How has democracy helped to eradicate economic desparities?
Answers
Answered by
1
irtually all accounts, poverty in America is too high, and the opportunities for low-income children to succeed in life remain too low. The Democratic Party has traditionally led the fight for less poverty and more opportunity in America. I accordingly take on a simple question here: What policies should the 2016 Democratic nominee for president propose to address these problems?
As an economist who studies poverty and opportunity, and also as a former Democratic political appointee,1 my pragmatic view is that three key constraints should be taken into account if we are truly serious about making things happen: We need policies that are (1) based on the best available evidence on which factors limit economic success among the poor and which policies are most cost-effective in mitigating those factors; (2) consistent with the values and history of the Democratic party, while adapting to current social and economic circumstances; and (3) consistent with the broad values of Americans, so that they can generate political support and, ultimately, some bipartisan appeal.
The factors that limit success among the poor are pretty clear. The most important are their low education levels and weak skills; the low pay for unskilled work in the US, the correspondingly reduced incentive for many to remain in the job market, and the difficulty in finding or keeping jobs; and various “group-specific” barriers, such as growing up in a very poor family or neighborhood, having a criminal record, being a non-custodial parent, or having a disability.
The foregoing diagnosis leads directly to the prescription. What we need—very simply—are policies that will:
Raise education and skills among poor children, youth, and adults.
Make work pay” for the unskilled, and make more jobs available to them when needed.
Address the specific problems of such groups as ex-offenders, non-custodial parents, children in very poor families or neighborhoods, and people with disabilities.
The good news here is that decades of research suggest what works and what doesn’t when trying to accomplish the above goals. It goes without saying that our policy proposals should reflect that accumulated body of knowledge. As Democrats, we don’t expect the private sector or private charity to do all the necessary work, much as we might wish that to be the case. Instead, there is a serious policy role for government to play, a role that might require somewhat greater public resources than has historically been dedicated to the task.
At the same time, American voters—and especially our Republican friends and colleagues—will correctly insist that our programs must be cost-effective and fiscally sound so that they do not contribute to rising federal deficits. Those that do not work should be eliminated. And those that we keep or put in place should not discourage work or stable family formation, as both are critical for raising incomes and promoting opportunity for poor
As an economist who studies poverty and opportunity, and also as a former Democratic political appointee,1 my pragmatic view is that three key constraints should be taken into account if we are truly serious about making things happen: We need policies that are (1) based on the best available evidence on which factors limit economic success among the poor and which policies are most cost-effective in mitigating those factors; (2) consistent with the values and history of the Democratic party, while adapting to current social and economic circumstances; and (3) consistent with the broad values of Americans, so that they can generate political support and, ultimately, some bipartisan appeal.
The factors that limit success among the poor are pretty clear. The most important are their low education levels and weak skills; the low pay for unskilled work in the US, the correspondingly reduced incentive for many to remain in the job market, and the difficulty in finding or keeping jobs; and various “group-specific” barriers, such as growing up in a very poor family or neighborhood, having a criminal record, being a non-custodial parent, or having a disability.
The foregoing diagnosis leads directly to the prescription. What we need—very simply—are policies that will:
Raise education and skills among poor children, youth, and adults.
Make work pay” for the unskilled, and make more jobs available to them when needed.
Address the specific problems of such groups as ex-offenders, non-custodial parents, children in very poor families or neighborhoods, and people with disabilities.
The good news here is that decades of research suggest what works and what doesn’t when trying to accomplish the above goals. It goes without saying that our policy proposals should reflect that accumulated body of knowledge. As Democrats, we don’t expect the private sector or private charity to do all the necessary work, much as we might wish that to be the case. Instead, there is a serious policy role for government to play, a role that might require somewhat greater public resources than has historically been dedicated to the task.
At the same time, American voters—and especially our Republican friends and colleagues—will correctly insist that our programs must be cost-effective and fiscally sound so that they do not contribute to rising federal deficits. Those that do not work should be eliminated. And those that we keep or put in place should not discourage work or stable family formation, as both are critical for raising incomes and promoting opportunity for poor
Similar questions