Economic Segregation and Unequal Policy Responsiveness

  • Patrick FlavinEmail author
  • William W. Franko
Original Paper


As levels of residential economic segregation increase in the United States, politicians may have greater incentives to focus their attention on the demands of those living in wealthier communities at the expense of those living in less affluent areas. To better understand the link between economic context and political representation, we develop a measure of economic segregation at the local level and combine public policy preferences and multiple roll call votes in the House of Representatives over several sessions to measure policy responsiveness. Our empirical analysis presents evidence that, regardless of one’s individual level of income, citizens who live in an area of concentrated affluence are better represented by their Member of Congress. Conversely, citizens who live in an area of concentrated poverty are poorly represented. Importantly, we also show that the disproportionate focus affluent areas receive from congressional campaigns and the disproportionate campaign contributions that flow from those areas are two possible mechanisms that explain the relationship between economic context and political representation. These findings suggest that growing residential economic segregation in the United States has important implications for our understanding of political equality and the responsiveness of elected officials to public opinion.


Political inequality Economic segregation Policy responsiveness Poverty 



  1. Baldassarri, D., & Bearman, P. (2007). Dynamics of political polarization. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 784–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. DeSilver, Drew. 2013. “U.S. Income Inequality, on Rise for Decades, Is Now Highest Since 1928.” Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
  4. Dreier, P., Mollenkopf, J., & Swanstrom, T. (2004). Place matters: Metropolitics for the twenty-first century (2nd ed.). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  5. Ellis, C. (2012). Understanding economic biases in representation: Income, resources, and policy representation in the 110th House. Political Research Quarterly, 65(4), 938–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellis, C. (2013). Social context and economic biases in representation. The Journal of Politics, 75(03), 773–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fenno, R. F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
  8. Flavin, P. (2012). Income inequality and policy representation in the American States. American Politics Research, 40(1), 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilens, M. (2012). Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grimmer, J. (2013). Appropriators not position takers: The distorting effects of electoral incentives on congressional representation. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 624–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-take-all politics: How Washington made the rich richer-and turned its back on the middle class. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  12. Massey, D. S. (1996). The age of extremes: Concentrated affluence and poverty in the twenty-first century. Demography, 33(4), 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Reardon, S. F., & Bischoff, K. (2011). Income inequality and income segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 116(4), 1092–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rigby, E., & Wright, G. C. (2013). Political parties and representation of the poor in the American states. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 552–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Solt, F. (2011). Diversionary nationalism: Economic inequality and the formation of national pride. The Journal of Politics, 73(03), 821–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Solt, F., Habel, P., & Tobin Grant, J. (2011). Economic inequality, relative power, and religiosity. Social Science Quarterly, 92(2), 447–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Soss, J., & Jacobs, L. R. (2009). the place of inequality: Non-participation in the American polity. Political Science Quarterly, 124(1), 95–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  20. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Watson, T. (2009). Inequality and the measurement of residential segregation by income in American neighborhoods. Review of Income and Wealth, 55(3), 820–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Widestrom, A. (2015). Displacing democracy: Economic segregation in America. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2011). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceBaylor UniversityWacoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations