Swan's missing middle misses analysis

On top of disposable income, Swan believes that these disparate groups of people are united in their cultural outlook. Both the ‘battler’ and the ‘Mallers’ have a dislike for welfare, want governments to stand up to vocal minorities and vested interests, and champion the view that rewards hard work.

How the connection is made between disposable income and cultural outlook on these matters isn’t explained. It is, of course, a classic reductionist move that’s common in a range of social science. But if it’s to be useful politically, it would be worth knowing (a) whether or not such views are prevalent across these diverse demographic groups and (b) if so, what is the relationship between cultural outlook and demographic characteristics.

Without these sorts of answers, one is left wondering whether or not ascribing these attitudes to this spatially and demographically defined group – ‘the missing middle’ – is a function of transference rather than sober analysis.

An alternative analysis

I’ve already published a demographic analysis of the 2001 election elsewhere, so in what follows I will concentrate on three demographic characteristics and the voting behaviour associated with each.

These are measures of personal and household income, monthly mortgage levels and type of schools that children attend. These have been chosen because they are central to Swan’s analysis, in the way he describes the ‘missing middle’.

The demographic correlation analysis presented here is based in multi-factor regression modeling undertaken using the demographic model developed by Australian Development Strategies. The model – called Elaborate – includes over 450 ABS demographic variables derived from the Census and privately derived data. (Details of the analysis can be found at www.australiandevelopmentstrategies.com.au).

Income and voting behaviour

According to the correlation analysis, Labor gained the support of very low-income males where positive swings were also achieved, but tended to lose support among very low income females (individuals earning less than $200 a week – 1996 Census figures).

Labor continued to receive support from men earning between $79-199 a week, and gained swings to it from men earning between $39 and 119 a week. Strong two-party preferred (2PP) support was also evident among middle-income males (those earning $600-699 a week), though swings against the party were evident in these two groups.

Statistically significant correlations for support are found between Labor’s 2PP vote and men earning $79-159 a week. As for swings gained by Labor, a statistically significant correlation was evident for men earning up to $39 a week.

As for women, Labor received support from women earning between $159-199 a week, with women earning $120-159 a week being the strongest predictor of 2PP support for Labor. However, despite continued support among these lower income groups, Labor suffered swings against it among women in lower income groups. Interestingly, Labor gained swings from women earning over $600 a week – whereas it suffered swings against it from men in the $600-plus income groups.

The data confirms Swan’s claims that Labor made gains among the lower income groups (the so-called ‘battlers’), though this is really only the case with regards to men. Middle income men also supported Labor (weekly earnings $500-699), though these groups did swing against the ALP.

However, apart from this, the analysis shows that Swan’s analysis is insufficiently subtle. Importantly, it shows that contrary to Swan’s claims Labor actually gained swings among middle income females (weekly earnings in excess of $600 a week).