Christopher Faricy
Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, Syracuse University
Areas of Expertise:
Connect with Christopher
About Christopher
Faricy’s main area of interest is in the politics of income inequality. Specifically, he examines how political parties use changes to tax policy to distribute federal money and how public opinion on tax breaks and inequality influences policymakers and public policy outcomes.
Contributions
No Jargon Podcast
In the News
Christopher Faricy's research on , "March 22 Luncheon: Expert Dissects America's "Welfare for the Wealthy'," The Progressive Pulse, March 13, 2018.
"Donald Trump’s Tax Plan Would Mean Huge Breaks for Millionaires like Trump," Christopher Faricy, The Washington Post, March 15, 2017.
"Both the Clinton and Trump Child-Care Tax Plans Have an Appeal — But to Very Different Voters," Christopher Faricy, The Washington Post, August 25, 2016.
Interview on contested presidential national conventions Christopher Faricy, The Daily Orange, May 2, 2016.
"How the U.S. Tax System Disadvantages Racial Minorities," Christopher Faricy, The Washington Post, April 18, 2016.
Christopher Faricy quoted on Iowa's averages in economic concerns by Laura Lorenzetti, "How Closely Does Iowa Resemble the U.S.?" Fortune, January 20, 2016.
Christopher Faricy's research on 'Welfare for the Wealthy' discussed by , "All Things Being Unequal," New York Times, December 15, 2015.
"5 Things You Should Know about the Republican Welfare State," Christopher Faricy, Vox, November 2, 2015.
Christopher Faricy quoted on how individuals perceive social spending by Sean McElwee, "How to Actually Beat These Guys: The Trick That Could Get Republicans behind Redistribution" Salon, October 31, 2015.
"Can Americans be Sold on Dave Camp’s Tax Reform?," Christopher Faricy (with ), The Washington Post, March 5, 2014.
Christopher Faricy quoted on how government spending drives public opinion by John Sides, "How Government Spending Moves Public Opinion: It Depends on Redistribution" The Washington Post, February 28, 2013.
Christopher Faricy quoted on private social welfare spending by Dan Froomkin, "Social Welfare State, American-Style, Means Relief for the Rich" Huffington Post, January 13, 2012.
Christopher Faricy quoted on federal government spending by Kevin Drum, "Chart of the Day: Republican vs. Democratic Spending" Mother Jones, February 21, 2011.
Publications
"The Distributive Politics of Tax Expenditures: How Parties Use Policy Tools to Distribute Revenue across Classes" Politics, Groups, and Identities (forthcoming).
Establishes that while both political parties increase the number of tax breaks when in power, Democrats increase the level of tax credits that distribute money to the working poor and Republicans raise the level of tax deductions, which accrues more money to the rich.
"The Other Side of the Coin: Public Attitudes towards Social Tax Expenditures and Inequality in America" (with ) (The Russell Sage Foundation, forthcoming).
Examines how citizens form attitudes about social tax breaks and how these fit with their opinions about egalitarianism and inequality.
"Welfare for the Wealthy: Parties, Social Spending, and Inequality in the United States" (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Shows that Republicans increase social spending through the tax code, which benefits businesses and wealthier workers and increases income inequality over time.
"Public Attitudes towards Direct Spending vs. Tax Expenditures in the United States" (with ). Political Behavior 36, no. 1 (2014): 53-76.
Presents evidence that citizens prefer social spending delivered as a tax break, although support diminishes once respondents learn that most benefits go to the rich. Argues that Democrats and Independents reduce their preferences for regressive social tax expenditures while Republicans are not influenced by this same information.
"Social Policy and Public Opinion: How the Ideological Direction of Spending Influences Public Mood" (with ). Journal of Politics 73, no. 4 (2011): 1095-1110.
Documents that the mass public responds to increases in the number and value of tax breaks by calling for policy to move in a more liberal direction.