Introduction
Political governance represents how societies and countries run their affairs and the way authority and power are exercised. For the most vulnerable people in society, bad or good governance potentially makes a big difference in their lives. The inability of political institutions to provide essential services and the lack of opportunities for the poor can prevent them from getting out of poverty. In the last 20 years, there has been substantial progress in understanding the relationship between poverty and politics.
In the past, poverty studies mainly focused on how the economy influenced poverty and the demographic risks associated with poverty in the United States. However, sociology scholars have lately increased their focus on how institutions and politics influence the division of economic resources in society and how this eventually causes poverty. This research paper will investigate the relationship between politics and poverty by looking at the literature of previous studies on the topic of poverty and politics.
Research Question
How do political parties affect low-income areas?
Literature Review
Politics are central to the development of effective states because they drive change and shape development outcomes. According to Brady (157), poverty is an outcome of politics driven by collective decisions and power relations over the distribution of resources. Political institutions influence policy, which ultimately leads to poverty.
According to the power resources theory, collective actors unite and mobilize low-income citizens around common interests. These groups acquire electoral power through the formation of labor unions and Left parties. By default, the distribution of political power favors business and elites in a capitalist democracy—this favoritism results in unequal income distribution (Brady 159). Hence, mobilization of the less privileged citizens is key to gaining political power.
There are lower levels of poverty in rich democracies where there is higher unionization, Left parties have regulated government, and women form a larger proportion of parliaments (Gidron and Ziblatt 23). In Latin America, Left parties in times of steady democracy led to liberal social policies and reduced poverty levels.
Considerable research had revealed that labor unionization results in more earnings for the standard worker, lower levels of compensation for elites, and less inequality in earnings. Researchers have demonstrated that unionization leads to a decrease in the presence of underpaid jobs and improves the income of the younger, less skilled, and unpredictably employed individuals who are susceptible to poverty.
Unions ensure better compensation and greater security for workers wince they push management to increase wages, promote regulations that hinder the presence of contingent employment, and control working conditions (Brady 163). Besides, unions promote egalitarianism, shape the governance and regulation of labor markets, and influence policy. Hence, a strong link exists between labor unionization and lower inequality, more income, and poverty.
Leftist parties constitute the actors who initiate egalitarianism through policies and laws that favor the poor and minimize inequality. Parties play a vital role in the execution of social policy. Brady asserts that rich democracies with a progressive record of Leftist parties tend to experience lower levels of poverty than those governed by Right and centrist parties (Gidron and Ziblatt 32).
For instance, Latin American Nations with a significant collective presence of Leftist party power such as Uruguay and Costa Rica tend to have lower poverty levels. The impact of political parties on poverty becomes more distinct as soon as democracy is strongly fixed (Lavers and Hickey 389).
This is partly because firm democracies display more responsiveness and effectiveness regarding the distribution of state resources to promote the reduction of income inequality. It is also because political parties need considerable time to form their social and economic policies carefully (Brady 161). Besides, new or weak democracies offer few channels and opportunities for mobilization of the less advantaged.
While authoritarian governments are more likely to repress workers and the poor, political parties need to draw the working class and the poor as constituents in democracy. The consequence of this is that although democracy might not directly affect poverty, it can influence it through political parties, mature states, and collective actors (Brady 172). When political parties are competing for votes from the less advantaged people, these people are better positioned to influence policy that takes care of their needs.
In countries where political parties are stable, competition is normally between two or three parties who dominate elections. Such parties have an extent of party discipline and need to win many votes to join the government. Since these parties run for longer time horizons, they tend to gather plenty of information regarding prospective voters and the possibility of various political approaches (Lavers and Hickey 390). Each of these parties attempts to engage a broad voting public. Such parties tend to form governments that are highly committed to the less privileged citizens.
In countries with fragmented systems, it is common to find personalistic politics. Such systems involve many poorly disciplined parties with a relatively short time horizon and often do not need to acquire a vast share of votes to join the government (Lavers and Hickey 393).
These parties face high costs of information because politicians constantly undertake new activities with new opponents or allies and try to attract different voters. Such systems mainly produce governments that are lowly committed to the poor (Gidron and Ziblatt 19). Most the developing nation’s democracies are characterized by fragmented party systems which are associated with higher levels of poverty.
Political parties generally influence social policies across the world especially if they are in power. Lavers and Hickey (394) state that the impact of the control of the political party on social policy is extensive, ultimately shaping the recipients of social benefits. Most of the time, political parties have essentially varying preferences for public spending. Existing research demonstrates a strong link over time between the control of the Democratic Party and higher levels of social expenditure, particularly on social programs (Gidron and Ziblatt 20).
Political parties influence the policies and practices of the state, whereas the state executes egalitarianism. Regulatory activities cooperate with social policy to determine the distribution of resources. According to Brady (173), social policies regulate the distribution of economic resources. Through services, transfers, and taxation, policies obtain resources from the population and redistribute them to the same population at various life stages or distribute them to different people.
State policies also influence people’s earnings and investment returns. Through social policies influenced by political parties, the state taxes numerous transfers opt to avoid taxes as an indirect method of transferring resources, and sometimes disproportionately taxes those in low economic areas (Gidron and Ziblatt 26). This results in poor economic conditions for the poor and worsening of their already needy conditions. Social policies provide insurance against risks.
Most of the policies insure against unexpected events like accidents and illness, rather than unforeseen events like unemployment and relatively anticipated events like getting a child or old age (Gidron and Ziblatt 27). Hence, policies can reduce the possibility of poverty in low economic areas and mitigate the repercussions when such events occur if they focus on increasing public spending.
The decision of a political party to distribute monetary resources to the private or public sector is fundamentally a function of the policy of its members. According to Gidron and Ziblatt (34), due to the diminishing welfare role, less advantaged families have proportionately less income generated through public benefits and sources as a result of the reduced public spending.
The Democratic coalition uses policy to distribute finances to the public spending to gradually reallocate income to their voters and alleviate economic inequalities (Brady 174). On the other hand, The Republican Party advances policy intended to transfer public funds to the private sector and progressively reallocate economic resources to elites and businesses.
Conclusion
Political theories maintain that political power and government institutions influence policy, which consequently drives poverty. Political parties have a strong relationship with poverty in low economic areas. Firstly, political parties shape social policy, which in turn determines social spending. Suppose a party promotes a policy that encourages more private spending. It is likely to allocate economic resources to the elites and businesses while less income is distributed to the poor.
This tends to worsen economic inequities, which increases poverty in low economic areas. Leftist parties are associated with liberal social policies. In contrast, Right or centrist parties tend to favor the elites and businesses, which results in unequal income distribution and affects those low-income people.
The nature of political party systems also influences poverty in that stable party systems to tend to produce governments that are devoted to the poor, while fragmented party systems lead to governments that are less committed to the poor. Political parties must emphasize policies that address the needs of those in low economic areas to reduce poverty.
Works Cited
Brady, David. “Theories of the Causes of Poverty.” Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 45, 2019, pp. 155-175.
Gidron, Noam, and Daniel Ziblatt. “Center-right political parties in advanced democracies.” Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 22, 2019, pp. 17-35.
Lavers, Tom, and Sam Hickey. “Conceptualising the politics of social protection in low-income countries: The intersection of transnational ideas and domestic politics.” International Journal of Social Welfare. Vol. 25.4, 2016, pp. 388-398. Web.