In Liberalism Against Populism, and much public choice literature, it can be hard to escape the conclusion that the only thing we can predict is that things change in ways we can’t.
The question than becomes whether things shall revert to a mean, or continually shift equilibrium. If things revert to the mean, that suggests that coalitions are generally able to reform quickly, and adjust, meaning shifting power. This is because if you are able to control all resources in a democratic system, the losing coalition can always create situations that’ll pit the dominant coalition against each other. In turn, this’ll create a scenario where power shifts pretty regularly, and tends to encourage mild egalitarianism (it’s easier to pay poor people off relative to rich people because less to lose.)
This formula might not hold, provided growth headwinds happen. If more money is created over time, and people are generally happy with an administration, one imagines that the administration can continue to thrive, and push further in the direction of their ideology. Insofar as their ideology is positive sum, there can be a somewhat virtuous cycle wherein power remains stunningly consistent over time.
I tend to think most theories of power tend to believe that coalitions are able to reform quickly and shift power. This is because there’s only so much space for elites. Insofar as things are set up, it’s hard to get rid of them. I build out government departments, those departments are concentrated votes, which means those departments tend to be self-licking ice cream cones in that they maintain velocity.
However, if these jobs become less desirable, and handouts in general matter less than economic growth, you might see a situation where it’s easy to remove large amount of career bureaucrats because you assume the labor market can handle it, and the efficiency gains from less redistribution manifest.
Isadore Johnson's Website 