Economic and social inequalities remain a fact of everyday life in the United States, and they have repercussions for political power and democratic representation. Mallory's scholarship explores these inequalities in American political economy.
Centering public policy as both a cause and consequence of inequality, she asks two related questions: Why are specific policy design, implementation, and administrative strategies adopted? Once adopted, how do those features reshape the political preferences and behaviors of policymakers, organized interests, and ordinary Americans—particularly those at the socioeconomic margins?
Centering public policy as both a cause and consequence of inequality, she asks two related questions: Why are specific policy design, implementation, and administrative strategies adopted? Once adopted, how do those features reshape the political preferences and behaviors of policymakers, organized interests, and ordinary Americans—particularly those at the socioeconomic margins?
|
Democracy Declined:
The Failed Politics of Consumer Financial Protection The University of Chicago Press (2020) Studies in American Politics series Winner of the 2017 E.E. Schattschneider award for best dissertation in American government, APSA Featured in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage Blog |
|
From the Publisher:
As Elizabeth Warren memorably wrote, “It is impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning down your house. But it is possible to refinance an existing home with a mortgage that has the same one-in-five chance of putting the family out on the street.” More than a century after the government embraced credit to fuel the American economy, consumer financial protections in the increasingly complex financial system still place the onus on individuals to sift through fine print for assurance that they are not vulnerable to predatory lending and other pitfalls of consumer financing and growing debt.
In Democracy Declined, Mallory E. SoRelle argues that the failure of federal policy makers to curb risky practices can be explained by the evolution of consumer finance policies aimed at encouraging easy credit in part by foregoing more stringent regulation. Furthermore, SoRelle explains how angry borrowers’ experiences with these policies teach them to focus their attention primarily on banks and lenders instead of demanding that lawmakers address predatory behavior. As a result, advocacy groups have been mostly unsuccessful in mobilizing borrowers in support of stronger consumer financial protections. The absence of safeguards on consumer financing is particularly dangerous because the consequences extend well beyond harm to individuals—they threaten the stability of entire economies. SoRelle identifies pathways to mitigate these potentially disastrous consequences through greater public participation.
Desmond King, University of Oxford
“Democracy Declined is an elegant and timely book engaged with the compelling public policy issue of credit access and its regulation. SoRelle superbly integrates insights from historical institutional arguments in political science with a range of methods, including archival and experimental. Written in fluid, clear prose, this is an important and original work which will be widely read and cited."
Dara Z. Strolovtich, Yale University
“Democracy Declined offers an original, incisive, and richly-documented analysis of the political consequences of a consumption-driven American economy built on a foundation of consumer credit. Combining rigorous analyses of multiple and rich sources of evidence with well-founded proposals for alternative ways forward, SoRelle demonstrates that the absence of a more vigorous consumer financial protection regime in the United States is no accident but rather the path-dependent effects of New Deal-era policies that have foiled attempts at any regulation that might threaten the flow of credit. SoRelle’s meticulously researched, engaged, and insightful book is a major and much-needed contribution to our understanding of this crucial but long-overlooked feature of the American political economy and of the history and politics of credit, social policy, and the welfare state more broadly.”
As Elizabeth Warren memorably wrote, “It is impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning down your house. But it is possible to refinance an existing home with a mortgage that has the same one-in-five chance of putting the family out on the street.” More than a century after the government embraced credit to fuel the American economy, consumer financial protections in the increasingly complex financial system still place the onus on individuals to sift through fine print for assurance that they are not vulnerable to predatory lending and other pitfalls of consumer financing and growing debt.
In Democracy Declined, Mallory E. SoRelle argues that the failure of federal policy makers to curb risky practices can be explained by the evolution of consumer finance policies aimed at encouraging easy credit in part by foregoing more stringent regulation. Furthermore, SoRelle explains how angry borrowers’ experiences with these policies teach them to focus their attention primarily on banks and lenders instead of demanding that lawmakers address predatory behavior. As a result, advocacy groups have been mostly unsuccessful in mobilizing borrowers in support of stronger consumer financial protections. The absence of safeguards on consumer financing is particularly dangerous because the consequences extend well beyond harm to individuals—they threaten the stability of entire economies. SoRelle identifies pathways to mitigate these potentially disastrous consequences through greater public participation.
Desmond King, University of Oxford
“Democracy Declined is an elegant and timely book engaged with the compelling public policy issue of credit access and its regulation. SoRelle superbly integrates insights from historical institutional arguments in political science with a range of methods, including archival and experimental. Written in fluid, clear prose, this is an important and original work which will be widely read and cited."
Dara Z. Strolovtich, Yale University
“Democracy Declined offers an original, incisive, and richly-documented analysis of the political consequences of a consumption-driven American economy built on a foundation of consumer credit. Combining rigorous analyses of multiple and rich sources of evidence with well-founded proposals for alternative ways forward, SoRelle demonstrates that the absence of a more vigorous consumer financial protection regime in the United States is no accident but rather the path-dependent effects of New Deal-era policies that have foiled attempts at any regulation that might threaten the flow of credit. SoRelle’s meticulously researched, engaged, and insightful book is a major and much-needed contribution to our understanding of this crucial but long-overlooked feature of the American political economy and of the history and politics of credit, social policy, and the welfare state more broadly.”
Peer-Reviewed Articles
"The Paradox of Policy Advocacy: Philanthropic Foundations, Public Interest Groups, and Second-order Policy Feedback Effects"
(w/Delphia Shanks), 2021, Interest Groups & Advocacy
(w/Delphia Shanks), 2021, Interest Groups & Advocacy
"From the Margins to the Center: A Bottom-Up Approach to Welfare State Scholarship"
(w/Jamila Michener and Chloe Thurston), 2020, Perspectives on Politics
(w/Jamila Michener and Chloe Thurston), 2020, Perspectives on Politics
"Partisan Preemption: the Strategic Use of Federal Preemption Legislation"
(w/Alexis Walker), 2016, Publius: the Journal of Federalism, 46(4)
- Featured in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage Blog
- Scholars Strategy Network Key Findings Brief
Book Chapters, Reviews, and White Papers
"More Than Meets the Eye: Government Social Provision and the Politics of Public Options"
(w/Suzanne Mettler), 2021, in Eds. Ganesh Sitaraman and Anne Alstott, Politics, Policy, and Public Options
(w/Suzanne Mettler), 2021, in Eds. Ganesh Sitaraman and Anne Alstott, Politics, Policy, and Public Options
"Policy Feedback"
(w/Suzanne Mettler), 2017, in Eds. Paul A. Sabatier, and Christopher M. Weible, Theories of the Policy Process, Fourth edition (3rd Edition published in 2014)
(w/Suzanne Mettler), 2017, in Eds. Paul A. Sabatier, and Christopher M. Weible, Theories of the Policy Process, Fourth edition (3rd Edition published in 2014)
"Politics of the Policyscape"
2016, in Ed. Ali Farazmand, Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance
The Uncivil Polity: Race, Poverty and Unequal Legal Protection (Book Project)
(w/Jamila Michener)
In a polity increasingly characterized by adversarial legalism, access to civil legal representation is a fundamental aspect of a free and fair society. Civil statutes protect vital economic, social, and political rights, many of which govern the explicit relationship between citizens and the state (e.g., access to public benefits, immigration disputes). This makes access to civil legal representation a necessary tool for people seeking to capitalize on the benefits and protections that are nominally guaranteed by a broad array of both federal and state policies. Civil protections are especially critical to folks struggling to keep themselves and their families healthy, safe, and financially afloat. Low-income Americans are both disproportionately in need of civil legal safeguards and significantly less likely to have access to them, with low-income women of color bearing the brunt of that unequal access.
We have mounting evidence that access to civil legal representation can affect individual socioeconomic fortunes and income inequality more broadly. Social scientists, however, have little systematic evidence of how political processes and institutions structure civil legal access or how they are subsequently affected by it. This book project explores the political causes and political consequences of unequal access to civil legal representation in the United States. We aim to answer two core questions: 1) How have political institutions (e.g., federalism, political parties) shaped state and federal policies that determine access to civil legal representation over time? 2) How does access (or lack thereof) to civil legal assistance affect the political attitudes and efficacy of low-income Americans? Together, these inquiries fruitfully merge macro-institutional and micro-behavioral approaches to studying the politics of an essential facet of American inequality.
(w/Jamila Michener)
In a polity increasingly characterized by adversarial legalism, access to civil legal representation is a fundamental aspect of a free and fair society. Civil statutes protect vital economic, social, and political rights, many of which govern the explicit relationship between citizens and the state (e.g., access to public benefits, immigration disputes). This makes access to civil legal representation a necessary tool for people seeking to capitalize on the benefits and protections that are nominally guaranteed by a broad array of both federal and state policies. Civil protections are especially critical to folks struggling to keep themselves and their families healthy, safe, and financially afloat. Low-income Americans are both disproportionately in need of civil legal safeguards and significantly less likely to have access to them, with low-income women of color bearing the brunt of that unequal access.
We have mounting evidence that access to civil legal representation can affect individual socioeconomic fortunes and income inequality more broadly. Social scientists, however, have little systematic evidence of how political processes and institutions structure civil legal access or how they are subsequently affected by it. This book project explores the political causes and political consequences of unequal access to civil legal representation in the United States. We aim to answer two core questions: 1) How have political institutions (e.g., federalism, political parties) shaped state and federal policies that determine access to civil legal representation over time? 2) How does access (or lack thereof) to civil legal assistance affect the political attitudes and efficacy of low-income Americans? Together, these inquiries fruitfully merge macro-institutional and micro-behavioral approaches to studying the politics of an essential facet of American inequality.
"Unequal Protection: Politics, Policy, and Access to Civil Justice" (In Preparation)
(w/Jamila Michener)
Civil statutes protect crucial economic, social, and political rights for Americans. Yet, estimates indicate that between 50 and 80 percent of people living in poverty have difficulty accessing the civil legal system. This so-called “justice gap” is particularly harmful for low-income women of color, who are both more likely to experience civil legal problems (e.g., evictions, debt collection, public benefit disputes) and less likely to have assistance navigating them. Despite the significance of access to civil representation for socioeconomically marginalized folks, political scientists know relatively little about the politics of its provision. Our paper offers a systematic examination of the role that political dynamics play in shaping the historical development—including both expansion and retrenchment—of federal policy to support access to civil legal representation. Drawing on archival research and an original dataset of all bills in Congress that regulate access to civil representation proposed from 1973-2018, we find that federal policymaking for this issue is shaped by the larger contours of welfare state politics. Our study sheds light on one of the most crucial, but understudied, interactions that low-income people have with the state, illuminating a new set of consequences for the growing economic, social, and political inequality in the United States.
(w/Jamila Michener)
Civil statutes protect crucial economic, social, and political rights for Americans. Yet, estimates indicate that between 50 and 80 percent of people living in poverty have difficulty accessing the civil legal system. This so-called “justice gap” is particularly harmful for low-income women of color, who are both more likely to experience civil legal problems (e.g., evictions, debt collection, public benefit disputes) and less likely to have assistance navigating them. Despite the significance of access to civil representation for socioeconomically marginalized folks, political scientists know relatively little about the politics of its provision. Our paper offers a systematic examination of the role that political dynamics play in shaping the historical development—including both expansion and retrenchment—of federal policy to support access to civil legal representation. Drawing on archival research and an original dataset of all bills in Congress that regulate access to civil representation proposed from 1973-2018, we find that federal policymaking for this issue is shaped by the larger contours of welfare state politics. Our study sheds light on one of the most crucial, but understudied, interactions that low-income people have with the state, illuminating a new set of consequences for the growing economic, social, and political inequality in the United States.
"The Justice Gap: Mapping State Policy on Civil Legal Representation" (In Preparation)
(w/Jamila Michener)
The “justice gap”—the difference between the level of legal assistance necessary to meet the needs of low-income Americans and the level of legal assistance actually available to them—is striking. Between 50 to 80% of people living in poverty in the U.S. have difficulty obtaining civil legal representation (CLR), leaving them without the means to protect their rights in situations ranging from eviction to predatory lending to domestic violence. Despite the significance of CLR to the lives of low-income Americans, particularly women of color, political scientists have paid little attention to the issue. Our paper offers the first systematic examination of civil legal policies in the American states. We draw on an original dataset of all bills proposed across the states to regulate access to CLR from 1990 to 2016 and analyze the sociopolitical determinants for adoption of different measures to expand or limit CLS access. Our results are crucial for understanding this crucial but understudied contributor to the growing economic, social, and political inequality in the United States.
