Faculty Affiliate Prof. Eric Patashnik Releases New Research on Concentrated Wealth

A new research project by Professor of Public Policy and Political Science and Stone Inequality Initiative Faculty Affiliate Eric Patashnik, in collaboration with Professor Alan Gerber and Postdoctoral Associate Mackenzie Lockhart of Yale University, offers revealing insights into how wealth affects Americans’ perception of their vulnerability to social problems—and why that matters for policymaking.

Drawing on a series of nationally representative public opinion surveys, the researchers found that affluent Americans see themselves as broadly insulated from some of the challenges that face lower-income citizens. Whether it’s economic insecurity, unaffordable health care, or lack of access to high-quality education for children, the wealthy are often more optimistic that they possess the means and access to social networks to navigate or escape such problems. This perception among high income respondents that their own fates is not linked to what happens to poor Americans persisted even after efforts to prime respondents on the reality that many systemic issues, such as the mediocre performance of the U.S. healthcare system, often cannot be avoided through wealth.

“It's not just that more affluent Americans have more money, it's also that the resources combine with their personal connections to powerful people give them some degree of self-perceived insulation from the problems affecting ordinary Americans,” says Prof. Patashnik about high-income respondents. That sense of protection alters how wealthier Americans assess risk and may limit their support for reforms aimed at reducing systemic vulnerabilities. This limited appetite was demonstrated by responses to a question about how government resources should be distributed. Higher- income respondents favored allocations more evenly spread across income brackets, compared to lower-income groups who prioritized more redistributive policies.

In addition to income, the surveys revealed that several other factors shape individuals’ perceptions of their vulnerability. Individuals who see themselves as higher status (regardless of their income) also saw themselves as more insulated. Those who rated themselves higher on a ladder representing their societal standing were less likely to see these problems as affecting their own lives than those who saw themselves as having less status. Churchgoers—particularly weekly attendees—felt a greater sense of security in managing life’s challenges than those without a religious community. By contrast, women and individuals without a college degree tend to report higher levels of perceived vulnerability compared to men and college-educated respondents. Partisan identity also plays a role in a sense of vulnerability, with Republicans expressing heightened concern about government performance during President Biden’s tenure.

This research ultimately underscores how inequality in self-perceived social standing and insulation from societal challenges may be contributing to the lack of public demand for addressing the problems facing less affluent households. If the most powerful actors in society feel personally unaffected by social failures, they may be less likely to push for reforms, resulting in a government less tuned to serving the interests of those who most need its protection. As scholars continue to explore the behavioral and institutional consequences of inequality, this work invites renewed attention to how status, not just income, shapes political behavior, and how perceived insulation from social problems among elites may blunt the momentum for social change.