Matt Yglesias

Distributive Impact of Labour and Conservative Governments

Interesting data from Lane Kenworthy that seems to suggest that if you’re a Briton of below-average means you have pretty good reason to vote Labour:

Larry Bartels has made somewhat similar findings in the United States indicating that there are huge distributive implications for whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican. Economists have tended to be dubious that Bartels is identifying a real causal relationship, since the underlying mechanism isn’t totally clear, but the presence of similar patterns in similar societies should tend to increase our confidence that Bartels is on to something important.

22 Responses to “Distributive Impact of Labour and Conservative Governments”

1. shooter242 Says:
   June 30th, 2009 at 8:34 am

   Hmmmm, post transfer income. How did it come to be that making some people support others by force, is a good thing? That used to be called slavery.

2. right Says:
   June 30th, 2009 at 8:37 am

   So correlation DOES imply causation? This is an exciting and important discovery indeed.

3. Davis X. Machina Says:
   June 30th, 2009 at 8:41 am

   So correlation DOES imply causation?

   Unless you’re David Hume, it’s certainly a possibility.

4. drew Says:
   June 30th, 2009 at 8:51 am

   It looks like the chavs and honest working class will do worse than the upper middle class in a Cameron govt. As usual, the rich and poor are in worlds of their own.

5. DTM Says:
   June 30th, 2009 at 8:57 am

   The fact that the switchover point is pretty near 50% is also consistent with what you would expect if the parties represented two competing coalitions organized around economic class.

6. pseudonymous in nc Says:
   June 30th, 2009 at 8:58 am

   That used to be called slavery.

   You really are a tedious old twat, pooter.

   As the following figure in the original source notes, that overall graph hides the fact that the last five years have seen the return greater inequality, and that the biggest overall growth in income (though one that was lower for the poorest and higher for the richest) came in Blair’s first term.

   What that means in practice — as it does for all governments on their last legs — is that people aren’t going to be voting in 2010 with 1999’s economic climate in mind, other than as a distant memory.

7. pseudonymous in nc Says:
   June 30th, 2009 at 9:02 am

   Plus, the Gini coefficient data (figure 3.7) points to why plenty of people are still waiting for Thatcher to die so that they can dance on her grave.

8. DMonteith Says:
   June 30th, 2009 at 9:07 am

   How did it come to be that making some people support others by force, is a good thing?

   Who knew that pooter242 was a Bolshevik?

9. Filip Says:
   June 30th, 2009 at 9:13 am

   Larry Bartels’ data on the situation in the US are referenced here.

10. Benquo Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 9:22 am

    “the presence of similar patterns in similar societies should tend to increase our confidence”

    It’s also important that the time periods don’t quite correspond, so it’s unlikely to be some kind of global economic trend.

    A true KO would come from a study of non-coincident political transitions in economically related countries like US and Canada.

11. malatesta Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 9:34 am

    So correlation DOES imply causation?

    Correlation doesn’t necessitate causation, but it certainly does gesture suggestively at it. I mean, nothing ever really definitively shows causation at all – all we’ve got is repeated correlation.

    Or, in short form, ‘Hume, motherfucker!’

12. Njorl Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 9:44 am

    I notice that the very poorest people have a larger annual increase under conservatives rather than labour. There a couple of things that could cause this. They might actually do better, making more money. On the other hand, they might just have higher mortality. If the poorest of the poor die off disproportionately, people with larger incomes become the bottom 1%.

    Are there any studies of mortality broken down into the same economic cohorts?

13. Al Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 10:17 am

    1997-2008

    What a convenient ending date!

14. pseudonymous in nc Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 10:25 am

    What a convenient ending date!

    If you have the whole-year data for 2009, Al, you’re welcome to provide it.

    Alternatively, you’re welcome to visit the rooftop of the nearest high building and take the quickest route down.

15. K. Larson Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 11:02 am

    Why would anyone start from the assumption that the correlation implies politically-driven economic growth rather than economically-induced political change?

    There’s no plausible mechanism for a change of parties in the executive branch driving economic growth so quickly.

    On the other hand, we know that as individuals feel more prosperous they tend to vote “magnanimously”- biasing votes towards ethical concerns during upswings. We also know that hard times tend to cause people to become conscious of in-group/out-group (read: conservative) issues.

    Reading a vindication of progressive economic policy into the data is sloppy wishful thinking.

16. Neuroskeptic Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 11:08 am

    How did it come to be that making some people support others by force, is a good thing? That used to be called slavery.

    And for the rich not to aid the poor used to be called greed, which used to be a deadly sin.

17. mpowell Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 11:32 am

    1: Ironically, at first I thought this comment was pointing out the injustice of forcing people to participate in a society that simply enriches the top few percentile. I didn’t read the poster name very carefully.

    These results are pretty tame. The Bartels’ data set is awesome because it shows that the Republicans are worse for everyone except for the rich who do about the same. Of course, that’s about what you’d expect in crony capitalism.

18. Barry Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    K. Larson Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 11:02 am
    “Why would anyone start from the assumption that the correlation implies politically-driven economic growth rather than economically-induced political change?”

    Because this is in line with the clear goals of the two parties?

19. Myles SG Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    It’s a bit silly to debate Labour-Conservative distributive impacts at this stage, as Labour is about to become extinct and go the way of the Liberal party.

    I think you have to take a walk around London and the Home Counties to get a genuine feel for what sort of structural problems Labour faces; its entire voting base has disappeared. The middle classes resolutely refuse to even touch Labour with a 30-foot pole, preferring the more genteel Tories and Lib Dems; the working classes are politically apathetic, with what remains of it Tory or BNP; the upper classes are now resolutely Tory; the lower-middle classes are resolutely and immovably Tory.

    Labour stinks. Not just metaphorically, but physically. As long as there is a John Prescott in their ranks, Labour is forever barred from Middle England.

20. Lupita Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 1:29 pm

    the presence of similar patterns in similar societies should tend to increase our confidence that Bartels is on to something important.

    Similar as in the center of the Western empire. Similar as in bubble-induced growth. Similar as in invading Iraq that posed no threat and did not have WMD.

    Now, read carefully because I am on to something really, really important: now that the empire is crumbling, one can expect similar economic contractions and loss of power in these two similar societies.

21. StevenAttewell Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    Well, that’s fairly to be expected. Surprise, surprise, political parties with different political ideologies pursue different policies with different outcomes.

    Now what would be really interesting is to extend this comparison and compare Atlee to Wilson to New Labour, and/or Churchill to other conservatives to Thatcher.

22. pseudonymous in nc Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    I think you have to take a walk around London and the Home Counties to get a genuine feel for what sort of structural problems Labour faces

    Which is, of course, something you’ve done. In your head.

    You were full of shit on this the last time, and you’re overflowing with shit this time.