justice and many
others
In spite of the fact that fundamental ideas have entered the
consciousness of the public, the influences of the highly
concentrated wealth are excitedly debated and not well
conceptualized by the observers. Various studies attribute both
the benefits and negative impacts of the pronounced degree of
wealth inequality. Certain studies postulate that inequalities in
income can be social beneficial despite high probabilities in its
negative influences in the society.
The global trends have contributed to the rise in the
concentration of wealth within small groups of individuals.
Even though some techniques used in the calculation of the
global economic inequalities indicates little variation in the
distribution of wealth, various methods used in the calculation
of wealth or income tend to produce different results. A good
number of global wealth analysts have concluded that inequality
is generally on the rise. For instance, in 2013, half of the global
population owned almost half of all the global wealth.
Wealth and income are necessarily not correlated, and a great
variation exists in wealth within categories of income. This
paper will first discuss the factors leading to wealth inequalities
before discussing the systematic factors that perpetuate and
reflect the increasing gap between the poorer and wealthy
individuals in the United States. The relationship between

economic inequality and ethnicity/race forms the basic concern
of this paper. In a capitalist system, certain individuals will
possess more wealth as compared to other groups (Einstein,
2015, p. 32). The gap between the individuals who have been
capable of earning money and accumulating wealth and the
group of individuals who have been struggling to make ends
meet has dramatically increased. The part of the culture of
politics in America that dates back to the founding includes the
belief grounded on rugged individualism. A good number of
Americans believe poverty to be an abstract idea that refers to
others. The poor groups do not believe themselves as poor.
Within the American society, racism is another prominent issue
that determines the amount of wealth acquired and accumulated
by an individual. The gap in wealth distribution has also been
increased by racism. Different scholars who study race refer to
race to an element that is highly perpetuating the privilege and
power of whites. The understanding of this can be enhanced by
understanding bigotry and prejudice.
The three issues; bigotry, prejudice, and racism are related to
the psychological elements of the daily lives of Americans.
Racism also determines the way culture, institutions as well as
social systems impacts on the historical oppression of the
individuals of color in the United States and as a result,
perpetuate inequality. The decision that was made during the
founding of American have led to the construction of complex
systems that was formally made mainly to harm Native
Americans and African Americans. Even though the attitudes of
people regarding racism have changed, the system still operates
in a way that put more privilege to the white and at the same
time disadvantaging the individuals of color.
The economic inequality in the first world countries such as
America and the United Kingdom have been unstable. In 1915,
18% of all American national income was earned by the richest
1% of American. Their share significantly dropped in the 1930s
and remained less than 10% to the end of 1970s. The again in
2007, this share by the rich increased to 24%. The gap was

wider between the whites and the blacks, and the ration was
approximately 12:1.7
The Decreased Democracy Due to Inequality
The increase in inequality exploits the poor and destroys the
middle class. The global democracy index reduces with
increased inequality in wealth among the individuals in the
country. The study conducted by Economist Magazine’s
Intelligence Unit in 2012 found that the global democracy is at
a standstill due to the economic crisis that started in 2008. The
democracy index of the United States was ranked twenty-first
which was behind countries such as New Zealand. This was a
drop from 2010 seventeenth position primarily due to poor
performance in political participation and government
functioning. Furthermore, the study placed America at the
bottom of categories of full democracy because the country has
been antagonistically influenced by increased political
polarization and paralysis and brinksmanship in politics.
Polarization in politics worsens the inequality. The study
conducted by International Monetary Funds in 2011 in thirty
nations on the same issue and indicated poor performance in the
gap between the rich and poorer groups in the studied countries.
Democracy Ideals
The fundamentals of democracy are sharing of the power to
shape decision-making in the country. This is the general
conception of democracy. However, the expectation of the
citizens to exercise this kind of power varies from one citizen to
the other depending on various factors. The effectiveness of the
governance of the country calls for the direct involvement of
citizenry in the democratic deliberation and collective decision
making. Wealth inequalities sabotage the ideal of political
equality which is a fundamental factor for democracy. Several
scholarly studies indicate that the government of many
countries are only responsive to the preferences of the elites.
Gilens (2012) asserts that inequalities exist among the citizens
of every society. However, democracy is supposed to entail
some degree of political equality. The ideal of political equality

is not possible to be completely achieved when the country
experiences wealth inequality. The rich individuals have a
disproportionate access to politics. The source of political
money is determined by the state of wealth of an individual.
The legislative seats only advantage those who have money. The
contribution to campaigns requires aspirants to contribute large
sums of money that may not be available to the poorer
population (Fetscher, 2016, p. 301). There are those rich people
who donate some money to aid campaigns of certain candidates.
Such kinds of people are the ones engaged in a decision-making
process that affects the whole country thereby disadvantaging
the poorer while giving undue advantages to the wealthier
groups who contributed toward the political ambitions of the
leaders in power.
The perfect equality is how responsive the policy makers are to
fulfill the wishes of the public. A particular segment of
individuals in a country may hold uncalled preferences on
certain issues that negatively affects the community, violate
fundamental democratic values or poor information may be
given to a particular group that detriments that interests of such
groups of individuals (Inglehart & Welzel, n.d., p. 41).
Wealth determines access to power
Globally, leaders are wealthy people. The two basic sources of
power include numbers and the control an individual has over
the nation’s use of forces. Media is usually focused on the
wealthy people who want access to certain political seats. The
poorer are ignored as they are assumed not to be able to
contribute to the media coverage expense. Doing this gives
undue fame to the wealthy individuals who later hoodwink the
poorer community and get sent to power. In most cases,
wealthier individuals can also buy access to the control of
important institutions that determines who to lead. Such
institutions include election control agencies and PR firms.
Studies also show that politicians are more responsive to the
needs of the wealthier groups. Business leaders and experts are
the ones having the greatest ability to sway the foreign policy

while the general public has little or no influence. The
government will always consider the decisions by these groups
of individuals as they are seen as the contributors to the
country’s economic growth. There is also bias in the
representation of the public interest in the government as
leaders are always more responsive to the issues and opinions of
the wealthier constituents of the country. At the same time, the
interests of the poorer people are ignored if at all their policies
somewhat disagrees with the policies affecting the rich. The
preference gap between the rich and the poor is increasingly
widening. The government is only concerned what affects the
wealthier individuals as they are the primary influencers of the
economy. The complete unresponsiveness of the government to
the demands of the poor a disturbing issue. The study by Martin
Gilen, an American Political Scientist, indicates that the
government policies will always favor the wealthier group of
people in case the poorer policy diverge with the policies of the
rich. These results of the study are compatible with the
majoritarian and egalitarian policy in cases whereby the poorer
holds attributes that systematically diverge from those held by
both the middle class and the wealthier groups. If the needs of
the poor were consistently at variance with the preference of the
majority of Americans, the government’s lack to respond to
their needs might practically be a reflection of a well-
functioning democracy. The individuals who are middle-income
earners are considered by the government that reflects their
needs on the most issues affecting them. The way the
government policy makers respond to the preferences of the
middle class can function as the more suitable test of biases in
representing different classes of people.
The way government deals with the middle-class if their
preferences conflict with the policies of the wealthier is the
same the way, the poorer are dealt with in case they have a
diverging preference with the well-off. Americans usually want
their preferences to be enacted in the government policies. On
the policy questions whereby the low and middle-income

individuals share similar needs with the high-income
individuals, all of them are treated equally by the government.
However, when the views of the low and middle income earning
people differ with the views of the more affluent citizens, the
policy of the government usually seems to be highly responsive
to the preferences of the wealthy and virtually unconcerned with
the requirements of the low and the middle-class individuals
(Yang, 2009, p. 71).
The policies of the poor and the middle class are usually
ignored even for instances where they have aligned interests.
The above discussions show that less well-off individuals have
little or no influence over the outcome of the policy when their
needs are not in line with the needs of the affluent individuals.
Furthers studies indicates that the above are true not only if the
consideration for the poor and the middle class is done
separately but also for the policies on which the poor and
middle income earning individuals that are closely aligned to
oppose the well-off individuals. The responsiveness to the
preferences of the public by the policy makers is highly skewed
to give favors to the wealthier, and this remains the fact even if
such policies are isolated in such a way that the needs of the
poor and the middle citizens correlate. The wealthier groups are
the primary determinants of whether or not the change in policy
is adopted. This explains the casual impact of the well-off group
on the outcome of the policies. It means that policymakers
consider the needs of the affluent and ignore the preferences of
the other class of people in the society.
The interests of the affluent citizens concerning the foreign
policy are protected against the preferences of the poor
concerning the same policies. Policymaking in the domain of
the foreign affairs and national security reflects a mixture of
unpopular and popular decisions regarding weapon policy as
well as the military engagement. In contrast, less
responsiveness to the needs of the middles and low-class
citizens whenever they have diverging preferences with the
wealthier is accounted for greatly by policies on trade and

foreign aids and varying views concerning the war on terror.
Many studies documents are increasing gaps between the
general preferences of the public regarding foreign policies and
the preferences of the affluent and the government elites. If the
foreign policy reflects the needs of all class of people in a
country, the citizens can have a more protectionist policy for
trade (Patriquin, 2015, p. 38).
The Congress is mostly controlled by the wealthier elites
through lobbying. The plutocrats take advantage of their vast
economic power to influence country’s politics. They do
pursuance of political lobbying to strictly focus on the defense
and also to expand their interests in the economy of the country.
This is a very particular duty with every company or other
interest groups to advocate for their self-interests such as to
access to loopholes to evade tax or to push for subsidies. Also,
these fights by wealthier elites are focused on reducing tax and
weakening regulations for business operations. All these are
meant to benefit specific individuals in the country and
businesses and not the community as a whole.
The political interests of the affluent citizens and the poor
usually do not converge. Even when the focus is not on their
particular interests, wealthy individuals’ preferences still varies
much with the general public needs. They usually tend to be
profoundly concerned with the state and the federal budget
deficits and much more desirous to reduce programs regarding
social welfare such as health care and social security. Such
wealthier individuals are not interested in the spending of the
government to enhance education to the poor or provide a better
access to college. They only favor relaxed business regulations
and tax reduction policies. Furthermore, these elites are against
policies encouraging redistribution of wealth and improvement
of political inequality.
The other issue is the ignorance of the poor, and the middle
class by the politicians after the elections are over. The study
conducted by the political scientist, Ronald Formisano in 2015
determines the policy preferences of the well-off. The study

shows how campaigning politicians become passionate about
the concerns of the poor and the rights of people of color. Once
they are elected, their concerns turns to meet the needs of the
rich people
The poor and the middle-class politicians are disadvantaged in
case they are competing with the wealthier for a particular seat
because of the lack of legal limits of finances an individual can
use in campaigns. The political voices of the ordinary citizens
have been weakened by the failure of the American Supreme
Court to set the maximum limit of funds for campaigns. This
has given the wealthier individuals unfair advantages to
influence the outcome of elections. There are no laws that limit
that regulates the use of money in campaigns. Some cases have
been submitted to courts to come up with laws for funding
campaign and yet rulings were made against such cases for
example; the 2010 Citizens United against the rule and
regulations that were agreed upon by the Federal Election
Commission concerning advocacy expenditure for campaigns.
The other case was McCutcheon against the rulings by the
Federal Election Commission authorized the individual donors
to fund as many political candidates who longed for their help.
There were laws previously that dictated the number of people,
and the maximum amount of money donors could spend within a
two-year election cycle. Shaun McCutcheon who is a coal baron
and as well a Republican National Committee member came up
with a suit to do away with such limits.
Consequently, inequalities in wealth distribution reduce
participation in political affairs of the country by the poor,
undermines the social fabric and as well threatens the
democracy. William Ray (2015) explained how inequalities in
income threaten democracy. The societies with large gaps in
wealth between the low and high-class individuals are
characterized by social problems as well as diminishing
indicators of happiness and well-being. Every social health
indicator in wealthy communities is directly related to the rate
of economic inequality. In an unequal society, people usually

minimize their engagement in the community life. Mental
illnesses and other social problems are more in communities
with varying classes of people. The American Journal of
Political Science offers an analytic description of economic
inequality and engagement in political issue in a country. The
journal stipulates that higher inequalities in income levels
powerfully depress the interest of people in participating in
politics and that greater inequality in wealth distribution leads
to enormous political inequality (Ferguson, 2013).
Solt (2006) explains how poor disengage themselves from
politics. The winnowing of problems that happens with the as
economic inequality increases may make some citizens assume
politics to be less important to them and as well affect the
engagements of the poor in politics. The expression of a
political voice of an individual is directly related to his social
class. The citizens with high-income levels, education, and
occupational status are more likely to be politically articulate.
The affluent are also more like than the poor to possess
resources and skills vital for participation. The rich and the
well-educated stand a high chance of affording high financial
costs, commanding skills, acquiring information and also taking
advantage of any connection that is useful in ensuring the
development of organizations. This means that groups of people
who are well endowed with different forms of resources are
capable of overcoming the hurdle posed to them by the logic of
collective action as compared to the individuals with poor
resources.
Solution
s to these Problems
The interest groups are supposed to protect the poor because

they have a direct link with the outcome of the policies. These
interest groups and the wealthier members of the society usually
shape the policymaking process by the federal government
independently hence can influence the decision of the
government on the preferences of the wealthier groups. In most
cases, the poor are less educated, and they can be effectively
represented by the interest groups who are aware of the actions
of political leaders (Ferejohn, 2009, p. 773). The mission of the
interest groups is to address the preferences of the
disadvantaged members of the society. The unions can also
lobby for the protection of the interest of the lower class. The
unions include the International unions, national unions, and
other regional unions. However, there is need to establish and
promote centers for countervailing economic power for all
citizens in the country. These centers can spearhead the
protection of the small businesses from the stiff competition of
the large firms and enhance the participation of the low and
middle class in political issues. The Supreme Court is supposed
to come up with clear rules and guidelines on the political
campaign spending that can favor all class of people. Also, the
political parties and the Federal Election Commission should
harmonize election process that serves the interest and
preferences of the poor. The participation of voluntary
associations in the protection of the poor can enhance the
political voices of the low and middle-class individuals. This is

because these associations can develop politically necessary
civic skills and fight for political participation by the poor.
Furthermore, voluntary association is the primary drivers of the
political voice expression.
Conclusion
Inequality in wealth influences democracy of citizens
negatively. Individuals who are well endowed with wealth
usually take advantage of controlling the political decisions of
the country. They influence policies because the government
always act in their favor. The poor and the middle class are only
advantaged in case their preferences converge with the
preferences of the affluent members. This limits the political
interest of the poor as the wealthy utilize all chances to
participate in politics to determine taxation levels and the
capacity of business regulation. The oppression of the poor can
be solved through the active participation of the interest groups,
voluntary associations, enactment of laws regulating campaign
funding and also through the continuous efforts of the unions.
References
Einstein, K. L. (2015). Inequality in America: Race, Poverty,
and Fulfilling Democracy's Promise by Stephen M.Caliendo.
Boulder, CO, Westview Press, 2014. 288 pp. Political Science
Quarterly, 130(4), 773-774. doi:10.1002/polq.12419
Ferejohn, J. (2009). Is Inequality a Threat to Democracy? The
Unsustainable American State, 34-52.

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392135.003.0002
Ferguson, T. (2013). Affluence and Influence: Economic
Inequality and Political Power in America. By Martin Gilens.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. 348p. Perspectives
on Politics, 11(01), 252-254. doi:10.1017/s153759271200309x
Fetscher, V. R. (2016). Book Review: Martin Gilens, Affluence
and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in
AmericaAffluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and
Political Power in America by GilensMartin. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2014. 352pp., £16.95 (p/b), ISBN
978-0691162423. Political Studies Review, 14(2), 301-301.
doi:10.1177/1478929916630922a
Hero, R. E. (2005). Crossroads of Equality: Race/Ethnicity and
Cities in American Democracy. Urban Affairs Review, 40(6),
695-705. doi:10.1177/1078087405276719
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (n.d.). A Revised Theory of
Modernization. Modernization, Cultural Change, and
Democracy, 15-47. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790881.004
Loffredo, S. (1993). Poverty, Democracy and Constitutional
Law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 141(4), 1277.
doi:10.2307/3312344
Loffredo, S. (2001). Poverty law and community activism:
Notes from a law school clinic. (University of Pennsylvania law
review, 150, 1.
Patriquin, L. (2015). Equality and Inequality. Economic

Equality and Direct Democracy in Ancient Athens, 37-58.
doi:10.1057/9781137503480_4Plutocracy in America: how
increasing inequality destroys the middle class and exploits the
poor. (2015). Choice Reviews Online, 53(05), 53-2278-53-2278.
doi:10.5860/choice.194243
Yang, Y. (2009). Human Nature: the Foundation of Politics and
Law. Journal of Politics and Law, 2(4).
doi:10.5539/jpl.v2n4p162

Running Head WEALTH INEQULITIES AND DEMOCRACY1WEALTH INEQULI.docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Running Head WEALTH INEQULITIES AND DEMOCRACY1WEALTH INEQULI.docx

Similar a Running Head WEALTH INEQULITIES AND DEMOCRACY1WEALTH INEQULI.docx (8)

Más de toltonkendal

Más de toltonkendal (20)

Último

Último (20)

Running Head WEALTH INEQULITIES AND DEMOCRACY1WEALTH INEQULI.docx