MALLORY E. SORELLE
  • Home
  • Research
  • Pedagogy
  • Media & Contact
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?



  • DEMOCRACY DECLINED (BOOK)
  • OTHER PUBLICATIONS
  • ACCESS TO CIVIL JUSTICE PROJECT
  • WORKING PAPERS
<
>
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

Picture
Sanford School @ Duke ยท The Failed Politics of Consumer Financial Protection
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.”
Picture
Peer-Reviewed Articles
"Politics, Power, and Precarity: How Tenant Organizations Transform Local Political Live"
(w/Jamila Michener), 2022, Interest Groups & Advocacy


"From Personal Responsibility to Political Mobilization: Using Attribution Frames to Overcome Policy Feedback Effects"
2021, American Politics Research

"The Paradox of Policy Advocacy: Philanthropic Foundations, Public Interest Groups, and Second-order Policy Feedback Effects"
(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

"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

Review of Amy Lerman's Good Enough for Government Work:
2020, Political Science Quarterly


"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)


"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.


"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.

"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.

Picture

Learning to Forgive: The Politics of Student Loan Debt Forgiveness
(w/Serena Laws)

Student loans have enabled generations of Americans to get an education, but the resulting debt—$1.6 trillion owed by approximately 46 million Americans—has been tied to delays in marriage, childbearing, and homeownership among younger cohorts of borrowers. Moreover, ballooning debt has had especially pernicious consequences for Black Americans, expanding the racial wealth gap.
The stark consequences of mounting student loan debt have accelerated calls for student debt relief, especially in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent economic recession. Proponents of debt forgiveness have ramped up pressure on the Biden administration to use executive power to cancel student debt, noting that the popularity of doing so might provide the political boost to save Democrats’ floundering electoral prospects at the ballot box in 2022 and beyond. While polls show relatively high levels of support for student debt forgiveness, however, we know very little about how the details of different policy provisions—for example, about what type or amount of debt is forgiven and for which borrowers—might condition public support, particularly in a partisan political environment. This paper employs two original conjoint experiments to explore two interrelated questions about support for student debt relief: How do borrower characteristics condition support for student loan debt forgiveness proposals, and to what degree are these factors distinct from those that drive support for (or opposition to) other forms of government social provision? Our results shed light on the political dynamics for a highly salient post-Covid policy issue, while extending scholarly understandings of deservingness for a critical, and understudied, aspect of the American welfare state.

“Predatory Politics: Race and The Unequal Resource Effects of Debt”

Borrowing has become the American way of life. From credit and debit cards to student, auto, mortgage, or payday loans, most of us rely on financing to pay for everything from a cup of coffee to a college education. On the one hand, access to credit can act as a resource for many, helping Americans to afford daily necessities, to build assets, and to achieve social mobility in the absence of better wages or more robust government social support. On the other hand, access to those resources comes with a steep cost. According to the Federal Reserve, non-mortgage consumer debt currently exceeds 3.8 trillion dollars, up from 2.5 trillion dollars at the onset of the 2008 financial crisis. Americans also owe an additional 15.2 trillion dollars in mortgage debt. And these debt burdens are not distributed equally, with low-income, women, and borrowers of color typically paying a steeper price to borrow. Despite the significance of consumer financing in the lives of ordinary Americans, scholars know very little about how the growth in consumer debt influences people’s politics. Drawing on original survey data collected as part of the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS), this paper explores how people’s reliance on different forms of debt—both predatory and asset building—shapes their propensity for political engagement. It focuses specifically on how different forms of debt generate disparate political outcomes according to the race and class of borrowers, with some borrowers experiencing demobilizing effects from their predatory debt burdens, while others experience participatory boosts from asset-building resources. Ultimately, the paper further illuminates the consequences of an unequal American political economy.

"Privatizing Financial Protection: Regulatory Feedback in the Credit Welfare State"

Consumer credit is a crucial source of financial support for most Americans—part of what scholars dub the “credit-welfare state.” Yet, borrowers have been reluctant to take political action to demand better consumer financial protection, even as subprime lending proliferates. This paper articulates a broad theory of regulatory feedback effects, proposing specific mechanisms through which regulatory policymaking shapes consumers’ politics. Drawing on the case of consumer financial protection, I argue that consumer credit regulations produce feedback effects that diminish political engagement by encouraging borrowers to blame and subsequently target market actors—including financial institutions and consumers themselves—for both systemic and individual problems with predatory lending. I analyze an original policy dataset, original survey of 1,500 borrowers, and two survey experiments to test this hypothesis. I find that borrowers’ experiences with credit regulation diminish their political engagement, even for reforms they support, limiting the prospects for safeguarding Americans’ financial security.


Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
  • Research
  • Pedagogy
  • Media & Contact