> The study says, “We see that sufficient redistribution can reduce both inequality and polarisation, although a high degree of redistribution is required to prevent polarisation.”
Have they factored in the act of wealth redistribution itself being polarizing? From a statistical/theoretical perspective it checks out, but I bet practically speaking if you actually tried "a high degree of [wealth] distribution", the middle and upper classes would start screaming and it would cause even more polarization. If the key thing needed to reduce polarization is "reducing inequality", it would probably be good to investigate alternative methods of reducing inequality as well.
Yes can confirm, in the USSR we had no political polarization.
Everyone was always satisfied with the ruling party all the time. It was great joy.
Maybe my old memory is getting fuzzy...but my recollection is that "groups who feel despised, downtrodden, and grimly insecure are far more easily swayed to polarized, extreme, and violent politics" was a "d'oh, obvious" lesson from WWII in Europe.
This study is not a study - they created a mathematical model that has a bunch of behavioural assumptions, given those assumptions reducing inequality improves it. It seems completely plausible that a different set of assumptions could create the opposite.
A study would mean looking at actual people, and say directly reducing the inequality. Obviously such a study would be infeasible (time, money, ethics, etc), but that doesn’t mean giving this kind of “study” any credence is actually meaningful.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s huge amounts of evidence int the negative outcomes in environments of extreme inequality, but bullshit papers like this aren’t going to do anything except boost the authors H index rating.
I would note that there are centuries of political theory written on this topic with a famous document written in 1848. Unfortunately, most of this theory concludes that class war is required to create an equal society.
Very interesting! I've skimmed the paper and what the model seems to refer to is affective polarization (i.e. hatred towards the outgroup).
It gets much more complex when we begin to incorporate other forms (and potentially sources), such as elite, partisan, party and legislative polarization. As umvi mentioned, each of those may be a source or consequence of affective polarization. Or both at the same time!
We really need some long-term field experiments (or natural experiments), but this paper definitely seems like a good contribution regarding the dynamics (models of which often have been way too simple).
A good place to start is "who does polarization benefit?".
This just in: people get angry when facing unfair systems.
Polarization is due to cultural issues, not economic ones. And no, those cultural issues don't stem from economic issues either. That's a Marxian base/superstructure analysis of the situation, which isn't accurate.
Furthermore, inequality will always be with us. Pareto principle is an actual thing and is mathematically sound when it comes to economics. Generally, the top 20% will hold 80% of the wealth. Many phenomena exhibit this distribution.
Having some experience with studies of polarization, maybe I can help clear up where this paper comes from.
Basically, there are at least four distinct types of polarization that are commonly studied:
* affective polarization (used in this study) measures hatred towards the outgroup. It is commonly measured with the feeling thermometer, alternatively with the gallup question "would you agree if your kid marries someone from X". This polarization has been increasing over time, and recently outparty antagonism in the US surpassed (for the first time) racial antagonism.
* ideological/partisan polarization measures diverging support for the two parties, i.e. voters drifting towards the edges of the political spectrum. Note that this does not require that parties also become more extreme.
* elite polarization occurs in politicians and can be identified from speeches etc., but also from co-sponsoring of bills
* perceived polarization is the perception of how polarized society is
Now, the interesting thing is that many of these phenomena have (at least) two distinct causes: Either sorting, i.e. people realizing which party they really want to vote for. This occurs when parties become more extreme and it therefore becomes easier to identify which party is ideologically closer. Alternatively, people themselves may (also) shift ideologically, creating a clearer gap between parties and their electorate.
Most research is done on the US due to its simple two-party system, but there is still some debate regarding the true scope and causes of polarization. For example, one paper could not find a clear causal relationship between internet penetration and different forms of polarization [1].
If you're interested, some good references are listed at the end.
[1] Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2017). Is the Internet Causing Political Polarization? Evidence from Demographics (No. w23258; p. w23258). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23258
Abrams, S. J., & Fiorina, M. P. (2012). “The Big Sort” That Wasn’t: A Skeptical Reexamination. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512000017
Fiorina, M., Abrams, S., & Pope, J. (2004). Culture War?: The Myth of a Polarized America. Undefined. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Culture-War%3A-The-Myt...
Fletcher, R., Cornia, A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2020). How Polarized Are Online and Offline News Audiences? A Comparative Analysis of Twelve Countries. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(2), 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219892768
Levy, R. (2021). Social Media, News Consumption, and Polarization: Evidence from a Field Experiment. American Economic Review, 111(3), 831–870. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191777
Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x
Tucker, J., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018). Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144139
Worth reading Robert Sapolsky on the topic of inequality here[1]. Inequality itself (not poverty, and accounted for the material disadvantages), causes about half of the difference in health and life expectancy outcomes in developed nations, makes people at a neurological level opportunistic and causes biological stress in populations which results in violence, crime, isolation, mental illness, and so forth.
That's empirically backed by research and stands in stark contrast to the technocratic myth of "we just have to make everyone wealthier" that's dominated for the last 30-ish years. It's not surprising at all that a population that is running on extreme levels of stress tends towards political polarization.
[1]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-economic-ineq...
edit: short video interview summarizing it because of the paywall: https://youtu.be/aNRPuBJ02MM
undefined
undefined
I thought this recent drive toward marxist / equity / wealth redistribution positions were the very source of all division and polarisation. I am an extreme skeptic of any such study if it found that appeasement through giving the radicals what they want will result in harmony. These universities today are somewhat infected with the marxist worldview and have been a major source of the polarisation.
As another example of justified skepticism, I wonder what their research departments have to say about student debt forgiveness programs? I am sure they will find such programs fantastic. There is no conflict of interest involved there.
Hard to do scapegoating when people's needs are met.
The study sounds like a crock of horseshit:
"In this model, we assume that a large population of individuals comprises two distinct identity groups. These identities are assumed fixed, and thus correspond to a fixed feature of identity such as race, religious heritage, or socioeconomic background. Although such identities are fixed in the model, the salience of the identity, and therefore its impact on behavior, varies."
The model assumes only two distinct and unchangeable identity groups, and assumes that these identity groups are solely based on a few specific unchangeable traits. And that's before you get into some of the wacky assumptions in their actual math model.
Also of note, they mention Charlottesville and the capitol riot as examples of political polarization, but make no mention of comparable events on the left like the BLM riots, the GOP baseball shooting, etc. Gives you a good idea of where the politics of the authors sit and suggests there may be motivated reasoning behind their arguments. "Solve political polarization by doing more of what the left has wanted to do for over a century!"