Irving Louis Horowitz

The eminent political sociologist died a few days ago, according to an obit in the NYT. Long ago I read, and took seriously, his book The Decomposition of Sociology, in which he argues (essentially) for more empirical analysis and less left-wing politics in sociology. Reflecting on his book, he neglects a fundamental, possible cultural contradiction: to the extent social reality exhibits facts consistent with liberalism and inconsistent with conservatism, empirical analysis will result in more liberal than conservative belief systems (but not values, since those cannot be proven "right" or "wrong" by scientific analysis). For example, evidence is accumulating that economic inequality (which is of little concern to most conservatives in the United States), has numerous deleterious effects, thus forcing conservatives either to hold beliefs inconsistent with the evidence (i.e., inequality is unrelated to deleterious effects) or alter their values (i.e., it is a "good" thing to have high rates of violence, low social mobility, and so forth).

Why are Economists so (Consistently) Led Astray About Inequality?

In a recent Boston Globe article Ed Glaeser, a conservative urban economist at Harvard, wrote an article titled Why income disparity in Boston isn't a bad thing. Glaeser is right that inequality increases in a city such as Boston can be due to selection effects, since poor people are moving into Boston for economic and cultural opportunities. Yet these selection effects (i.e., poor people moving into a geographic area in the hopes of upward mobility, which is generally considered a good thing) is drastically different from the observed outcomes (i.e., large disparities in people's wealth due to their social positions in a system of occupations, which is generally considered a bad thing). Yet Glaeser conflates the two, confusing the reader and, perhaps, himself. A more accurate title for the article would have been "Why poor people moving into Boston isn't a bad thing." This raises a question: why are economists so (consistently) led astray about the causes and consequences of economic, social, and political inequality?

Why Inequality Matters

The conservative magazine Commentary has published an article on how social inequality is on the political agenda and on the minds of most Americans, even though many conservatives would prefer the case to be otherwise. The authors argue that, in part, the discussion of inequality should be oriented toward social mobility and poverty, as well as the "injustices" of government policy. What the authors apparently fail to realize is the possibility that inequality causes poverty and immobility, not to mention "unjust" government policies perpetuating inequality. In particular, higher inequality can cause low social mobility by increasing socioeconomic distances between the highest and lowest rungs of society, higher rates of poverty by segregating groups and distorting resource allocations, and inequality-perpetuating government policies by shifting costs from the wealthy to the general population (through, for example, cutting funds for widely-available public services and increasing take-home profits from private organizations).

Murray on Cultural Inequality

The conservative sociologist Charles Murray has written a new book on cultural inequality, and he's written about his main arguments here in the Wall Street Journal. There are two glaring problems with his argument, however. First, although I appreciate his attempts to examine cultural factors of the economy, he frequently conflates behaviors with culture (which consist of values, attitudes, beliefs, not behaviors arising from these symbolic constructs). This muddles his argument, and leads to a profusion of of ad hoc claims that are weakly supported by the data, if at all. Second, his
explanation for cultural inequality falls short: in particular, he ignores how lack of public investments and conservative economic policies (for example, lack of investment in public transportation, public spaces, universal welfare systems, and the growth of car-based urban sprawl based on the profit-making concerns of private developers, among other things) are leading causes of the cultural fragmentation he is concerned about.