Comparative Politics Lecture CH 1

Overview & Road Map

• Aim of lecture: demonstrate how & why the United States (US) departs from patterns found in other “developed democracies” with respect to

  • Inequality

  • Size/scope of government

  • Constitutional-institutional design

• Data sources repeatedly referenced: United Nations (Human Development Index – HDI), OECD, World Bank, World Values Survey, Freedom House, national censuses, numerous academic datasets

• Guiding warning: students are not expected to memorize every datum; statistics are illustrative proofs of the three big claims.

Why Use Comparison?

• Classroom exercise: “What’s America like?”

  • "Easy" to answer for 54\% of US-born students vs 89\% of international students

  • Finding explained by lack of comparative reference points among many Americans (geography & limited exposure)

• Geographic isolation

  • Center of continental US (near Lebanon, Kansas): drive 500 miles in any direction → still inside the US

  • Same 500-mile radius centred in Switzerland reaches 20 different European states

  • US landmass ≈ entire European continent; single US state (e.g.
    Georgia) > combined area of Belgium + Netherlands

• Result: Americans often compare the US to poorer, less-democratic states → misleading impressions (e.g.
  cross-national homicide lists)

“Developed Democracy” – working definition

• Developed ⇒ high GDP per capita, capitalist markets, high HDI (\text{HDI}>0.85)

• Democracy ⇒ competitive, free & fair elections, civil liberties, political rights

• No formal list, but consensus core ≈ 20\text{–}25 cases: US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea + most Western European states

• HDI top tier (≈0.95): US sits mid-pack among peers

Basic Demographic & Economic Size

• Population: US >3\times10^8 (largest in club; only Japan >10^8 besides)

• GDP (PPP): US \approx2.3\times10^{13} \$(trailing or leading China depending on price adjustments)

• GDP per capita: small Nordic states (e.g.
  Norway) leapfrog US once dividing by population

1. Inequality – America the Outlier

Money (Income, Wealth, Poverty)

• Income ratio richest 10\% : poorest 10\%

  • Peer norm 5\text{–}9:1

  • US \approx17:1

• Net-wealth concentration

  • Bottom 90\% of Americans hold \approx\tfrac15 of wealth; top 10\% hold \tfrac45

• “Relative poverty” (share earning <\tfrac12 median income)

  • US highest among developed democracies

  • Child-poverty also highest despite no ‘self-blame’ rationale for children

• Inter-generational mobility (earnings elasticity)

  • Higher coefficient = stickier class position

  • US second-worst (≈0.5) → headline quip: “For the American Dream, move to Denmark.”

• Labour conditions

  • Lowest self-employment, low worker ideal-job match, highest share of low-paid jobs (<\tfrac23 median wage)

  • Average annual hours worked: 2nd highest; statutory paid vacation: 0 days (only case with none mandated)

  • Job-security index: US easiest place to fire employees

  • Union coverage: \approx10\% (peers >50\%)

Race, Gender, Justice

• Prison population rate far above all peers; drug policy key driver

• Incarceration disproportionality: African-Americans 12\% of population yet 36\% of inmates

• Gender Inequality Index: US worst among developed democracies

  • Women’s Gross National Income vs men: near bottom tier

  • Women in national legislature ≈20\% vs Scandinavian >40\%

Education Disparities

• Average schooling years & tertiary-degree share high (US 32\% BA+) yet quality gap wide

• PISA (age 15) overall middling; achievement-by-income gap largest in sample

• Rich districts ⇔ well-funded schools (local property-tax model) → unequal outcomes

Health & Health-Care

• Spending per capita \approx \$10{,}000 (>$> any peer; OECD mean \approx\$4{,}000)

• Financing mix ≈50\% private vs peers ≈20\%

• Outcomes

  • Life expectancy US <80 yrs (lowest in group)

  • Infant mortality \times2 peer best; maternal mortality conspicuously high & racially uneven

  • Access the key mediating variable: insured enjoy world-class results, uninsured drag averages

2. Small Government – Reality vs Perception

• US public opinion: “taxes too high / spending too high”

• Reality (OECD, % GDP)

  • Revenue \approx35\% (bottom quintile)

  • Expenditure \approx37\% (also low) → deficits reflect under-taxation rather than overspending

• Social expenditure (% GDP) modest; “welfare” narrowly targeted & means-tested

Case Study: Sweden’s Universal Social Insurance

• Public health insurance with \$120 annual deductible (children =0)

• Parental leave: 98 paid days/parent at 80\% wage; bankable till child age 8

• Child allowance \$127/mo per child to age 16 + post-secondary stipend \$300/mo

• Sickness, unemployment, housing & pension schemes likewise universal

• Financing: high, progressive taxes (total social protection spending 24\% GDP)

• US spends similar combined 29\% GDP on same functions BUT split 51\% private vs Sweden 13\% private → individual vs collective solutions

• Effectiveness: peers cut poverty ≈80\% via transfers; US ≈40\%

3. Constitutional/Institutional Design

Six distinctive features

1. Federalism

2. Strong bicameralism (House + equally powerful Senate)

3. Judicial review

4. Plurality (first-past-the-post) elections

5. Two-party dominance

6. Presidential (separation-of-powers) model

• Other developed democracies rarely adopt more than one of these; none adopt all

Quality-of-Democracy Indicators

• Freedom House notes “decline” in US score

• Voter-turnout (since 1945)

  • Presidential elections avg 58\%; midterms 40\% (peer average >70\%)

• Effective number of parties: US 2; peers 4{-}17

• Descriptive representation

  • Lawyers/business elites dominate Congress (House \approx33\% lawyers; Senate 44\%)

  • Europe elects more educators, engineers, nurses, ‘regular workers’

• Trust measures: US near bottom among peers for legislature, executive, courts, parties

Summary of “How” the US is Different

• Higher inequality across money, race, gender, education, health

• Smaller tax-state & limited social insurance → heavier reliance on private/individual action

• Unique constitutional rules produce lower participation, weaker representation, policy gridlock

“Why” – Competing Explanations

A. Diversity Theory

• US exceptional demographic diversity (ethnicity, religion, language)

  • Largest single ancestry = “German” \approx16\% (none >20\%); 48\% of citizens unable to specify ancestry

  • Catholics top denomination \approx25\%; no majority faith

  • 80\% speak only English at home now, but prior censuses show rapid language assimilation (e.g.
    German, Yiddish fade 1900\rightarrow2020)

• Mechanism: diversity ↓ social capital & social solidarity → mistrust → preference for individualism → tolerance of inequality & small government

• Recent European immigration shocks, rise of far-right parties, xenophobic posters (“black-sheep” Swiss ad; AfD implicit Nazi salute) cited as corroborative evidence

• Counter-evidence: US tops volunteer-hours ( 44 hrs pp yr ) whereas homogeneous Sweden bottom ( 17 ) → maybe Americans will cooperate outside the state

B. Institutional Theory

• Core claim: structures, not culture, impede collective action → citizens give up on public solutions

• Key impediments

  1. Complex law-making – numerous veto points; historically \approx300\,000 bills \rightarrow 4\% enactment rate

  2. Senate mal-apportionment & filibuster

  • 18\% pop. in 26 small states controls 52\% seats

  • Background-check vote 2013: public support 86\%; Senate support 55 ayes (63\% pop.) yet failed (needed 60 to end filibuster)

  1. Federalism – \approx88\,000 distinct governments fragment authority; local vetoes stymie metro-wide policy (MARTA vs NYC MTA comparison)

• Result: High transaction costs → policy status-quo bias → citizens resort to market/charity fixes instead of public ones → reproduces inequality & small state

Concluding Synthesis

• Empirical finding: US diverges from peer democracies on inequality, government role, political architecture.

• Interpretations:

  • Diversity Theory ↔ society too heterogeneous for trust-based collective action.

  • Institutional Theory ↔ governmental rules obstruct majority will; gridlock cultivates individual solutions.

• Both frameworks may interact; course proceeds to explore institutional details (federalism, Congress, elections, rights) & their normative/real-world implications.

Overview & Road Map

• Aim of lecture: demonstrate how & why the United States (US) departs from patterns found in other “developed democracies” with respect to

  • Inequality

  • Size/scope of government

  • Constitutional-institutional design

• Data sources repeatedly referenced: United Nations (Human Development Index – HDI), OECD, World Bank, World Values Survey, Freedom House, national censuses, numerous academic datasets

• Guiding warning: students are not expected to memorize every datum; statistics are illustrative proofs of the three big claims.

Why Use Comparison?

• Classroom exercise: “What’s America like?”

  • "Easy" to answer for 54\% of US-born students vs 89\% of international students

  • Finding explained by lack of comparative reference points among many Americans (geography & limited exposure)

  • Geographic isolation

  • Center of continental US (near Lebanon, Kansas): drive 500 miles in any direction → still inside the US

  • Same 500-mile radius centred in Switzerland reaches 20 different European states

  • US landmass ≈ entire European continent; single US state (e.g. Georgia) > combined area of Belgium + Netherlands

  • Result: Americans often compare the US to poorer, less-democratic states → misleading impressions (e.g. cross-national homicide lists)

“Developed Democracy” – working definition

• Developed ⇒ high GDP per capita, capitalist markets, high HDI (\text{HDI}>0.85)

• Democracy ⇒ competitive, free & fair elections, civil liberties, political rights

• No formal list, but consensus core ≈ 20\text{–}25 cases: US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea + most Western European states

• HDI top tier (≈0.95): US sits mid-pack among peers

Basic Demographic & Economic Size

• Population: US >3\times10^8 (largest in club; only Japan >10^8 besides)

• GDP (PPP): US \approx2.3\times10^{13} \$(trailing or leading China depending on price adjustments)

• GDP per capita: small Nordic states (e.g. Norway) leapfrog US once dividing by population

1. Inequality – America the Outlier

Money (Income, Wealth, Poverty)

• Income ratio richest 10\% : poorest 10\%

  • Peer norm 5\text{–}9:1

  • US \approx17:1

• Net-wealth concentration

  • Bottom 90\% of Americans hold \approx\tfrac15 of wealth; top 10\% hold \tfrac45

• “Relative poverty” (share earning <\tfrac12 median income)

  • US highest among developed democracies

  • Child-poverty also despite no ‘self-blame’ rationale for children

• Inter-generational mobility (earnings elasticity)

  • Higher coefficient = stickier class position

  • US second-worst (\approx0.5) → headline quip: “For the American Dream, move to Denmark.”

• Labour conditions

  • Lowest self-employment, low worker ideal-job match, highest share of low-paid jobs (<\tfrac23 median wage)

  • Average annual hours worked: 2nd highest; statutory paid vacation: 0 days (only case with none mandated)

  • Job-security index: US easiest place to fire employees

  • Union coverage: \approx10\% (peers >50\%)

Race, Gender, Justice

• Prison population rate far above all peers; drug policy key driver

• Incarceration disproportionality: African-Americans 12\% of population yet 36\% of inmates

• Gender Inequality Index: US worst among developed democracies

• Women’s Gross National Income vs men: near bottom tier

• Women in national legislature \approx20\% vs Scandinavian $>40\%

Education Disparities

• Average schooling years & tertiary-degree share high (US 32\% BA+) yet quality gap wide

• PISA (age 15) overall middling; achievement-by-income gap largest in sample

• Rich districts ⇔ well-funded schools (local property-tax model) → unequal outcomes

Health & Health-Care

• Spending per capita \approx \$10{,}000 (> any peer; OECD mean \approx\$4{,}000)

• Financing mix \approx50\% private vs peers \approx20\%

• Outcomes

  • Life expectancy US $<80 yrs (lowest in group)

  • Infant mortality \times2 peer best; maternal conspicuously high & racially uneven

  • Access the key mediating variable: insured enjoy world-class results, uninsured drag averages

2. Small Government – Reality vs Perception

• US public opinion: “taxes too high / spending too high”

• Reality (OECD, % GDP)

  • Revenue \approx35\% (bottom quintile)

  • Expenditure \approx37\% (also low) → deficits reflect under-taxation rather than overspending

• Social expenditure (% GDP) modest; “welfare” narrowly targeted & means-tested

Case Study: Sweden’s Universal Social Insurance

• Public health insurance with \$120 annual deductible (children =0)

• Parental leave: 98 paid days/parent at 80\% wage; bankable till child age 8

• Child allowance \$127/mo per child to age 16 + post-secondary stipend \$300/mo

• Sickness, unemployment, housing & pension schemes likewise universal

• Financing: high, progressive taxes (total social protection spending 24\% GDP)

• US spends similar combined 29\% GDP on same functions BUT split 51\% private vs Sweden 13\% private → individual vs collective solutions

• Effectiveness: peers cut poverty \approx80\% via transfers; US \approx40\%

3. Constitutional/Institutional Design

Six distinctive features

1. Federalism

2. Strong bicameralism (House + equally powerful Senate)

3. Judicial review

4. Plurality (first-past-the-post) elections

5. Two-party dominance

6. Presidential (separation-of-powers) model

• Other developed democracies rarely adopt more than one of these; none adopt all

Quality-of-Democracy Indicators

• Freedom House notes “decline” in US score

• Voter-turnout (since 1945)

  • Presidential elections avg 58\%; midterms 40\% (peer average $>70\%$)

• Effective number of parties: US 2; peers 4\text{-}17

• Descriptive representation

  • Lawyers/business elites dominate Congress (House \approx33\% lawyers; Senate 44\%)

  • Europe elects more educators, engineers, nurses, ‘regular workers’

• Trust measures: US near bottom among peers for legislature, executive, courts, parties

Summary of “How” the US is Different

• Higher inequality across money, race, gender, education, health

• Smaller tax-state & limited social insurance → heavier reliance on private/individual action

• Unique constitutional rules produce lower participation, weaker representation, policy gridlock

“Why” – Competing Explanations

A. Diversity Theory

• US exceptional demographic diversity (ethnicity, religion, language)

  • Largest single ancestry = “German” \approx16\% (none $>20\%$); 48\% of citizens unable to specify ancestry

  • Catholics top denomination \approx25\%; no majority faith

  • 80\% speak only English at home now, but prior censuses show rapid language assimilation (e.g. German, Yiddish fade 1900\rightarrow2020)

• Mechanism: diversity ↓ social capital & social solidarity → mistrust → preference for individualism → tolerance of inequality & small government

• Recent European immigration shocks, rise of far-right parties, xenophobic posters (“black-sheep” Swiss ad; AfD implicit Nazi salute) cited as corroborative evidence

• Counter-evidence: US tops volunteer-hours ( 44 hrs pp yr ) whereas homogeneous Sweden bottom ( 17 ) → maybe Americans will cooperate outside the state

B. Institutional Theory

• Core claim: structures, not culture, impede collective action → citizens give up on public solutions

• Key impediments

1. Complex law-making – numerous veto points; historically \approx300\,000 bills \rightarrow 4\%$$ enactment rate

2. Senate mal-apportionment & filibuster