IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/povpop/v13y2021i3p273-292.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic inequality and congressional action in the United States: A comparison of the minimum wage and alternative minimum tax

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory Koger
  • Stefanie Rodriguez

Abstract

A central puzzle in American politics is the stark increase in economic inequality since the early 1970s due, in part, to the absence of public policies to address this trend. One explanation is policy drift: Inequality has grown in the United States because the political process has been unresponsive to economic trends toward inequality. A second explanation is unequal political influence: Wealthy individuals and corporations wield superior political influence and tilt public policy toward their interests. We compare these explanations using the federal minimum wage and alternative minimum tax (AMT) from 1969 to 2012 as comparison cases. These policies were both denominated in nominal dollars, so the effect of policy inaction is comparable for both policy domains. We find that (1) the U.S. Congress was much more likely to update AMT policy than minimum wage policy after 1978, (2) Congress protected and increased the real value of the AMT deduction for married couples, whereas the real value of the minimum wage and individual deduction declined after 1978, (3) Congress and the President eventually converted the AMT—but not the minimum wage—to automatic adjustments for inflation. These patterns highlight the role of political inequality in economic policy‐making. 美国政治中的一个关键难题是1970年以来经济不平等的显著增加,这部分归因于缺乏能应对该趋势的公共政策。一种解释是政策偏移(policy drift):美国不平等趋势的增加是因为政治过程一直不响应经济不平等趋势。另一种解释则是不平等的政治影响:富裕的个人和公司发挥更高的政治影响,并将公共政策向自身利益倾斜。通过将1969‐2012年间的联邦最低工资和替代性最低税(AMT)作为比较案例,我们比较了这两种解释。联邦最低工资政策和替代性最低税政策都以名义美元为单位,因此政策不作为(policy inaction)产生的效果是可比较的。我们发现,(1) 1978年后,美国国会更有可能更新AMT政策,而不是最低工资政策,(2) 1978年后,国会保护并提高了AMT减免对已婚人士的真正价值,但最低工资的真正价值和个人AMT减免却降低了,(3) 国会和总统最终让AMT(而不是最低工资)随通胀情况而自动调整。这些模式强调了政治不平等在经济决策中的作用。 Un enigma central en la política estadounidense es el marcado aumento de la desigualdad económica desde principios de la década de 1970 debido, en parte, a la ausencia de políticas públicas para abordar esta tendencia. Una explicación es la deriva de las políticas: la desigualdad ha crecido en los EE. UU. Porque el proceso político no ha respondido a las tendencias económicas hacia la desigualdad. Una segunda explicación es la influencia política desigual: los individuos y las corporaciones adinerados ejercen una influencia política superior e inclinan la política pública hacia sus intereses. Comparamos estas explicaciones utilizando el salario mínimo federal y el impuesto mínimo alternativo (AMT) de 1969 a 2012 como casos de comparación. Ambas políticas estaban denominadas en dólares nominales, por lo que el efecto de la inacción de las políticas es comparable para ambos dominios de políticas. Encontramos que (1) era mucho más probable que el Congreso de los Estados Unidos actualizara la política de AMT que la política de salario mínimo después de 1978, (2) el Congreso protegió y aumentó el valor real de la deducción de AMT para las parejas casadas, mientras que el valor real del salario mínimo y la deducción individual disminuyó después de 1978, (3) el Congreso y el Presidente eventualmente convirtieron el AMT — pero no el salario mínimo — en ajustes automáticos por inflación. Estos patrones destacan el papel de la desigualdad política en la formulación de políticas económicas.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory Koger & Stefanie Rodriguez, 2021. "Economic inequality and congressional action in the United States: A comparison of the minimum wage and alternative minimum tax," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 273-292, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:povpop:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:273-292
    DOI: 10.1002/pop4.319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/pop4.319
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/pop4.319?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arindrajit Dube, 2019. "Minimum Wages and the Distribution of Family Incomes," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 268-304, October.
    2. Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2014. "Inequality in the long run," PSE - Labex "OSE-Ouvrir la Science Economique" halshs-01053609, HAL.
    3. Larry M. Bartels, 2016. "Unequal Democracy:The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 2, number 10831.
    4. Oscar Afonso & Ana Maria Bandeira & Manuela Magalhães, 2018. "Labour-market institutions, (un)employment, wages, and growth: theory and data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(6), pages 613-633, February.
    5. Lijphart, Arend, 1971. "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 682-693, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Komlos John, 2019. "Reaganomics: A Watershed Moment on the Road to Trumpism," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, December.
    2. John Komlos, 2019. "Reaganomics: una línea divisoria," Tiempo y Economía, Universidad de Bogotá Jorge Tadeo Lozano, vol. 6(1), pages 47-76, February.
    3. John Komlos, 2018. "Reaganomics: A Historical Watershed," CESifo Working Paper Series 7301, CESifo.
    4. Patrick Mellacher, 2021. "Growth, Inequality and Declining Business Dynamism in a Unified Schumpeter Mark I + II Model," Papers 2111.09407, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    5. Estrada, Fernando, 2015. "Antinomies de Le Capital au XXIe siècle [Antinomies of Capital in the 21st Century]," MPRA Paper 61126, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Petteri Repo & Kaisa Matschoss, 2019. "Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Block, Joern H. & Hirschmann, Mirko & Kranz, Tobias & Neuenkirch, Matthias, 2023. "Public family firms and economic inequality across societies," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    8. Komlos, John & Schubert, Hermann, 2019. "Les origines du triomphe de Donald Trump," Revue de la Régulation - Capitalisme, institutions, pouvoirs, Association Recherche et Régulation, vol. 26.
    9. Marianna Kudlyak & Murat Tasci & Didem Tuzemen, 2019. "Minimum Wage Increases and Vacancies," Working Papers 19-30R, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, revised 21 Apr 2022.
    10. Eve Caroli & Catherine Pollak & Muriel Roger, 2023. "The Health-Consumption Effects of Increasing Retirement Age Late in the Game," Economie et Statistique / Economics and Statistics, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE), issue 538, pages 49-67.
    11. Bertrand Garbinti & Jonathan Goupille-Lebret & Thomas Piketty, 2017. "Income Inequality in France, 1900-2014: Evidence from Distributional National Accounts," Working Papers 201704, World Inequality Lab.
    12. Jennifer Robinson, 2011. "Cities in a World of Cities: The Comparative Gesture," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 1-23, January.
    13. Gustav Lidén, 2013. "What about theory? The consequences on a widened perspective of social theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 213-225, January.
    14. Pedro R. D. Bom & Aitor Goti, 2018. "Public Capital and the Labor Income Share," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, October.
    15. Zhang, Ming-ang & Lu, Shuling & Zhang, Sihan & Bai, Yanfeng, 2023. "The unintended consequence of minimum wage hikes: Evidence based on firms' pollution emission," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    16. Gisselquist, Rachel M., 2020. "How the cases you choose affect the answers you get, revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    17. Callaway, Brantly & Li, Tong & Oka, Tatsushi, 2018. "Quantile treatment effects in difference in differences models under dependence restrictions and with only two time periods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 206(2), pages 395-413.
    18. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Neil Lee & Cornelius Lipp, 2021. "Golfing with Trump. Social capital, decline, inequality, and the rise of populism in the US," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 14(3), pages 457-481.
    19. Dishil Shrimankar, 2023. "Comparative Assessments of Indian Democracy," Studies in Indian Politics, , vol. 11(1), pages 134-139, June.
    20. Evelyne Huber & Itay Machtei & John D. Stephens, 2023. "Testing Theories of Redistribution: Structure of Inequality, Electoral Institutions, and Partisan Politics," LIS Working papers 854, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:povpop:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:273-292. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1944-2858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.