The Gap Problem

Socioeconomic Inequalities and

Their Significance for the Democratic Ideal
Katharine A. Neill
Old Dominion University

ABSTRACT

This article addresses the significance of the income gap for the
gap between certain ideals of American democracy and their
realization in American life. It is argued that differences in in-
come make a difference in the accessibility of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness to which all citizens have an equal right. The
gap between actual and rightful access may not be recognized as
a problem by those who do not view equal access as part of the
democratic ideal. But it can be a problem for citizens who identify
with the condition of all in need, whether or not the need is their
own, and who can be moved to remedy it. This article examines
possibilities as well as difficulties in overcoming this further gap
in recognizing and sharing the gap between the ideal and actuality
of American democracy.

The income gap between rich and poor in the United States has been grow-
ing steadily over the last few decades, with an increasing proportion of total
income being concentrated among the top 1% of the populace (Reich, 2010).
Oldfield (2003) argues that individuals who enjoy a higher socioeconomic
status have significant advantages over those who occupy the lower strata,
and that society has come to accept this gap in opportunity through a variety
of mechanisms, such as the indoctrination of capitalism in the educational
system. American individualism and the perpetuation of the mythical Ameri-
can dream have also contributed to society’s acceptance of and indifference
to socioeconomic problems (King & Zanetti, 2005), although recent events
suggest that this attitude may be evolving.
Various interests in our society are indifferent to the political significance
of economic inequality. Their indifference tends to limit the ability of lower-
income citizens to actualize their rights as citizens because the people in
power have more political influence and will limit civic engagement so far as

Administrative Theory & Praxis / June 2012, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 255–271.
© 2012 Public Administration Theory Network.
1084-1806 / 2012 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/ATP1084-1806340205 255
256 ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS VOL. 34, NO. 2

that engagement runs counter to their economic and political interests (King
& Zanetti, 2005). “Citizenship” in the context of this article is not about the
fact of citizenship but instead about the rights, privileges, and obligations of
being a citizen in a democracy: political participation, the ability to have a
voice in political debate, and the ability to have one’s interests or concerns
represented in political decision-making. It implies some active involve-
ment in one’s community and country. Effective democracy requires active
participation on the part of citizens, making the reduction of this form of
citizenship a critical matter. Public administrators and policymakers should
be especially concerned with this issue, and while there does appear to be a
growing recognition of it, greater attention is due.
This article addresses the increasing income gap between socioeconomic
classes in American society and how this gap creates other disparities that are
detrimental to our ideals of democracy and equality of rights among citizens. It
builds on the work of Oldfield and others, who have argued that socioeconomic
class is a neglected category, both in the field of public administration and in
society in general, and who have urged educational and professional institu-
tions to include social class as a basis for affirmative action. The discussion in
the article contributes to this area of study by arguing that the gap in income
in our society is the source of other gaps—in opportunity and political voice.
There is a problem for the realization of democracy insofar as the normative
condition of equal rights to health care, education, and political voice is not
the reality. The objective of this article is to bring attention to the way in which
this issue has been largely ignored by the public and its leaders, and thus to
demonstrate why Americans, if they identify with their professed ideals of
democracy, must address the role of income inequality in society.
The first major section of the article presents a discussion of how the recent
growth in income inequality affects the needs of citizens. The second section
discusses the theoretical framework and explains how the critical perspective
of the Frankfurt school may help us to understand why income inequality
as it relates to democratic politics has been ignored by the public and elite
interests. The third focuses on the importance and essential requirements of
citizenship and how income inequality is detrimental to this democratic ideal.
The final section suggests ways in which academics, public administrators,
and citizens may facilitate constructive change and discusses the popular
movement known as Occupy Wall Street.

WHY IS THE INCOME GAP GREATER TODAY?

As the economy has become more complex in terms of size, technology, and
financial processes, the gap in income between the top income strata and the
Originally presented at the Public Administration Theory Network (PAT-Net) Con-
ference hosted by Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, May 2011.

THE GAP PROBLEM

NEILL 257

rest has widened (Phillips, 2002). In 1981, the top 1% of earners controlled
24.8% of national wealth, which in this context refers to marketable assets such
as stocks, bonds, and real estate. In 2007, this group accounted for 34.6% of
national wealth. Similarly, regarding earnings, in 1982 the top 1% controlled
12.8% of national income. By 2006 their share had risen to 21.3% (Domhoff,
2011). While the net worth of the top 1% grew exponentially between 1982 and
1999, the middle quintile of the population saw their net worth decline 10% dur-
ing the same time (Phillips, 2002). Changes in income distribution have shifted
purchasing power away from the middle class as well as the poor.
Large income disparities lead to disparities in other areas. Individuals born
into wealthy families enjoy significant intangible advantages over their lower-
class counterparts, including better health care, valuable networking resources,
and cultural experiences (Oldfield, 2003, 2010). Upper-class individuals en-
joy the benefits of educated parents, access to better primary and secondary
schools, and more resources to go on to college. Lower-income groups do not
share these advantages (Mikulak, 1990). The gap in educational advantages,
which is related to the income gap, is particularly significant not only because
the job market increasingly demands workers who are more highly skilled
and educated but also because more highly educated individuals tend to par-
ticipate more in the democratic process (Hillygus, 2005). These disparities,
which accompany the disparities in income, also reduce the possibility that
someone from the lower echelons can move up the hierarchy (Oldfield, 2010).
Thus the growing gap in income not only creates inequality in the present,
but perpetuates the same inequality in future generations.

Why Income Inequality Matters More Today

The quantitative gap in income is greater and more significant today than
in the past. Previously, education was not necessary in order to have a good
job. Many people were able to make a decent living working in factories, and
because of the power of unions, they often had access to decent health care
through their employment (Phillips, 2002). Moreover, the upward mobility that
followed World War II made greater social integration seem possible. Broader
access to material goods, thanks to the wider distribution of wealth through
the steady increase in wages and salaries that characterized the United States
in the decades following World War II until the 1970s, may have given the
appearance that America was moving toward a “classless” society. Materialism
came to appear as a neutral value, despite its role in contributing to inequality
and conflict (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001).
Technological innovation, globalization, and socioeconomic changes since
the period following World War II have altered the distribution of income to
favor the wealthy and perhaps have made the side effects of this materialistic
culture more apparent. Phillips (2002) attributes the shifting income distri-

THE GAP PROBLEM

258 ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS VOL. 34, NO. 2

bution to a variety of factors, including a shift in ideology and the growth

of a market based on technology and finance capital that moves power away
from wage earners. Due to globalization and technological innovation,
many low-skilled jobs have been moved overseas and the fastest-growing
job sectors typically require some sort of post-secondary education. At the
same time, inflation and the upward flow of money have contributed to an
increase in the cost of health care, education, and other consumption goods
and services, limiting the purchasing power not only of the poor but also of
the middle class (Phillips, 2002). Laclau and Mouffe (2001) argue that the
state, whether advertently or inadvertently, has exacerbated these problems
through its partnership with capitalism.
While the fact of the widening gap in income and wealth between the
rich and the middle and lower classes typically is not disputed, whether it
is a problem worth addressing continues to be debated. Continuing with the
theme of gaps, perhaps we can say that the disagreement over whether the
gap in income—so far as it leads to disparities in opportunity and political
voice—is a problem is due to a deeper gap, perhaps a moral gap, between
the recognition of the needs of others and the recognition only of the needs
of oneself. Those who only recognize the latter have an interest in limiting
the discussion of this issue.

APPLYING CRITICAL THEORY TO THE RECOGNITION GAP

Critical theory, as identified with the Frankfurt school of social theory, can
aid in gaining a better understanding of how the issue of economic injustice
is hidden from public view and of how this negatively affects democratic
citizenship. One of the goals of critical theory is to reveal the limitations of
capitalism and the constraints it places on individuals and communities (Za-
netti & Carr, 1998), making it particularly relevant to the topic of economic
injustice, a frequent side effect of capitalism. Farmer explains that the aim of
critical theory is “to emancipate, to free. It analyzes constraining power (or
bonding or exploitation or domination), with the aim of guiding human action
toward emancipation” (2010, p. 79). One assumption of critical theory is that,
as individuals become conscious of “the (artificial) limitations placed on them
by society, they may expand their perceptions of their needs and demands. With
this understanding, they can take the initiative to move beyond the boundaries
that previously contained them” (Zanetti & Carr, 1998, p. 361).
Marcuse (1964) insists that dialectical thought is the path to achieving
freedom from the domination of consumer society. According to Marcuse, the
process of “negative thinking,” in which the individual questions and criticizes
the facts and values of established society, allows the individual to become
more consciously aware of “itself [sic] and of the conditions and processes
which make up its society,” and thus creates possibilities for freedom from

THE GAP PROBLEM

NEILL 259

the one-dimensional pursuit of economic prosperity and consumer values

(p. 222). This dialectic, encompassed in Marcuse’s negative thinking, occurs
within the framework of modern capitalist society, and offers a “ ‘substantive’
contradiction” to the status quo (see Zanetti & Carr, 1998, p. 362).
From Marcuse’s perspective, one may note the dominance of the consumer
market as the only access to both material and nonmaterial goods. Under
capitalism, access to all goods, including health care, education, and political
voice, is dependent on access to the market, which in turn is dependent on
one’s purchasing power. The danger in this is that the market is not demo-
cratic. The implication of Marcuse’s theory is that the importance placed on
economic wealth to purchase goods gives the market the power to exclude
those without purchasing power. So long as the dominance of the market and
the ascendancy of an ideology that equates the market with individual freedom
denies to a certain class the means necessary for life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness, then the promise of American democracy, the promise to secure
equal rights, is itself denied.
This promise assumes a conception of positive rights, that is to say, of rights
to the means necessary to live and pursue happiness, in contradistinction to the
conception of negative rights of noninterference (MacKinnon, 1998). Negative
rights are advocated by libertarian and conservative political philosophies,
and by those who are not themselves in need of means, income, or property.
Rather, justice for them means freedom from interference that takes away or
taxes their property and income and thus may limit their pursuit of their own
happiness. The poor have no problem of being deprived of wealth and prop-
erty by interfering powers such as the government. But just as the rich might
empathically identify with the problem of the poor and share it, so the poor
may also recognize the validity of negative rights. It is possible to reconcile
these rights, but each group would have to share the concerns of the other and
in some way make them its own. This can be achieved through recognition of
rights that are both positive and negative, the rights of all to sufficient means
and to noninterference in the exercise of those means so long as it does not
deprive others of sufficient access to their own needs (MacKinnon, 1998).

American Values: An Indoctrination Against Economic Injustice

The values on which this country was founded and which we continue to hold
in high esteem play a significant role in the tendency to ignore or suppress
issues of class in the United States. The idea of American exceptionalism
refers to the fact that America developed under a different set of assumptions,
values, and political and religious institutions than did other Western societ-
ies. This unique outlook encompasses the ideals of individualism, economic
liberalism, and property ownership. One of the net results of this belief system
is that the United States offers comparatively fewer protections for average

THE GAP PROBLEM

260 ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS VOL. 34, NO. 2

and nonwealthy citizens than other Western societies (King & Zanetti, 2005).
Thus, while we believe in the values of freedom, liberty, and equal opportunity,
we also believe in the individual’s right to accumulate property with little
government oversight and are skeptical of redistributional policies.
Related to the concept of exceptionalism is our persisting faith in the
American dream. The idea that a hardworking individual could climb the
class ranks was given additional credibility in the 1950s and 1960s with the
widespread economic expansion and growth of the middle class (Mikulak,
1990). This perception has continued despite evidence suggesting that
the chances for such upward mobility have become rather slim (Gudrais,
2008; Oldfield, 2010; Phillips, 2002; Reich, 2010). The American dream
assumes that equal opportunity is already actualized, in which case there
is no problem to overcome. This view of American society claims that the
condition of the poor, of those who suffer from the gap between their actual
income and the income they need to live well, is caused by an individual
failure of hard work, rather than by inequality in the social and economic
structures of society. So far as the condition of poverty suffered by those in
it is claimed to be deserved by those not in it, there is no call for remedial
economic justice, although it may motivate acts of charity, especially if the
poor confess their failures and their inequality of worthiness in relation to
the successful owners of capital. This view may be a psychological burden
to the unemployed or economically suffering insofar as it teaches them
that they are suffering because of their own failures as persons. Indeed,
the American dream may be a good example of what Freire refers to as the
“myths” created by the dominant forces in society to “keep [the oppressed]
passive” and aid in their buy-in to the status quo so that they will not ques-
tion their condition (2000, p. 139).
Another reason for the neglect of class-related issues in the United States is
that, at least until recently, elite interests have been successful in dominating
public discourse, effectively limiting the voice of any opposition that may
challenge the economic structure (King & Zanetti, 2005; Marcuse, 1964).
(The Occupy Wall Street movement, as discussed below, provides hope that
a new current is entering the public discourse.) As Marx states, “the class
having the means of material production has also control over the means of
intellectual production, so that . . . the ruling ideas are nothing more than the
ideal expression of the dominant [social class]” (as cited in Martin, 2009, p.
611). This domination involves giving the illusion of the end of conflict, of
the triumph of liberalism and capitalism to the extent that now there is no
credible alternative (Mouffe, 2000). The introduction of class into the political
or economic discourse raises the alarm of class warfare (e.g., see Thomas,
2011). Dominant interests that claim objectivity, by defining a “core moral-
ity” (Mouffe, 2000, p. 23), are able to stake a claim on what constitutes the
“good,” thus giving their decisions the appearance of an “impartial standpoint

THE GAP PROBLEM

NEILL 261

which is equally in the interests of all” (p. 47). They can then dismiss any
alternatives as “unreasonable” frameworks that do not fit with the liberal
democratic system. An extreme example: Rush Limbaugh and others on the
far right end of the political spectrum act as if their procapitalist viewpoint
is a fact that is universally recognized, to which any and all alternatives are
depicted as some variation of tyranny or socialism. In addition to those who
may consciously act to repress divergent viewpoints, a deeper issue here
may be that many others act in a way that puts a check on diversity of ideas
without realizing it, and that we as a society often do not recognize that such
a phenomenon is occurring.

WHY AND HOW THE ECONOMIC GAP MATTERS

FOR DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION

Arnstein (1969) views citizen participation as a method through which citizens

can exercise their potential power. Participation is the “means by which [the
have-nots] can induce significant social reform which enables them to share in
the benefits of the affluent society” (Arnstein, 1969, p. 216). Bevir argues that
poverty can be defined “in terms of social capital, notably an inability to exercise
one’s social and political rights as a citizen” (2010, p. 115). These definitions
suggest that citizenship—that is, the ability to participate meaningfully in the
democratic process—and socioeconomic status are tied together.
Despite the democratic vision of a free and open space for political
discourse, historically the public sphere has been limited in terms of who
has actually been allowed to participate. For example, the framers of the
Constitution limited the vote to white property-owning males, presumably to
protect the interests of the wealthier landowners from the majority (Chomsky,
2000). More recently, exclusion is evident in the effort by states to require
government-issued photo identification cards in order to vote. These laws
mostly affect the poor, minorities, and the young (Savage, 2011), and, so far
as states make a certain form of identification a requirement to vote but do not
work actively to provide such identification freely and in a timely manner so
that the targeted citizens can participate in the political process, they become
another form of exclusion.

Containing Dissent Through Exclusionary Politics

Connolly (1995) argues that there is a strong connection between economic

equality and effective democracy—that one is necessary for the other. To the
extent that the economic structure of society is organized by the market and
justified by an ideology that views individual consumption and profit-making
as intrinsic to the American dream, individuals who do not accumulate wealth
are excluded regardless of their needs. If they were excluded only from the

THE GAP PROBLEM

262 ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS VOL. 34, NO. 2

ability to enjoy various luxuries, this would not be an issue. But because the
market also controls access to necessary goods, such as education and health
care, as well as to political influence, as evident in the dependence of political
campaigns on donations from corporations and other powerful interest groups,
a situation is created in which the inequality generated and perpetuated by
capitalism also excludes the majority from meaningful democratic participa-
tion (Connolly, 1995). When government endorses this sort of capitalism,
“Democracy now becomes a vehicle for rationalizing and legitimizing the
limited capacity of the state to represent citizens within the existing class
structure” (Connolly, 1995, p. 79).
One way to contain opposition to the exclusionary political economic
structure is by distracting citizens from the problems created by this unequal
system with the allure of consumerism and diversion to other issues, such
as abortion and gay rights, in the name of morality (Box, 2005; King &
Zanetti, 2005). Another way containment has been achieved is by maintain-
ing divisions among the majority (see Freire, 2000). In a capitalist system,
where access to many goods, even necessary ones, is exclusionary—that
is, limited to those who have the ability to participate in the market—it
may become difficult even for middle-class families, let alone the poor, to
find these goods affordable. A side effect of this structure is that people
who were previously able to afford a certain lifestyle increasingly come
to feel they are being excluded from the pursuit of economic success, and
in consequence “they either drop out of institutional politics or vent their
anger on the most vulnerable scapegoats available” (Connolly, 1995, p.
83). Thus, middle-class individuals may see their problems as coming from
below rather than above.
So long as the nonelite, especially the middle class, feel their interests
are best served by a deregulated market economy rather than by “big gov-
ernment,” this increases the power of the dominant corporate interests and
further delegitimizes any claims of socioeconomic injustice on the part of the
disadvantaged classes. The opposition to big government may be regarded
as another of Freire’s myths that serve to divide the middle and lower classes
from the very poor, groups that otherwise might be united as a majority against
the minority elite. A recent example is the demonization of labor unions,
which were blamed by some on the political right for the country’s economic
problems. Connolly (1995) argues that one of the reasons these divisions exist
today is that social movements of the past for greater equality for minorities,
women, and homosexuals ignored the economic problems of the traditional
blue-collar working class in a way that made this group, particularly white
males, feel abandoned by and alienated from the political left. In reaction, they
have turned to the political right, which at times has invoked hypermasculinity
or latent feelings of racism to attract supporters. The phenomenon of divisions
among the disadvantaged majority, particularly between the middle and white

THE GAP PROBLEM

NEILL 263

working classes and the poor and minority classes, deserves greater attention
but is beyond the scope of this article.

Collusion Between the State and Market Interests

The state has been a silent observer, if not an active partner, in preserving the
prevailing power structure and continuing the exclusion of certain groups from
political discourse. The issue of the exclusion of certain groups from voting
discussed above is one example. There is also substantial evidence that public
organizations have been responsible for perpetuating class inequalities by fa-
voring elite and business interests. One of the adverse side effects of complex
bureaucratic structures is they may reinforce mechanisms of control, thereby
oppressing disadvantaged groups (Ray, 1993). Ferguson (1984) goes further,
arguing not only that the perpetrators of this system recognize this domination,
but that they conceal it, and that they control the poor by providing them with
undesirable, dead-end jobs, keeping them dependent on government subsidy
programs instead of helping them to become independent. Welfare policies
that may alleviate some suffering but maintain a certain level of poverty cre-
ate a “stabilization of the underclass” that benefits corporate and government
organizations (p. 129). Politicians can point to assistance programs as proof
that they are working to improve society, and corporations can enjoy the
comfort of knowing that there will be a low-skilled, placated workforce and
a market for certain goods and services. This is one example of how public
policies can help to perpetuate the class system.
An example of the collusion between public policy and elite interests is dem-
onstrated by the business community’s pressure on the government to reform
labor laws in the 1940s. The issue was framed as a movement to protect American
workers from the unfair and monopolistic behaviors of labor unions, and business
was portrayed as a friend of the common worker that was also being unfairly
targeted by organized labor. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 effectively contained
the workers’ movement, limited the political activities of organized labor, and
“equalized” the relationship between business and labor (O’Brien, 1997). It also
serves as a symbol of government’s decision to favor the interests of business
over those of the working class. Similarly, Alkadry and Blessett (2010) argue
that in the latter half of the twentieth century local administrators’ interest in
attracting capital investment to their cities aligned with the profit motives of the
economic elite to result in the expansion of business districts to the detriment
of poor African-American communities. Poor, minority neighborhoods ended
up the losers in economic development schemes because they were stigmatized
in the community and viewed by administrators, business, and the public as
“politically weak and expendable” (p. 558). Negative images of the poor add
obstacles to their participation as citizens in the American democratic system.
Insofar as the state has had a role in perpetuating the problems that result from

THE GAP PROBLEM

264 ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS VOL. 34, NO. 2

disparities in income, and as it should be concerned with correcting these issues

and has the power to do so, the discussion of socioeconomic inequalities is one
that is particularly relevant to public administration.

POSSIBLE REMEDIES FOR THE PROBLEM OF EQUAL RIGHTS

The problem of equal citizen rights may be resolved through various remedies.
One of these remedies would be to create more employment opportunities
and job-training programs for unskilled workers. Employment is a means to
access income without direct handouts of money. If the disadvantaged are
given access to well-paying work, then that will be their means of getting the
income needed for other means. So far as it is business that creates jobs, then
there is a role for the capitalist enterprise in creating access to the income
needed to access its goods. There is also a complementary role for govern-
ment, not only to also directly create jobs but also to facilitate job-creating
business practices.
Another remedy would be to alter the economic distribution in this country
to the extent needed to gain greater equal opportunity for all citizens. Con-
nolly argues that state action is necessary to reduce economic inequality; he
suggests “a steep progressive tax . . . with active state support of modes of
consumption that are inclusive rather than exclusionary in form” (1995, p. 82).
An example of an inclusive good would be publicly provided universal health
care, rather than the private health care system currently in place. Through
the combination of “state mandates, infrastructural supports, and subsidies”
(Connolly, 1995, p. 84), the state may be able to reverse the trend of increasing
economic inequality and thereby create a more effective democracy.
As far as the problem of economic justice is also a problem of recognition,
the solution would also require a reform of the K–12 educational system.
The reform would offer an alternative to the education that teaches only one
version of American ideals, and a critical questioning of the assumptions
regarding the monopoly of the market system and the interest in one’s own
individual happiness without shared responsibility for the rights and welfare
of all citizens.

Possibilities for Citizen Engagement: Hope in an Occupation

Current economic conditions suggest an environment conducive to change.

In fiscal crisis situations, where there is a reduction in resources and rising
economic inequality, it becomes difficult to ignore conflict (Box et al., 2001;
March & Olsen, 1986). The 2008 financial crisis, from which Wall Street has
seemingly recovered while the metaphorical Main Street continues to struggle,
the attack on public unions in Wisconsin, which painted public employees as an
overly compensated and unnecessary burden responsible for the majority of state

THE GAP PROBLEM

NEILL 265

debt, and the recent calls from right-wing politicians for cutting aid programs
to the elderly, the poor, and the young while leaving in place tax cuts for the
wealthiest Americans as a solution to the country’s debt crisis, are all examples
of how the right wing is proposing an agenda that demonizes the victims of
the recession and seeks to attain fiscal solvency by further victimizing the very
groups whose political voices have been silenced. However, the financial and
employment crises have made these propositions less credible, as so many
Americans are still suffering from the fallout of the 2008 recession.
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement provides evidence that a growing
segment of the population is coming to recognize the negative side effects of
wide income disparities. The economic crisis in this country has made it apparent
that the middle class also is suffering from the concentration of wealth at the
top that has occurred as a result of deregulation, lowered taxes, and a variety of
other economic practices designed to benefit those who are already wealthy. The
movement represents a diverse class of citizens who have become disenchanted
with corporate influence and the accumulation of wealth by a few individuals
while many Americans are either jobless or suffering economically.
The OWS movement has invented a message that communicates with
striking immediacy the problems of economic injustice and the failure of
democracy by distancing the 1% from the 99%. The voices of the protest
are the voices of those who experience the injustice of the gap, who feel and
experience it in a way that is voiced in the demonstration, such as through the
occupation of a place like Wall Street, which symbolizes the power that has
profited at the majority’s expense, and when in trouble, when failing, calls
for help from the government and taxpayers—the very same citizens who
are now struggling to make ends meet. This is a movement of and with (see
Freire, 2000) the 99%—the movement is owned by the protestors themselves,
and their actions, their protests, give voice to an interest that previously was
silenced, ignored, or incorporated into the dominant discourse.
There is no official leader of the protests, boosting their status as a move-
ment of the people, and thereby instilling hope that perhaps this is the sort of
transformation owned by the oppressed of which Freire (2000) speaks. OWS
has spread to several cities around the country (and to other countries), and
what seems apparent is that the people involved in the movement, despite their
differences, have in common a desire to see socioeconomic change. The gap in
income distribution may offer the greatest potential for facilitating the emergence
of a new political consciousness, as far as there is a shared recognition among
individuals that the income gap is in fact a problem of social justice.
At this point, it is impossible to know what the eventual effect of these
protests will be. While the OWS group has been vocal in expressing frustra-
tions, its members have been vague in their demands, something for which
they have been criticized. However, for the time being it is this ambiguity that
allows people to remain united and to make their voices of discontent heard.

THE GAP PROBLEM

266 ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS VOL. 34, NO. 2

Indeed, one of the movement’s strengths may be that it has managed to include
so many different voices; the goal of instilling constructive change may best
be served through a discourse that contains possibilities for the reconstruction
of society as well as for the inclusion of conflicting viewpoints in the process
(Laclau & Mouffe, 2001; Mouffe, 2000; see also Connolly, 1995).
At some point OWS may need to sacrifice numbers for a more coherent
message, but at least it has gotten the conversation started, and has done so
in a way that is inclusive rather than exclusive or elitist. While some politi-
cians continue to denounce the OWS movement, they cannot ignore it, as
the protestors have succeeded in having their message become part of the
mainstream debate. For their part, public administrators need not participate
in the demonstrations so much as give recognition to its importance in their
teachings and practice.

Possibilities for Popular Forms of Communication

Social media, and especially social networks, may provide the newest avenue
for facilitating discourse on the problems related to economic inequality. Bryer
and Zavattaro define social media as “technologies that facilitate social interac-
tion, make possible collaboration, and enable deliberation across stakeholders”
(2011, p. 327). These tools hold promise for fostering communication among
citizens and between citizens and government. Social networks represent a
mechanism with the potential to facilitate political change because they al-
low people to connect based on similar interests and shared concerns without
the obstacle of geographic distance. For instance, Facebook has aided in the
spread of the OWS movement across the country and abroad, and the move-
ment relies extensively on the social network in providing information about
its goals and organizing marches and other events.
Social networks are not without their challenges. One obstacle with their
use is that public organizations may be resistant to two-way communication
with citizens, instead using the technology to control the message received
by the public and maintain the status quo (Bryer & Zavattaro, 2011; Hand &
Ching, 2011; Rishel, 2011). Insofar as public agencies adopt communication
tools such as Facebook within the context of their established norms, rules, and
procedures, the use of these tools may work to reinforce the existing power
structure between government agencies and the public, rather than to fulfill
the original intent of the communication tools of facilitating collaboration
among users (Bryer, 2011). Bryer warns that if the social media technology
is adopted in a way that goes against the expectations of citizens, and is used
merely as another government tool for one-way communication to the public
instead of for a two-way dialogue, this may hinder democratic participation
by decreasing citizen trust in government.
Dialogue regarding the limitations of opportunity and democratic partici-

THE GAP PROBLEM

NEILL 267

pation resulting from economic inequality must occur in a way that is under-
standable, relevant, and interesting. This communication could occur in the
form of analogies or metaphors. Note Dr. Martin Luther King’s metaphor of
a “dream,” as distinguished from the fictional fantasy of the American dream
as sold by the advantaged to the disadvantaged. More recently, the idea of a
“reverse Robin Hood” scheme has been applied to the efforts by conservatives
to cut aid to the poor and elderly while continuing tax breaks for the rich.
The oversimplification of this method may turn off some people dedicated
to the cause of raising class awareness. Freire warns that attempts at unifying
the masses that “rely on ‘slogans’ and do not deal with these fundamental
aspects [of class issues] produce a mere juxtaposition of individuals, giving
a purely mechanistic character to their action” (2000, p. 175). This point is
well taken. But it also seems that at the moment, these forms of “communica-
tion” are how messages are given and received. OWS makes significant use
of slogans: “We are the 99 percent”; “Lost my job, found an occupation”;
“Wall Street is our street.” (Does the reliance on messages of this kind suggest
a weakness in the OWS movement that has implications for its progression
and impact? This is an interesting question, the answer to which may be a
topic for a future article.) It may be that simplified communication of this sort
is necessary to get the conversation started. Once this occurs, the challenge
remains of moving beyond cursory sound bites to critical discussion.

Implications for Public Administration

At least since Dwight Waldo’s The Administrative State and the first Minnow-
brook Conference, there has been recognition among public administration
scholars that social equity is an issue that should be of concern to the field.
In practice, public administrators are responsible for the implementation
of government laws, policies, and services, and as such also have a duty
to ensure that government operates in an equitable manner (Wooldridge &
Gooden, 2009). Wooldridge and Gooden (2009) point to the establishment
of the Standing Panel on Social Equity by the National Academy of Public
Administration and its adoption of social equity as the fourth pillar of public
administration (along with economy, efficiency, and effectiveness) as an
indication of the increasing realization of the need to include social equity in
the public administration discourse.
Public organizations may have a role in relieving some of the problems
connected to economic disparities. As discussed above, bureaucratic agencies
have played a role in continuing the current power structure at the expense
of citizens with limited means and access. One way to reverse this would be
to “redesign . . . institutional structures” with the goal of promoting social
equity (Wooldridge & Gooden, 2009, p. 227). Within organizations, follow-
ing the model of representative bureaucracy, socioeconomic class may be

THE GAP PROBLEM

268 ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS VOL. 34, NO. 2

included as a characteristic to consider in affirmative action hiring policies

(see Oldfield, 2003). This may be an effective way of having the interests of
low- and middle-income individuals represented, and it could potentially be
more effective in having the interests of minorities represented as well.
One role of public administration is to foster civic awareness and dialogue, a
prerequisite for constructive change to occur. Any attempt at constructive change
through a pedagogy of class consciousness “must be forged with, not for, the
oppressed” (Freire, 2000, p. 48). According to Freire, it is this dialectical interac-
tion which provides the greatest possibilities for reflection and a heightened class
consciousness, necessary precursors to action. To bypass this dialogue and try
to instill change for the people without their input or only by trying to convince
them of a certain message goes against the intent of the change, “because the
people are drawn into the process by the same methods and procedures used
to oppress them” (Freire, 2000, p. 128). Establishing open forums for dialogue
and avenues for two-way communication is essential, as is creating arenas of
discourse where citizens frustrated with what they view as the injustices of
the state or the private sector may have their voices heard. One challenge that
remains is to get this dialogue started, to create enough excitement and interest
that people will want to participate in conversations for change. “Our central
problem is to identify the discursive conditions for the emergence of a collective
action, directed towards struggling against inequalities and challenging relations
of subordination” (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001, p. 153).
Public administration scholars have a responsibility to educate their students
on the issues related to socioeconomic status and democratic exclusion and to
urge them to carry this awareness with them to their places of employment.
Oldfield (2003) and Oldfield, Candler, and Johnson (2006) call on professional
organizations such as the American Society for Public Administration to lead
the way in revising course curricula to include a discussion of class.
Furthermore, as may be suggested by the discussion earlier in this article of
social media, administrators in public organizations play an important role in
determining whether these communication tools are used to foster citizen en-
gagement and facilitate discourse between citizens and their government (Hand
& Ching, 2011). Much depends on the values the administrators emphasize. If
they see enhancing citizenship as their role, as opposed to maintaining admin-
istrative power, and including citizen concerns in the decision-making process
rather than making decisions for citizens, public administrators have the ability
to use social media as a mechanism for the advancement of public participation
and representation (Brainard & Derrick-Mills, 2011; Bryer, 2011).
If we accept the argument that one remedy to economic injustice is through
public policies regarding employment, income distribution, and education, and if
we accept that the field of public administration has a responsibility to promote
social equity, then it seems there is a place for public administration scholars to
conduct research regarding how more equitable policies may be implemented,

THE GAP PROBLEM

NEILL 269

as well as to educate practitioners to approach their service in the public sector

with the goals of enhancing social equity and democratic participation.

CONCLUSION

Socioeconomic inequality is a problem that goes beyond the gap in income to

affect multiple areas of individual lives regarding opportunities for educational
advancement, access to health care, social mobility, cultural development, civic
awareness, and opportunities for political participation. It becomes a problem for
society insofar as the majority of Americans are now on the losing side of the gap
in income and thus feel the burden of the restrictions on access to nonmaterial
goods. This has implications for the well-being of our economy and our democratic
system of governance. While the factual existence of economic inequality is not
in dispute, what remains in dispute is the justice or fairness of such differences
in relation to the equal rights of citizens to opportunities for advancement and
democratic representation. This debate harks back to the idea of a gap in values
between those who are concerned with the well-being of society as a whole and
those who are concerned primarily with individual success and the freedom to
pursue profits. The OWS protests provide a glimmer of hope that the discourse
in this country may be changing in a way that includes the concerns of socioeco-
nomic inequality as they relate to one’s ability to pursue the necessities of life
and to have one’s interests represented in the political arena.
There is a special responsibility on the part of public administration to bring
a problem of such critical importance to the forefront of American discourse.
Frederickson states: “A public administration that fails to work for changes
that try to address this deprivation will likely eventually be used to oppress
the deprived” (1997, p. 38). From a critical perspective, the field of public
administration has not just a duty to bring attention to class and citizenship
inequalities, but an obligation to question the validity of the overarching
system of government structures. Farmer draws on the proverbial Socratic
gadfly to argue that the field has the task of “stinging us into acknowledging
that our intellectual grids are deficient” (1997, p. 110). Beyond the field of
public administration, there is a universal responsibility for all citizens to take
part in contributing to the professed ideals of “liberty and justice for all” in
a democratic society.

REFERENCES

Alkadry, M.G., & Blessett, B. (2010). Aloofness or dirty hands? Administrative

culpability in the making of the second ghetto. Administrative Theory &
Praxis, 32, 552–576.
Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizenship participation. Journal of Ameri-
can Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224.

THE GAP PROBLEM

270 ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS VOL. 34, NO. 2

Bevir, M. (2010). Democratic governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Box, R.C. (2005). Critical social theory in public administration. Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Box, R.C., Marshall, G.S., Reed, B.J., & Reed, C.M. (2001). New Public Manage-
ment and substantive democracy. Public Administration Review, 61, 608–619.
Brainard, L.A., & Derrick-Mills, T. (2011). Electronic commons, community
policing, and communications: Online police-citizen discussion groups in
Washington, DC. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33, 383–410.
Bryer, T.A. (2011). The costs of democratization: Social media adaptation chal-
lenges within government agencies. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33,
341–361.
Bryer, T.A., & Zavattaro, S.M. (2011). Social media and public administration:
Theoretical dimensions and introduction to the symposium. Administrative
Theory & Praxis, 33, 325–340.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Chomsky on miseducation. (D. Macedo, Ed.). New York:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Connolly, W.E. (1995). The ethos of pluralization. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Domhoff, W.G. (2011). Wealth, income, and power. Who rules America?
Available at http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html,
accessed August 24.
Farmer, D.J. (1997). The postmodern turn and the Socratic gadfly. In H.T.
Miller and C.J. Fox (Eds.), Postmodernism, “reality” & public administra-
tion: A discourse (pp. 105–117). Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press.
Farmer, D.J. (2010). Public administration in perspective: Theory and practice
through multiple lenses. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Ferguson, K.E. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Frederickson, G.H. (1997). New public administration. Tuscaloosa: University
of Alabama Press.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gudrais, E. (2008, July/August). Unequal America. Harvard Magazine.
Hand, L.C., & Ching, B.D. (2011). “You have one friend request”: An explora-
tion of power and citizen engagement in local governments’ use of social
media. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33, 362–382.
Hillygus, D.S. (2005). The missing link: Exploring the relationship between
higher education and political engagement. Political Behavior, 27, 25–47.
King, C.S., & Zanetti, L.A. (2005). Transformational public service: Portraits
of theory and practice. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a
radical democratic politics (2nd Ed.). New York: Verso.
MacKinnon, B. (1998). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues (2nd Ed.).
New York: Wadsworth.
March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1986). Popular sovereignty and the search for ap-
propriate institutions. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 341–370.
Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man. Boston: Beacon Press.
Martin, E.J. (2009). Critical social analysis and service learning methods:
Investigating social class and inequality through MPA courses. Public
Administration Quarterly, 33, 610–634.

THE GAP PROBLEM

NEILL 271

Mikulak, B. (1990). Classism and equal opportunity: A proposal for affirmative

action in education based on social class. Howard Law Journal, 33, 113–133.
Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. New York: Verso.
O’Brien, R. (1997). Taking the conservative state seriously: Statebuilding and
restrictive labor practices in postwar America. Labor Studies Journal, 21,
33–63.
Oldfield, K. (2003). Social class and public administration: A closed question
opens. Administration & Society, 35, 438–461.
Oldfield, K. (2010). Using critical theory to teach public administration stu-
dents about social class inequalities. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32,
450–472.
Oldfield, K., Candler, G., & Johnson, R.G. (2006). Social class, sexual orienta-
tion, and toward proactive social equity scholarship. American Review of
Public Administration, 36, 156–172.
Phillips, K. (2002). Wealth and democracy: A political history of the American
rich. New York: Broadway Books.
Ray, L.J. (1993). Rethinking critical theory: Emancipation in the age of global
social movements. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Reich, R.B. (2010). Aftershock: The next economy and America’s future. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Rishel, N.M. (2011). Digitizing deliberation: Normative concerns for the use
of social media in deliberative democracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis,
33, 411–432.
Savage, C. (2011, December 13). Holder signals tough review of new state laws
on voting. New York Times. Available at www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/
politics/in-speech-holder-to-critique-new-voting-laws.html, accessed Janu-
ary 7, 2012.
Thomas, C. (2011, July 15). Obama’s endless class warfare. Virginian-Pilot.
Wooldridge, B., & Gooden, S. (2009). The epic of social equity: Evolution, es-
sence, and emergence. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31, 222–234.
Zanetti, L.A., & Carr, A.N. (1998). Exploring the psychodynamics of political
change. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 20, 358–376.

Katharine A. Neill (knei1001@odu.edu) is a doctoral student at Old Do-

minion University. Her research interests include social equity issues, public-
private partnerships, and various areas of social policy, including education
and criminal justice policy.

THE GAP PROBLEM

Copyright of Administrative Theory & Praxis (M.E. Sharpe) is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.