Paper · 2014 · intro level
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens, Benjamin I. Page
- Venue
- Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581
- Link
- publisher / source page
Citation count not independently verified
We only publish a number when we have checked it ourselves. None was confirmed for this work at the last review.
Contested finding
One of the most publicly cited but also most methodologically contested findings in the field — critics (e.g., Omar Bashir 2015) argue measurement of 'average citizen preferences' and the effective sample of contested issues overstate the 'zero effect' claim. Data also stops in 2002 and has not been replicated with more recent policy data.
In plain language
Analyzed 1,779 U.S. policy issues (1981–2002) and found economic elites and organized business interests have substantial independent influence on policy outcomes, while average citizens' preferences have close to zero independent effect once elite preferences are controlled for.
Technical summary
Multivariate test of four competing theories of American policymaking (majoritarian electoral democracy, economic-elite domination, majoritarian pluralism, biased pluralism) using a dataset of policy preferences and outcomes across income strata and interest groups.
Key takeaways
- Empirical political-science counterpart to Meltzer-Richard's failed prediction: if policy tracks elite preferences, rising inequality won't automatically trigger redistributive correction.
Themes
Related works
- A Rational Theory of the Size of Government — Allan H. Meltzer & Scott F. Richard, 1981
- Winner-Take-All Politics: Public Policy, Political Organization, and the Precipitous Rise of Top Incomes in the United States — Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson, 2010
- Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age — Larry M. Bartels, 2008