Experiences with Mobility, Economic Context, and Attitudes About Opportunity

• In Event: Politics of Personal Experience

Abstract

Existing research suggests that people's belief in universal economic opportunity, what I call the opportunity-for-all ideology, is more influential than their actual experiences with economic mobility. While this may be true for much of U.S. history, this research suggests that the public is becoming more likely to question the authenticity of this belief system. I argue that many people’s experiences with immobility are viewed through the broader context of economic inequality, corroding their confidence in the opportunity-for-all ideology. Importantly, as personal experiences with mobility are more closely tied to perceptions of opportunity, they also reshape the public's attitudes about government and the types of social programs they are willing to support.

The relationship between understanding of economic mobility and political attitudes has received recent added attention as it has become clear that income inequality in the U.S. has grown substantially over the last several decades. The expansion of U.S. income disparities has led to a dramatic decline in upward economic mobility, meaning that people are less able to improve their standard of living from childhood to adulthood. How do Americans reconcile confidence in universal opportunity with the reality that economic advancement is unlikely for most?

The current literature focusing on this question has largely emphasized how belief in economic opportunity has a powerful influence on people’s understanding of the political and social world, as well as their perceptions of inequality and mobility. Adherents to the opportunity ideology tend to emphasize individualism over egalitarianism. Because of this, when people are exposed to information that might contradict the tenets of the ideology, like experiences with stagnant mobility, they often explain it as a failure of the individual rather than a systemic failure that needs to be collectively addressed by society. Additionally, Americans tend to overestimate levels of upward mobility with these inflated perceptions being driven at least in part by the public’s overly optimistic view of economic equality. Of course, it is likely that the opportunity-for-all ideology and misperceptions of economic mobility are self-reinforcing. Because this belief system is pervasive, the opportunity ideology likely shapes attitudes about government policy and redistribution. Specifically, some suggest that belief in future economic success leads individuals to think that they will be rich one day and want to avoid paying the costs of government redistribution in the future.

In this study, I argue that while the opportunity-for-all ideology is certainly a resilient belief among most adherents, it is not invincible. I develop a theory that accounts for the dominance of the ideology while also explaining the circumstances under which its principles are challenged. In particular, my research argues that personal experiences with economic mobility play a central role in allowing individuals to update their views of economic opportunity and in influencing their attitudes about politics and government. Those who experience stagnant mobility are more likely to question the existence of shared opportunity, leading more people to accept the idea that government policy is needed to allow for broader economic prosperity. Furthermore, although the public tends to underestimate the extent of economic inequality in the U.S., the salience of inequality as a political issue has grown and evidence suggests that people are aware of inequalities at the local level. This suggests that personal experiences with immobility may shift from individual concern to political problem, especially among those who are cognizant of broader economic inequality. These possibilities are tested using multiple data sources, including unique survey data on economic mobility from The Pew Charitable Trusts and data on local economic context.

Author

• William W. Franko, West Virginia University