In her excellent book Poor Representation, Kristina C. Miler examines congressional representation (or lack thereof) of the poor. The first part examines and disproves two popular notions about why the poor are underrepresented in American politics. The first idea is that the poor are politically invisible, and therefore, poverty-related issues never make it onto the national political agenda. Miler analyzes presidential speeches and party platforms from 1960 to 2016 and finds that political elites regularly discuss the poor and poverty-related issues. Surprisingly, the poor are mentioned more than the middle class and seniors, and Republicans and Democrats invoke the poor in similar proportions. The next myth is that the poor do not participate in politics, and thereby there is no electoral incentive for politicians to focus on antipoverty legislation. Miler shows that poor Americans’ voting and participation levels are not that much lower than the national average, and especially are not low enough so that risk-averse legislators could ignore working on poverty-related issues.
Subsequently, Miler defines the set of policies related to the poor and poverty by using data from the policy agendas project, and includes both liberal and conservative solutions: government and market-based reforms. The analysis then turns to examining congressional activity on poverty-related issues over time. At the aggregate level, the legislative branch is not attentive to poverty and issues important to poor families as measured through holding hearings, introducing legislation, and passing laws. Nor is the attention given to poverty in political rhetoric matched by political action. Miller shows that Congress as an institution ignores poverty-related issues, even when using broad conceptions of poverty and representation.
In chapter 4, Miler examines whether changes to poverty across time and across congressional districts result in changes to federal antipoverty laws. First, there is no change evident at the macro level: changes to the national poverty rate do not cause Congress to turn its collective attention to poverty-related issues. Interestingly, this is true regardless of which political party is in control of government. The second set of analyses studies the distribution of poor families across districts to determine whether changes in the spread of poverty prompt congressional activity. There is a wide variation in poverty across congressional districts, and Miller finds that, as the number of high-poverty districts increases, there is no increase in the number of hearings or the number of bills. However, there is an increase in the number of bills that are introduced that address poverty-related issues. Bill introductions, however, do not translate into legislative passage, because poor districts are split between Republican and Democratic members during an era of polarized politics.
The dyadic analysis continues in chapter 5 through a consideration of legislative behavior in high-poverty districts. A major finding of the book is that members who sponsor antipoverty legislation are not reliably from high-poverty districts. Only districts in which the poverty level is higher than 25% spur legislators to be more active on poverty-related issues. In a multivariate analysis, Miler finds that institutional factors play a large role in determining what type of legislator introduces antipoverty measures. Specifically, a legislator in the majority or one who enjoys seniority is more likely to introduce a poverty-related measure, all else being equal. There is some evidence for surrogate representation in that Black, women, and Democratic members are more likely to be active on poverty-related legislation regardless of their district-level rate of poverty. In an analysis of voting for poverty legislation over a several-year period, Democrats, Blacks, Latinos, and members from urban districts were reliable votes. Republicans, especially those from high-poverty districts, were missing in action on antipoverty issues.
In chapter 6, Miler studies and categorizes four types of legislators who work on antipoverty legislation: Old-School Democrats, Democratic Women, Indigo Republicans, and Urban Black Democrats. Old-School Democrats are mainly older white men from the Northeast and Midwest who focus their attention on housing and food security issues. Democratic Women address issues that intersect poverty and gender; they especially raise issues pertaining to how poverty affects the American family. Indigo Republicans from Democratic-leaning states in the Northeast advance conservative solutions to poverty, such as adding or expanding tax credits. Urban Black Democrats promote poverty-related legislation both in response to their districts’ needs and in advancement of “Black” issues such as education, housing, and social services. Miler notes that, when the definition of advocacy is loosened, Latino legislators also can be included as a group that occasionally advances poverty legislation.
The last empirical chapter moves from legislative activity to legislative passage, examining factors related to successfully passing new laws that combat poverty. Miler finds that institutional factors are again primary in predicting legislative success. A legislator in the majority party, members on relevant committees, party leaders, and senior members are all factors likely to lead to a bill’s passage. The characteristics that relate to a member being active on poverty-related issues (race, gender, ethnicity, political party) are not correlated with legislative success. This analysis highlights the limits of surrogate representation. Women, racial minorities, ethnic minorities, and Democrats may be active on poverty issues, but they need to be in positions of institutional power to successfully enact policy change.
After reading this book, I was left convinced that surrogate, and not dyadic, representation is more important in bringing poverty-related issues to the agenda, but I still had a number of questions. Are Republican members from high-poverty rural districts more likely to work on farm subsidy bills than Republicans from lower-poverty rural districts? If so, would including agriculture as a poverty-related issue change the partisan dynamics and show that Republicans address poverty through farming supports? Next, do legislators from high-poverty districts employ more working-class staff members, and are these members more active in providing casework to their constituents? The most important service that legislators may deliver to their constituents is serving as a skilled navigator of existing federal benefits and services.
All told, this book is an important contribution to the literature on politics and class that focuses on the role of institutional power, rather than on the public opinion–representation link. I could see this book being assigned in courses on Congress, public policy, and income inequality for both undergraduates and graduate students.
