Analysis of Winner Takes All by Hacker & Pierson - Book Report/Review Example

Volumes have been written so far on the rote issue of income inequality. A few have taken the issue from a strictlyeconomic perspective, yet others have taken a political ground to justify their arguments. The gap between the have and have-nots along with various conspiracy theories surrounding the issue are not new. Yet, Hacker and Pearson surprised many by coming up with a brilliant yet fresh approach to dealing with the topic of income inequality. Fresh thinking coupled with synthesis of rational thought has given way to the ‘winner takes all’ approach to explaining the statistics in USA on income inequalities. The transformative book on the topic definitely gives a new direction to the political thinkers and students working in the field to think about. The underlying assertive argument which the book revolves around states that the trends of income inequalities in US can be explained via political reasoning i.e. the political system is designed to favor the powerful and thus, the accumulation of wealth is increasing for those who already are more privileged. Thus, Hacker and Pierson use various sources as well as statistical data to back their arguments which are similar to those lobbying for left-wing politics. However, the approach to addressing the issue and the rhetoric implied isn`t typical and mundane. Furthermore, critics have been pointing out flaws in a few arguments which will also be addressed in the review. The book instantly appeals to the intellect of the audience by state brilliant arguments based on the work of Saez and Picketty. Though they use the data set applied by these economics yet they point out a flaw in their explanations. Hacker and Pierson point out that the inequality is too high to be explained by minute factors like technological changes. Narrating an excerpt from the book itself, they state; “US real income per family grew at a modest 1.2% annual rate from 1976 to 2007. However, when excluding the top 1%, the average real income of the bottom 99% grew at an annual rate of only 0.6% which implies that the top 1% captured 58% of real economic growth per family during that period. (pg 5). Also, they comment on similar trends emerging in other developed states where the income inequalities also show a tilt towards the privileged sector of the state. Thus, to fill in the vacuum left by these economists to explain these gaps, Hacker and Pierson argue that this where politics takes the lead and drives the market. At this point, the rhetoric shifts towards public policy, a domain left untouched for the most part by economists and political thinkers. In other words, the argument is that public policy drives institutions to work in a specific manner, and thus, the state institutions themselves are legislating in such a way so as to increase income inequalities increasing the wealth of the powerful actors of the society. The articulation of thoughts and adding a new perspective to the issue reflects the brilliance of the authors along with their expertise in research and analysis. Thus, the strength of the argument lies in filling the gap of information in the work of the few most eminent economists by adding a political dimension to the issue. Also, another strength of the rhetoric lies in the readability element which is quite simple to be understood even by laymen. Thus, the arguments initiated in the book are not only valid but also expressed in an appealing manner to be understood by all. To strengthen the argument, the authors rely on the narration of specific policies which have been implemented in the past to strengthen those at the top of the financial pie. They explain how the policies like financial deregulation, corporate reforms relating to governance, marginal taxation shifts and changing trends in the industrial relations have been implemented over time. Then they assess the short-term as well as long-term effects of these policies on the economic output of the state. These results that they state here are same as that predicted in the initial hypothesis. Also, they comment on the actors in the political arena who push such reforms to explain how they are impacting the economic environment. The findings indicate that the elected officials are influences by various trade-unions or interest groups who lobby for such policies in order to protect the interests of big business giants in the US which explains how the system is biased in favor of these big business owners. Thus, it may be commented that the supporting arguments in the book are also posed intelligently and convincingly. Another point of focus in the book is how the authors point out the absence of any newer policy responses to reduce the income inequality. In other words, they state the fact that these lobbyists protecting the interests of wealthy capitalists also inhibit the passage of any new legislation. The reason is that passing any kinds of redistributive policy bills many cost these legislators in terms of votes of finances for election campaigning. This could also be explained in context to newer laws which add multiple vetoes for making a bill a part of law. Legislators have to face filibusters or in some case a wider majority is required to pass the bill and thus, such deterrence make it difficult for any bill to pass which may contain efforts at redistributing of wealth. Thus, the strength of their work lies in stressing on the point that even the economics in the US have been politicized and de-politicization of market is merely a myth of hide these explanations. They also add the point that the bargaining power of the labor class has been reduced over the years, even in the internal politics of these parties in power. In this context, they argue; ‘What has shifted is that Congressmen are now much more receptive to the opinions of the rich, and there is actually a negative correlation between their positions and the preferences of their poor constituents.’ (pg 111) Thus, these perspectives definitely allow various researchers to study and assess the claims made my Hacker and Pierson to see the validity of the arguments. The book definitely gets extra points for harnessing new ideas for political scientists to research and explore. However, a loophole or rather a weakness may also be pointed out in the book i.e. it fails to address the issues which the organized labor has to face. The issue of income inequality in context to capitalistic public policies favoring the wealthy is incomplete without adding the discussion of the labor unions in America. It is no hidden fact the leaders of various labor unions in various organizations have done more harm than good to their community of labor unions which further intensifies the interests of the wealthy capitalists. It is not the public policy directly which has inhibited the influence of organized labor in US, and even if there is any such policy, the book should have elaborated on that perspective as well. However, the point that the confrontational style advocacy being practiced by these unions is only strengthening their leadership but negatively affecting the masses has conveniently been factored out. By adding this dimension the entire argument may have taken a different turn. Detaching from the discussion of labor union points out towards the gaps which also miss out on other related issues. Though the discussion in the book does touch upon the subject of wage earners being weakened, it fails to address the issue of organized labor, which would have added to the authenticity of the argument. Conclusively, the book “Winner Takes All” written by Hacker and Pierson is a brilliant account explaining major factors behind income inequality prevailing in America. Various economists and political thinkers have written on the subject, yet this book deserves applaud for being one of its kind. This book has indeed added a new dimension to the issue while narrating logical facts. The central argument of the book is that the trends of income inequalities in US can be explained via political reasoning i.e. the political system is designed to favor the powerful and thus, the accumulation of wealth is increasing for those who already are more privileged. Furthermore, the authors argue that public policy and state institutions are designed in a biased way to favor the wealthy capitalists. Thus, as a result the wealth of the rich 1% population is growing while poor wage earners are suffering, thus widening the income inequality gap between the two extreme segments. With its inherent strengths and weaknesses, the book can still be attributed with the title for being one of the finest works in the field of politics which quite convincingly argues that the political system of America is shaped in such a way the redistributive policies are being barred from becoming a law. Thus, the work may initiate a new rhetoric in the world of politics where newer thinking on the subject may start thinking on the lines proposed by the book, which would be the success of the hard work of both Hacker and Pierson. Works Cited: Hacker, Jacob S, and Paul Pierson. Winner-take-all Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer-and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Print. Read More