Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 142, Issue 1, pp 65–82 | Cite as

Partisan Conflict and Income Inequality in the United States: A Nonparametric Causality-in-Quantiles Approach

  • Mehmet Balcilar
  • Seyi Saint Akadiri
  • Rangan Gupta
  • Stephen M. MillerEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the predictive power of a partisan conflict on income inequality. Our study contributes to the existing literature by using the newly introduced nonparametric causality-in-quantile testing approach to examine how political polarization in the United States affects several measures of income inequality and distribution overtime. The study uses annual time-series data between the periods 1917–2013. We find evidence in support of a dynamic causal relationship between partisan conflict and income inequality, except at the upper end of the quantiles. Our empirical findings suggest that a reduction in partisan conflict will lead to a reduction in our measures of income inequality, but this requires that inequality is not exceptionally high.

Keywords

Partisan conflict Income inequality Quantile causality 

JEL Classification

C22 O15 

References

  1. Abramowitz, A. I. (1994). Issue evolution reconsidered: Racial attitudes and partisanship in the US electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., & Drazen, A. (1991). Why are stabilizations delayed?”. American Economic Review, 81(5), 1170–1188.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, C., & Barimendi, P. (2008). Income inequality and democratic representation. In P. Beramendi & C. J. Anderson (Eds.), Democracy, in inequality, and representation in comparative perspective (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. (Chapter 1).Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, A. B. (1997). Bringing income distribution in from the cold. Economic Journal, 107(441), 297–321.Google Scholar
  5. Atkinson, A. B. (2000). The changing distribution of income: Evidence and explanations. German Economic Review, 1(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  6. Azzimonti, M. (2014). Partisan conflict. FRB of Philadelphia Working Paper No. 14-19. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2457406 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2457406.
  7. Azzimonti, M. (2016). Partisan conflict, news, and investors’ expectations. Working Paper, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
  8. Azzimonti, M. (2017). Partisan conflict and private investment. Journal of Monetary Economics, 93, 114–131.Google Scholar
  9. Balcilar, M., Bekiros, S., & Gupta, R. (2016). The role of news-based uncertainty indices in predicting oil markets: A hybrid nonparametric quantile causality method. Empirical Economics, 53(3), 879–889.Google Scholar
  10. Banerjee, A. (2004). Inequality and investment. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  11. Belloni, A., Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., & Fernandez-Val, I. (2011). Conditional quantile processes based on series or many regressors. MIT Department of Economics, Working Paper No. 11-15.Google Scholar
  12. Broock, W. A., Scheinkman, J. A., Dechert, W. D., & LeBaron, B. (1996). A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Econometric Reviews, 15(3), 197–235.Google Scholar
  13. Chang, S., Gupta, R., & Miller, S. M. (2018). Causality between per capita real GDP and income inequality in the US: Evidence from a wavelet analysis. Social Indicators Research, 135(1), 269–289.Google Scholar
  14. Cheng, C. H. J., Hankins, W. B., & Chiu, C. W. J. (2016). Does US partisan conflict matter for the Euro area? Economics Letters, 138, 64–67.Google Scholar
  15. Diks, C. G. H., & Panchenko, V. (2005). A note on the Hiemstra-Jones test for Granger noncausality. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics, 9(2), 1–7.Google Scholar
  16. Diks, C., & Panchenko, V. (2006). A new statistic and practical guidelines for nonparametric Granger causality testing. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 30(9–10), 1647–1669.Google Scholar
  17. Duclos J.-Y., & Araar A. (2006). Poverty and equity: Measurement, policy, and estimation with DAD. In Economic studies in inequality. Social exclusion and well-being. Springer, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada. Google Scholar
  18. Fang, W., Miller, S. M., & Yeh, C. C. (2015). The effect of growth volatility on income inequality. Economic Modelling, 45, 212–222.Google Scholar
  19. Finseraas, H. (2010). What if Robin Hood is a social conservative? How the political response to increasing inequality depends on party polarization. Socio-Economic Review, 8(2), 283–306.Google Scholar
  20. Frank, M. W. (2009). Inequality and growth in the United States: Evidence from a new state-level panel of income inequality measures. Economic Inquiry, 47(1), 55–68.Google Scholar
  21. Frank, M. (2015). Frank-Sommeiller-Price Series for Top Income Shares by US States since 1917. WTID Methodological Notes.Google Scholar
  22. Gogas, P., Gupta, R., Miller, S. M., Papadimitriou, T., & Sarantitis, G. A. (2017). Income inequality: A state-by-state complex network analysis. Physica A, 483, 423–437.Google Scholar
  23. Goldin, C., & Margo, R. (1992). The great compression: The wage structure in the United States at mid-century. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(1), 1–34.Google Scholar
  24. Gottschalk, P., & Smeeding, T. M. (1997). Cross-national comparisons of earnings and income inequality. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(2), 633–687.Google Scholar
  25. Gupta, R., Lau, C., Miller, S., & Wohar, M. (2018). US fiscal policy and asset prices: The role of partisan conflict. International Review of Finance.  https://doi.org/10.1111/irfi.12188.
  26. Hankins, W. B., Cheng, C. H. J., Chiu, C. W. J., & Stone, A. L. (2016). Does partisan conflict impact the cash holdings of firms? A sign restrictions approach. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2854477 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2854477.
  27. Hiemstra, C., & Jones, J. (1994). Testing for linear and nonlinear Granger causality in the stock price-volume relation. The Journal of Finance, 49(5), 1639–1664.Google Scholar
  28. Hurvich, C. M., & Tsai, C.-L. (1989). Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika, 76(2), 297–307.Google Scholar
  29. Hutchings, V. L., & Valentino, N. A. (2004). The centrality of race in American politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 383–408.Google Scholar
  30. Jarque, C. M., & Bera, A. K. (1980). Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and serial independence of regression residuals. Economics Letters, 6(3), 255–259.Google Scholar
  31. Jenkins, S. P. (1995). Accounting for inequality trends: Decomposition analyses for the UK, 1971–86. Economica, 62(245), 29–63.Google Scholar
  32. Jeong, K., Härdle, W. K., & Song, S. (2012). A consistent nonparametric test for causality in quantile. Economic Theory, 28(4), 861–887.Google Scholar
  33. Kelly, N. J. (2004). Does politics really matter? Policy and government’s equalizing influence in the United States. American Politics Research, 32(3), 264–284.Google Scholar
  34. Kelly, N. J. (2009). The politics of income inequality in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Krugman, P. (2007). The conscience of a liberal (pp. 124–128). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  36. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  37. Li, H., Squire, L., & Zou, H. F. (1998). Explaining international and intertemporal variations in income inequality. The Economic Journal, 108(446), 26–43.Google Scholar
  38. Li, Q., & Racine, J. (2004). Cross-validated local linear nonparametric regression. Statistica Sinica, 14(2), 485–512.Google Scholar
  39. Ljung, G. M., & Box, G. E. (1978). On a measure of lack of fit in time series models. Biometrika, 65(2), 297–303.Google Scholar
  40. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2003). Political polarization and income inequality. Russell Sage Working Paper no. 201.Google Scholar
  41. Nishiyama, Y., Hitomi, K., Kawasaki, Y., & Jeong, K. (2011). A consistent nonparametric test for nonlinear causality—specification in time series regression. Journal of Econometrics, 165(1), 112–127.Google Scholar
  42. Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2003). Income inequality in the United States, 1913–1998. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 1–39.Google Scholar
  43. Pontusson, J., & Rueda, D. (2008). Inequality as a source of political polarization: A comparative analysis of twelve OECD countries. In P. Beramendi & C. J. Anderson (Eds.), Inequality, and representation in comparative perspective (pp. 312–353). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. (Chapter 103).Google Scholar
  44. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1984). The polarization of American politics. The Journal of Politics, 46(4), 1061–1079.Google Scholar
  45. Racine, J., & Li, Q. (2004). Nonparametric estimation of regression functions with both categorical and continuous data. Journal of Econometrics, 119(1), 99–130.Google Scholar
  46. Rubin, A., & Segal, D. (2015). The effects of economic growth on income inequality in the US. Journal of Macroeconomics, 45, 258–273.Google Scholar
  47. Shafer, B. E., & Johnston, R. (2009). The end of southern exceptionalism: Class, race, and partisan change in the postwar south. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Stone, C. (1973). Class, race, and political behavior in Urban Jamaica. Mona: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of the West Indies.Google Scholar
  49. Tesler, M. (2012). The spillover of racialization into health care: How President Obama polarized public opinion by racial attitudes and race. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 690–704.Google Scholar
  50. Tesler, M., & Sears, D. O. (2010). Obama’s race: The 2008 election and the dream of a post-racial America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Valentino, N. A., & Sears, D. O. (2005). Old times there are not forgotten: Race and partisan realignment in the contemporary South. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 672–688.Google Scholar
  52. van der Vaart, A., & Wellner, J. (1996). Weak convergence and empirical processes. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehmet Balcilar
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Seyi Saint Akadiri
    • 1
  • Rangan Gupta
    • 3
  • Stephen M. Miller
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Eastern Mediterranean Universityvia Mersin 10Turkey
  2. 2.Montpellier Business SchoolMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.University of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  4. 4.University of Nevada, Las VegasLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations