University Study Finds Reducing Inequality Can Reverse Political Polarisation

Political attitudes that have become increasingly polarised could be prevented by the redistribution of wealth, a new study by the University of St Andrews suggests. The study – led by Dr Alexander Stewart of the School of Mathematics and Statistics – found that polarised political attitudes are exacerbated when economic hardship, inequality and racial conflict become aligned with existing political divisions. Following the Brexit vote, many UK voters still held onto rigid identities of Leaver or Remainer, viewing the opposition stance as misguided or intolerant. In the US, the Trump presidency continues to cause antagonism in the two-party system. The study, available online in PNAS, uses a mathematical model to understand how political polarisation is generated and maintained. It concludes that political polarisation can be limited through, “Sufficiently high levels of wealth redistribution through the provision of public goods.”

In an exclusive interview with The Saint, Dr Alexander Stewart explained, "We already know that polarisation and inequality have been increasing but there is not a lot of formal modeling of the mechanisms for that.” The use of mathematical modeling alongside experts on polarisation and inequality reflects a shift in the way that research is being conducted on these issues. Dr Stewart added, “If you’re an applied mathematician like I am, you want to develop the basic understanding of the underlying principles rather than make a policy recommendation right now.” “Our study tells you what other people may have argued before – that reducing inequality does matter for reducing polarisation – but it also tells you which conditions will and will not work to achieve this.” The strengthening of interdisciplinary relations reflected in this study, between the experts on inequality and the experts on mathematical modelling, has become more familiar since the role of the scientist became more prominent in government decision making when the pandemic began. The model that is used in the study to explore political polarisation “assumes that a large population of individuals comprises two distinct identity groups. These identities are assumed fixed, and thus correspond to a fixed feature of identity such as race, religious heritage, or socioeconomic background.” The study finds that economic interactions between the groups can be beneficial in reducing negative attitudes towards members of the opposing group in some instances. We asked whether this two-party model might be more suitable in representing the situation in America than in the UK, where there exists two dominant parties but various other parties prevent a binary distinction, Dr Stewart explained, “The model is not supposed to be a model of America specifically. We use America as our example. The important distinction is that in the US there is no room for a third party, so you are forced to choose between democrats and republicans.”

The study says, “We see that sufficient redistribution can reduce both inequality and polarisation, although a high degree of redistribution is required to prevent polarisation. This effect holds when public goods are purely redistributive and when public goods increase the overall wealth of the population.”

On the effects of the pandemic on political polarisation, Dr Stewart

responded that the initial polarisation over the Brexit years may have been obscured by the pandemic. Dr Stewart explained, “Times of crisis can serve to bring people together, or to reduce polarisation for a lot of reasons. Based on our model, we expect that some- thing like the pandemic can set the stage for reversing polarisation. “There has been a sense of national crisis that everyone is in it together. That can be an important factor. I don’t think that the data is available yet to say if that has actually happened.” Currently in the UK, it may feel as if the country has become less polarised following widespread, unanimous frustration towards the Prime Minister due to Partygate at Westminster. Furthermore, the 2017 initiative More In Common which produced a report on polarisation found that British citizens shared attitudes towards the NHS, gender equality, climate change, the countryside and volunteer tradition in the UK. Dr Stewart responded to this observation, “It’s very interesting to observe the different dynamics between the UK and US. Trump lost the election, and his party did not abandon him. We’re not seeing that in the UK, we’re seeing the opposite. He’s not lost the election but he’s in political trouble. It is interesting to see about the structural differences between the UK and the US.”

Dr Stewart told the University Newsroom, “To reverse polarisation you must first remove the conditions that helped create it and then engage in ‘coordinated

efforts’ to change attitudes e.g., signalling by political elites in the form of bipartisan cooperation or improved rhetoric about the ‘other side’.”

When mentioning to Stewart that there are incentives for politicians to exploit differences between parties to mobilise support, Stewart agrees, “That’s exactly the problem. To me that’s a social dilemma. How do you make people not engage in damaging rhetoric when they should? The ability to lie has become easier in some countries in recent years because there is no cost for lying.”

Stewart adds that he hopes to see the increasing use of mathematical modeling in policy making. He acknowledges that there are limitations to formal modeling, “Any mathematical model is a simplification of reality, whether or not

simplifications undermine your central points requires a lot of time and testing. However, it’s the starting point to make policy intervening decisions.”

Source: “Inequality, Identity, and Partisanship: How redistribution can stem the tide of mass polarization” is published in PNAS and is available online.(doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2102140118)

Illustration: Sarah Knight