In a recent report, the OECD brings together a lot of evidence on inequality across developed nations. But perhaps the neatest graph (extracted to the left) is one that shows that concerns about inequality are essentially unrelated to levels of inequality. For example, the US is more unequal than France, but the French are much more worried about inequality than the Americans.
This fits nicely with the arguments made by Alberto Alesina and Ed Glaeser, who showed in their 2004 book Fighting Poverty that attitudes to inequality – and welfare spending – are driven primarily by two big factors: voting systems (proportional vs constituency-based) and ethnic diversity (higher diversity means less generous welfare systems). I reviewed their book last year, and noted that Australia fits these patterns pretty well.
Voting systems are often related to history and cultural ideas about politics (and often bare power), and perhaps there’s not a direct relation between attitudes to welfare spending and inequality and voting systems, but moreso between attitudes to welfare spending and inequality and the history and culture. But this is just a guess.
On the very off-chance that proportional voting was introduced into Australian lower houses (which is legally possible), it’d be interesting to see if attitudes to welfare spending and inequality changed. Of course, the most direct change that PR would bring about would be that coalitions would usually govern rather than single parties, which would more likely lead to compromises on policy – I’ve thought that this is, in general, a positive thing, as it means that more than one group of ideas or philosophies may influence policy.
To me, that was the very real benefit of no party holding a majority (or blocking vote) in the Senate – prior to July 1st. But with the coalition holding a majority of 2 (effectively of 1) in the Senate and rendering the official opposition mostly toothless, its internal divisions have become more prominent, and the various different ideas there (exemplified by Barnaby!) are having an input.
A&G do a careful job of showing that the introduction of PR in Europe in the early C20th was no accident, but a function of geography and the strength of organised labour. In terms of welfare, the key difference is that when multiple people represent a geographic constituency, there’s more room to represent class interests.
Ahhhh
With regards to representing class interests, is the ALP seen as doing this?
“the very off-chance that proportional voting was introduced into Australian lower houses”
Indications are it wouldn’t work. The executive has to get its initiatives through parliament. In most cases (ie in NSW, Vic, SA, WA, Tas and the Commonwealth) the lower house is the creature of the govt but there is a haggle session to pass the upper house.
A few years ago in Tas when Greens got the balance in the lower it became a genuine debating chamber. The govt would negotiate with the Greens but then the upper house would want to have its say. This gave the govt the tom tits so Labor and Liberal pollies connived to emasculate the lower house (by reducing the PR electoral magnitude).
If you have PR you don’t NEED two houses. Generally in Europe single chamber PR prevails (except Switzerland, I know, but this post is long enough) Qld and Tas excepted that’s pretty much what Australia has developed. Of course it’s disturbed for a term in the Senate and we’ve yet to actually see it in action in Vic but legislatively our “Westminster” system is now mimicking a standard single chamber European parliament. More than one party already does influence policy.
It is a clumsy mimic since the executive itself is still formed by a single party from the winner-take-all the lower house. Which means our Westminster system is mimicking the presidential arrangement, the essence of which is that the exec is not dependent on the confidence of the (genuine) legislature.
Logically, sittings of the lower house could cease and the clerk be issued with a rubber stamp saying “passed”. Logically, after an election all lower house MPs who aren’t getting a ministerial guernsey could go back to their electorates and play social worker in preparation for the next election in 3 or 4 years’ time.
The comment about different ideas coming out in the Senate even though the minors don’t have the balance has empirical support. G S Reid found (in 1970s) that historically when the majority was very narrow in the Senate, there were more amendments to legislation. Barnaby is not the first to put the squeeze on his own party.
I must read this A&G. No doubt an electoral system reflects history and culture but the idea that electoral systems also set the tone for the whole country would find support in Northern Ireland. The civil war is the direct result of the single member electorate system introduced in 1920.
I’d take these questions about inequality less than literally – most people neither have much real idea of how unequal their society is nor can specify how much is the right level of inequality (it’s rare to see even critics of inequality specify how much is acceptable). Rather, high levels of support for narrowing income differences is a normative statement in favour of moderate inequality.
As your analysis of Australian data suggests, we ought to be careful with the proposition that racial diversity is generally a significant factor. The US has long and deep-seated racial problems that have no real parallels elsewhere in the West.
And as Peter Saunders’ review of the same book in the latest Policy suggests, we should look at other cultural differences between nations. Notice how all the countries settled by the English have relatively low levels of concern about inequality (England itself is a bit higher). I think this is a product of English invidualism and self-reliance and immigration itself – immigrants are more likely to believe that they can make a go of things themselves than people who stay at home, and this has helped shape the culture of the countries built by migration. People in these countries dislike welfare not so much because the people who receive it might have dark skin, but because they believe that able-bodied people should work and not be a ‘burden’ on society.
And they are more tolerant of inequality because that is the inevitable result of people striving to get ahead.
I disagree with the idea that proportional representation wouldn’t really work in Australian lower houses. I think that majority major party governments won’t bring it in in the next few decades, but I think that it could be quite beneficial…
One of the neat things about PR is that when you look to see who has it, it turns out to be two of the most left-wing places in Australia: Tasmania and the ACT.
Andrew, thanks for pointing me to PS’s review. Will read with interest. Diversity isn’t just an American thing, though. A&G show that their theory holds within Europe too (holding other stuff constant).
“And they are more tolerant of inequality because that is the inevitable result of people striving to get ahead.”
Yes, inequality is the very meaning of “get ahead”.
Also the colonists in new countries could reasonably believe more in the reality of equality of opportunity than Europeans could, that is, that everyone has a fair chance to get ahead.