The Sociology of Inequalities
in Europe & Elsewhere
Göran Therborn
University of Cambridge
1
Inequality & Difference
What is the difference?
• Difference
– Non-identity
– No implication of
commonality
– May or may not be
changeable
– May or may not divide into
better-worse, higher-lower
– Expresses some kind of
unquestioned order
– Characteristically traditional
or post-modern
• Inequality
– Non-idenitity
– Some implication of
commonality
– Is changeable
– Divides into higher & lower
– Violates some norm of
equality
– Inequality, a feature of
modernity
2
3 Kinds of Inequality, inter-related
but each with its own dynamics
• Vital inequality
– Life-chances of human organisms, life & health expectancy
• Existential inequality
– Unequal allocation of recognition & respect to persons
– Something more profound than ”status” or ”prestige”, more
deeply affecting humans as persons
• Resource inequality, of actors
– A. Inequality of access to culture, education, employment,
career, to social contacts, (inequality of opportunity)
– B. Inequality of rewards, of income, wealth.
3
Mechanisms of Inequality
& of Equality
• Of Inequality
• Distantiation
– Running ahead, falling
behind
• Exclusion
• Hierarchization
• Exploitation
• Of Equality
• Approximation
– Catching up,
affirmative action
• Inclusion
• De-hierachization
• Redistribution,
Rehabilitation
4
Vital Inequality
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Vital inequality of classes a modern phenomenon, first noticeable in l8th
century Britain
Most persistent of class inequalities, more of it in l990s than in l910s
In Western Europe most class pronounced in Finland, France, and Britain
Can be locally dramatic: the gap in life expectancy between two areas of
Glasgow in l990s is 28 years, the same as between Britain and subSaharian Africa
The national gap of life expectancy at birth in the EU is 22 years, 65.3 for
Lithauanian males, 83.7 for Spanish females
Italians live longest healthy lives
National intra-gender gap in the EU, 13 yers for men (Swedes most
longlived), 8 years for women (Romanians die first)
Gender inequality most pronounced in Eastern Europe, 13 years in Russia,
11 years in Eastern EU, 6 years in Western Europe
The genetic advantage of women in longevity is below world average in
sub-Saharan Africa, in South Asia, and in the Arab countries, in that order.
5
Existential Inequality: Landmarks
• Class/estate inequality before the law: Bourgeois
revolution, ”1789”
• Racism: rising in l9th - early 20th century, de-legitimzed
by l945, institutionalized in USA until 1965-70, in South
Africa until early l990s.
– Non-institutional racism still frequent, Roma in Eastern Europe,
Asians in Russia, dark immigrants in Italy & other Western
Europe
• Patriarchy/Sexism: prolonged legal process in Western
Europe, from Sweden in l920 to France in l970, to Britain
by l973, Italy in l975, Germany in l976, Greece,
Netherlands, & Switzerland in l983-84
– After patriarchy: gender resource inequality.
6
Existential Inequality:
Persistent Status Impact
• The vital/mortal effect of bureaucratic status, the
British Whitehall (central bureaucracy study of
late 20th century)
– Risk of dying at age 40-64, ratio of bottom to
top echelons: 4:1
• A doctorate is good for your health
– % dying at 66-70 in Sweden in the l990s:
• Secondary education 11, tertiary 9, doctorate 6.
7
Income Inequality
Mid-2000s, Gini coefficients
•
Market Income
•
•
Disposable Income
Egalitarian Europe
– Denmark
0.39
– Sweden
0.39
Central Europe
– Austria
0.35
– Belgium
0.43
– Finland
0.38
– France
0.36
– Germany
0.43
– Netherlands 0.41
– Norway
0.40
Inegalitarian Europe
– Ireland
0.47
– Italy
0.47
– UK
0.46
Memorandum countries
– Japan
0.37
– S. Korea
0.33
– USA
0.47
•
Egalitarian Europe
– Denmark
0.23
– Sweden
0.23
Central Europe
– Austria
0.27
– Belgium
0.27
– Finland
0.27
– France
0.28
– Germany
0.30
– Nertherlands 0.27
– Norway
0.28
– Switzerland 0.28
Inegalitarian Europe
– Greece
0.32
– Ireland
0.33
– Italy
0.35
– Poland
0.37
– Portugal
0.39
– Spain
0.32
– UK
0.34
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Most inegalitarian Europe
– Russia
0.43
– Ukraine ?
....
Memorandum countries
– Japan
0.32
– S. Korea
0.31
– Mexico
0.47
– Turkey
0.43
– USA
0.38
8
Income Inequality in 2007
Quintile share ratios,
ratio of the total disposable income share of the
richest fifth to that of the poorest
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Below EU Average (4.8)
Slovenia
Sweden
Czech Rep.
Slovakia
Finland
Denmark
Norway
Hungary
Bulgaria
Austria
France
Malta
Belgium
Netherlands
Luxemburg
Cyprus
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.5
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Above EU Average (4.8)
Portugal
Latvia
Greece
Lithuania
Estonia
Italy
UK
Poland
Romania
Spain
Germany
Ireland
6.5
6.3
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.0
4.8
9
Income Inequality Trends
•
•
•
•
•
•
Over the long run, national income distributions in the developed countries
became more equal in the 20th century, with the two World Wars and the
Depression of the l930s bringing major changes.
Post-World War II welfare state developments and full employment continued
equalization, until about 1980.
Since l980 there is general tendency towards more inequality, but it is very
uneven, and there are exceptions. ”Globalization” is no good explanation.
Market and disposable income after taxes and transfers, have variably
correlated trajectories, closely following each other in France, Germany,
Britain, and the US, but very divergent in Canada, Denmark and Japan, since
the mid-90s in Italy.
While there is a main OECD tendency towards more inequality, most
pronounced in the UK, in New Zealand,and the US, French inequality has
gone down after l980, the Australian since late l990s, and the Greek since
about 2000. Itay had a striking increase of inequality in the first haf of the
l990s, which tapered off after that, in terms of disposable income, while
continuing to rise on the market.
Usually, rising inequality has been driven by the top 1% distantiating
themselves from the rest. But in Italy from the mid-80s to mid-90s and in USA
in the l990s, the income of the bottom 20% actually declined in real terms.
10
Dynamics of Income Inequality
I. Market Income
• Market opportunities & exclusions
– Unemployment rate
– Sectoral productivity divides, e.g. small-scale argiculture vs. the
rest of the economy
– Class relations, e.g., unionization & collective barganing
– Precarious & part-time employment
– Employment opportunities for single mothers & for nonprofessional women with kids
• Earnings dispersion
– Degree of hierarchization
– Gender & ethnic discrimination
• Capital income
– Size & distribution, usually falling in recessions.
11
Dynamics of Income Inequality
II. Demography
• Household composition
Tending to increase inequality:
• More single parents
• More children, less female employment among the
poor
• More single households
• Class endogamy, esp. Professionals & managers
marrying professionals & managers
• Larger proportion of elderly.
12
Dynamics of Income Inequality
III. Possibilities of Redistribution
• Three policy lines: transfers, taxation, public services
• Transfers, pensions, sick and unemployment payments
etc., are most importanrt, 2:1 in relation to taxes
• Together, transfers and taxes reduce about 40% of market
income inequality in Denmark & Sweden, around 25% in
Italy and Britain, 18% in the US, and 5% in South Korea
• Public services of education, health etc., diminish
inequality, but their distributive impact is difficult to
calculate, and therefore controversial
• The size of public services redistribution is probably similar
to that of taxes, in most countries.
13
Conclusion
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inequality has three fundamental dimensions, four basic mechanisms, &
several dynamic pathways.
Existential inequality was the main social target of modernity, but in more
subtle forms, as social status, it has persisted, governing enduring vital
inequality, of early death.
State policies, though operating in socio-economic-demographic contexts,
have been crucial in the past, and maintain their capacity in the current
wave of globalization.
European economic inequality has four major divisions, with Denmark &
Sweden in the Premier League, Central Europe in the Second, a Third
Europe of the South, the East,and the West (the British Isles), and, finally,
Russia, and probably the Ukraine.
Europe, east of the British Isles, west of Poland, and north of the Alps, is the
least unequal part of the world.
In comparison with Northeast Asia, with a relatively egalitarian distribution of
market income, this European position is due to its welfare state and its
correction for market inequality.
The main mechanism of recent inequality has been the distantiation of the
top 1-10 per cent from the rest of population.
14