This review of the comparative policy literature aims to further understand the relationship between social policy programs and income inequality, in particular, examining whether or not income inequality is a choice. According to our textbook, chap. 35 focuses mainly on the discussion of the welfare state, poverty reduction and spending on social policies. For example, our textbook provides the example of Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia, showing that economic openness was associated with a decline in the level of spending on social policies (Kaufman and Segura-Ubiergo 2001). Unlike our textbook, however, this review of the comparative politics literature aims to examine more countries than just Latin America, drawing on previous studies conducted over the past 30 years. What struck me most in conducting this research is the growing importance of further understanding how social policy programmes, welfare states and income inequality have been studied for some time, however further work is needed in the field of comparative politics to fully understand their relationships. The question I will explain is this: Is income inequality a choice or not? Analyze the role that comparative politics plays in spending on social policies and how income inequality is increased or decreased in relation to the amount of money spent on social policy programs. Social policy programs are critical to the survival of many citizens around the world. They help bring basic services along with other things to many populations. The growing debate seeks to answer whether or not countries that implement social welfare programs at higher rates than countries that do not have a better chance of limiting income inequality. We can draw on previous research conducted through comparative policy studies that illustrates social programs that, in fact, help citizens improve incomes. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Additionally, it is important to note that other comparative politics studies have found conflicting opinions that increasing the number of social policy programs is necessary to help reduce income inequality may not be helpful after all. These two contrasting opinions are quite interesting since the goal of my research question is to determine whether income inequality is a choice or not. Poverty reduction is the focal point for many political parties around the world. For example, the role of government is to improve the quality of life of its citizens. Income inequality is one of the crucial points for improving the quality of life of its citizens because the wider the gap between certain groups of people can result in the loss of the middle class. Can you think of a place where this is happening right now? If you were thinking about the United States, you would be right. There has been much discussion about the disappearance of the middle class, the rise of the elite, and the absence of social policy programs geared towards helping people financially. After reading many different articles on social spending, the welfare state, and income inequality, I have selected a number of different comparative politics studies that help explain whether or not income inequality is a choice. Much of the literature on government anti-poverty policies focuses on the behavioral effects of these policies, for example on labor supply, participation,turnover and family structure (Moffitt 1992). According to Carnes and Mares (2007), early studies on social policy fusion hypothesized that economic growth and development were key factors explaining the emergence and expansion of modern welfare states. According to Cares and Mares (2007), these processes would lead to an increase in employment and technological capacity. Wilensky (1975) thought that this would incentivize governments to educate their workforce and protect older people who were no longer able to serve in industry, which, in turn, would lead to higher levels of social spending. One set of explanations has focused on the labor market needs of employers (Carnes and Mares 2007). Income-related benefits are important because people in highly skilled positions are incentivized to produce better results, thus increasing their income. Unfortunately, the opposite can be said for people in low-wage job positions. People in low-wage job positions are less likely to receive incentives as social policies geared towards income-related benefits focus primarily on high-skilled jobs. Mares (2003,2005) describes these types of social policies as tools for maintaining skills (p. 877). Social policies that act as skill retention tools can help keep employees in the same position by creating greater competition within the market. We can think about this from a comparative politics perspective when we examine why some countries' income inequality may be lower than others or perhaps how some countries use social policies to improve income inequality. Income inequality can be attributed to a number of factors and Mares (2003,2005) sheds light on how income-related social policy programs are helping to reduce income inequality. By examining European countries such as Sweden and Denmark we see the positive effects that the implementation of social policy programs can have in efforts to reduce income inequality. Esping-Anderson (2016) explains that welfare states are places where the government redistributes resources, allocations, etc. with the hope of improving the current levels of housing, employment and social markets of its citizens. For example, looking at the statistics, Denmark and Sweden have very low income inequality among their citizens. In fact, previous studies show that Denmark has the lowest income inequality in the world! The United States, however, is very different from the two countries mentioned above. People living in poverty in the United States tend to live in poverty longer than those living in Sweden and Denmark (Esping-Anderson 2016). Swedish and Danish citizens may experience poverty at some point in their lives, however they are able to escape poverty at a much faster rate than citizens of the United States. Why? TO better understand this phenomenon, I will create a hypothetical example that illustrates the differences. For example, for every dollar of income the United States receives, 30 cents could be spent to support social and educational policies, while countries like Sweden and Denmark could spend 60 cents to help their citizens. Citizens who receive this type of help can benefit from it in several ways. Let's think about the working citizen, who is currently too old to work but who suddenly receives an income, or the citizen who cannot work due to a disability. Social and educational policy programs help people in a number of ways to..