Veto points let minorities block change and enrich the affluent

Evidence

Second, when multiple veto opportunities exist, preventing change requires success at only one point, while achieving change requires success at all of them (Hacker and Pierson 2010). Hacker and Pierson use the term “drift,” which occurs “when the effects of public policies change substantially due to shifts in the surrounding economic or social context and then, despite the recognition of alternatives, policy makers fail to update policies due to pressure from intense minority interests or political actors exploiting veto points in the political process” (p. 170). According to their analyses, the US political context has favored drift, which has benefited high-­income citizens. This is yet another way that nondecisions can favor the affluent. — Mikael Persson and Anders Sundell, Blocking the Poor, 39

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘drift’ as policy effects changing as context shifts while policymakers refuse to update, producing nondecisions that favor the affluent.
• DEEPTHINKING: The asymmetry — change needs success at every veto point, blocking at just one — is a structural insight reshaping how one reads any ‘democratic responsiveness’ finding.