Social Change and Inequality: Key Terms/Concept

Social Class and Poverty

• Social class is presented as a contested and multifaceted concept, encompassing prestige, status, culture, lifestyles, and unequally structured access to economic and power resources.

• The course differentiates between descriptive ("gradational") and explanatory ("relational") accounts of class inequality.

Absolute poverty

Lack of sufficient resources for basic life necessities, measured by an absolute income level (e.g., $2.15 per person per day in PPP).

Relative poverty

Lack of resources to meet minimum living standards considered normal in a given society, measured by a relative income level (e.g., less than 60% of median, equivalized household disposable income)

Defining Social Class:

Consumption Lifestyles/Patterns: One possible definition focuses on differences in consumption habits. 

Access to Resources (Sociological Definition): A more prominent sociological definition views class as unequally structured access to economic and power resources, contingent on one's position in the capitalist market. 

Class as Social and Political Actors: Class can be seen as a potential agent for social and political action, exemplified by concepts like class consciousness. 

Approaches to Class: Gradational (Descriptive

Asks "What differences?" and is descriptive in nature. 

(describe socio-economic positions, don’t explain it → a bit more/less):

Income groups of classes

Occupational prestige scales

Socio-economic status scales

Number of educational years completed

Approaches to Class: Relational (Explanatory):

Asks "Why unequal access?" and explains structural differences. 

(describe socio-economic positions and also explain it using relations between positions e.g. labour is used so you’re lower class → deep cleavages):

Neo-Weberian class scheme of Goldthorpe

Neo-Marxist class scheme of Wright

Measuring Social Class:

• Gradational Scales: These are descriptive and include:

  • Income groups or classes: Categorizing individuals based on their percentage of median income (e.g., bottom, lower-middle, core-middle, upper-middle, top).

  • Occupational prestige scales: Continuous scales based on the popular evaluation of occupational standing (e.g., SIOPS of Treiman, 1977), often correlated with other classifications and showing cross-national consensus.

  • Socio-economic status scales: Continuous scales more objective than prestige scales, based on average education and income of job holders (e.g., ISEI, 1992).

Orthodox Consensus vs. Conflict Theorists:

Orthodox 'Consensus' (1950s-1960s): Adherents of this view (functionalists) saw prestige scales as functional. They used a positivist framework, analyzing objective mechanisms like income. The liberal industrial society thesis argued that industrialization leads to more growth and less inequality. 

Orthodox Consensus vs. Conflict Theorists:

Conflict Theorists (1960s): Reacting to the consensus view, these theorists used a (post-)positivist framework, viewing class as objective but with subjective elements (status, morals). They focused on exploitation, class differences, and relational class schemes, emphasizing the working class and cleavages.

Employment-Aggregated Approach:

• Dominant in sociological research, reflecting multiple dimensions of economic and power resources. 

• Often based on occupational titles, but the ISCO scales change, and issues arise with economically inactive individuals (students, pensioners). The "dominance approach" (highest income per household) is male-oriented. 

• Does not adequately address the overrepresentation of ethnic groups in certain classes or gender discrimination. 

Occupational Prestige Scales:

• Continuous scales based on popular evaluation of occupational standing (subjectivist). 

• Survey-based and strongly correlated with other classifications, showing high cross-national consensus. 

• Disadvantage: Does not analyze underlying class conditions. 

Socio-economic Status Scales:

• Continuous scales based on skill, income level, and education. 

• More objective than prestige scales, based on average education and income of job holders. 

• Disadvantage: Only descriptive, does not measure class distinctions

Neo-Weberian Class Scheme of Goldthorpe:

• Relational Class Schemes: These provide explanatory accounts of class inequality:

  • Neo-Weberian class scheme of Goldthorpe: Based on market situation (employer, employee, self-employed) and employment relationships, considering factors like monitoring difficulty and asset specificity. It classifies individuals into categories like "service contract," "mixed contract," and "labor contract," leading to groupings such as higher salariat, lower salariat, white-collar, blue-collar, and routine workers.

  • Neo-Marxist class scheme of Wright: Based on relations to the means of production (owner, employee) and relations to authority (number of employees, skill, delegated authority), classifying individuals as capitalists, small employers, experts, skilled workers, etc..

Measuring Social Inequality: Gini coefficient

A synthetic index ranging from 0 (complete equality) to 1 (complete inequality), based on the Lorenz curve. It measures the distribution of income or capital

Measuring Social Inequality: Robin Hood index (Hoover Index or Schutz index)

Also a synthetic index ranging from 0 to 1, based on Lorenz curve, representing the proportion of total income that would need to be redistributed from the rich to the poor to achieve perfect equality.

Measuring Social Inequality: Deciles and Percentiles in Distribution Tables

Strongly advocated by Thomas Piketty, this method uses distribution tables to show the shares of different groups (deciles and percentiles) in total income or capital, offering a more concrete understanding of inequality.

Uses deciles and percentiles in distribution tables to offer a more concrete understanding of social inequality that is comparable across countries and time. For instance, the top 1% is considered the dominant class, top 0.1% the well-to-do, top 10% the upper class, middle 40% the middle class, and bottom 50% the lower class. 

Simon Kuznets (1901-1985

A Nobel Prize winner in Economic Sciences (1971), whose initial study on income inequality in the US (1913-1948) showed a sharp reduction. 

The Kuznets Curve

This concept posits that as countries industrialize and incomes grow, income inequality initially rises and then automatically decreases. It was formulated as a universal law, representing an endogenous (internal) logic of capitalism

Critiques of the Kuznets Curve: It is criticized for not being universal, failing to explain the recent increase in income inequality in rich countries since the 1980s, and not accounting for exogenous shocks

Thomas Piketty

A French economist known for his work, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," which emphasizes understanding macro-level evolutions in capital and income to comprehend income inequalities between people

National Income:

Defined as capital income plus labor income, or domestic output plus/minus net income from/to abroad

Capital

Nonhuman capital (financial and nonfinancial, including debts), valued by its market value. National capital equals private capital plus public capital, or domestic capital plus/minus net foreign capital

Capital/Income Ratio (β): 

The ratio of national capital to national income (β=national incomenational capital​) (national capital divided by national income)

Metamorphoses of Capital in Europe

The capital/income ratio in Europe showed a U-shaped curve, falling from 600-700% in the 18th-19th centuries to 200-300% between 1914-1945, and then more than doubling to 500-600% since WWII. This change is due to the decline of farmland value, growth of real estate, and accumulation of business and financial capital. The fall of capital between 1914-1945 is attributed to the world wars (limited explanation), expropriations, falling real estate and stock values, and new financial regulations and taxation. 

Capital in the US: 

Capital is less significant in the US compared to Europe, partly due to less valuable farmland and immigrants not possessing much capital. There were significant differences between the more egalitarian North and the slavery-based South, but almost no fall in the capital/income ratio in the US. 

First Law of Capitalism (α=r×β)

This law states that the share of capital income in national income (α) is the product of the rate of return on capital (r) and the capital/income ratio (β). Piketty predicts that the capital share in total income will increase. 

Second Law of Capitalism (β=gs​): 

In the long run, the capital/income ratio (β) equals the saving rate of national income (s) divided by the growth rate of national income (g).

Comeback of Capital

Since 1970, capital has seen a comeback in Europe due to low growth rates, lower demographic growth than the US, higher saving rates in continental Europe, public debts, and a rebound in real estate and stock market prices since the 1950s

Central Contradiction of Capitalism (r>g): 

Piketty's central argument is that the rate of return on capital (r) tends to be greater than the growth rate of the economy (g). This historical observation, not a logical necessity, means wealth accumulated in the past recapitalizes faster than the economy grows, leading to increased income inequality and a rising share of capital income. The 20th century was an exception due to exogenous shocks. 

Measuring Income Inequality (Piketty's Approach)

Piketty strongly advocates for using distribution tables with deciles and percentiles of total income or capital, as they are comparable across countries and time, offering a more concrete understanding of social inequality

Historic Trends in Total Income Distribution

A clear U-shaped pattern is observed, with a downward trend from the Belle Époque to the mid-1970s, followed by an upward trend after 1980. Inequality differs between the EU and US due to different underlying drivers, with capital inequality generally greater than wage inequality. 

Structure of Inequality

Piketty advocates using distribution tables showing shares of deciles and percentiles in total income or capital to understand inequality, as this provides a more concrete and comparable understanding than synthetic indices. Income inequality has shown a clear U-shaped pattern: a downward trend from the Belle Époque to the mid-1970s, followed by an upward trend after 1980. Capital inequality has decreased until the 1970s and slightly increased since the 1980s, while wage inequality has increased since the 1980s in the US. This transition is described as moving from a "rentier society" to a "society of managers".

Branko Milanović

His work, "Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization," is a core component of this class

Milanović's Explanation of Global Inequality

• 19th Century to 1950: Characterized by increasing global inequality, driven by industrialization and colonization leading to a growing gap between West and East.

• 1950 - 2000: Global inequality remained stable during the "Era of the Three Worlds," with stability partly maintained by the rise of China since the 1980s.

• 2000 - Present: A strong decline in global inequality due to the rise of Asia (China, India, and other Asian countries).

Decomposition of Global Inequality

Global inequality is broken down into within-country inequality (based on social class) and between-country inequality (based on location), weighted by population size. Milanović emphasizes a shift from class-based inequality in the 19th century to location-based inequality in the 20th century, with concepts like "citizenship premiums and penalties". Population sizes significantly influence global inequality.

Intergenerational Social Mobility

The movement of individuals between social class positions from their parents' generation to their own. This often uses a "dominance approach," considering the highest position of the parents

Absolute Mobility

Measures the percentage of people who move between class positions. Intergenerational mobility occurs when the social class of parents differs from that of their children

Relative Mobility (Social Fluidity)

This measures the strength of the association between origin and destination classes, regardless of changes in the social class structure. It indicates the "fairness" of social stratification, with lower association implying greater fairness.

Neo-Weberian Class Scheme (Goldthorpe)

This scheme categorizes social classes based on market situation (employer, employee, self-employed) and employment relationships (monitoring difficulty, asset specificity, contract type). It identifies seven categories, which can be grouped into three, emphasizing the role of skills. The European Socio-economic Classification (Esec) is an example, classifying occupations into groups like "Higher salariat," "Lower salariat," "Higher grade white-collar workers," and various "Petite bourgeoisie" and "blue-collar" categories, down to "Unemployed"

Absolute Social Mobility in Europe

• There is cross-national convergence in absolute total mobility rates, ranging between 70% and 80%.

• Variation over Time: Individuals born around or after WWII (the "Golden age of class mobility" or "Trentes Glorieuses") generally experienced more upward mobility than downward mobility. For those born in the 1970s or later, upward mobility still exceeds downward mobility, though the difference is smaller, and this trend is reversed in post-Soviet countries.

• Mobility patterns depend on changes in a society's class structure (e.g., shifts from agricultural to industrial to post-industrial economies

Relative Mobility in Europe:

• No society exhibits perfect social fluidity.

• Variation over Time: Social fluidity generally increased during the "Golden age of class mobility," but findings for later cohorts are inconsistent, suggesting probable stability.

• Cross-country Variation: Countries vary in their levels of social fluidity

Liberal Theory of Social Mobility (Liberal Industrial Society Thesis): 

• This theory suggests that in post-war years, both absolute and relative mobility were high and increasing, with a tendency towards convergence among industrial stratification systems. Explanations include structural changes (technology, bureaucracy leading to occupational redistribution), processual shifts (from ascriptive to achievement-based selection), and compositional factors (achievement being more important in expanding sectors). Education plays a crucial role as a vehicle for the "meritocratic dream," leading to the concept of the OED triangle (Origin class, Educational attainment, Destination class). This theory posits that industrialization leads to a greater demand for skilled and educated individuals and more meritocratic selection, with education becoming the main driver of social fluidity, requiring educational expansion and democratization.

Problems with the Liberal Theory

Critiques point out that total absolute mobility rates are no longer consistently rising, and in some cases, downward mobility exceeds upward mobility. The increase in social fluidity has stopped or even reversed in many countries, and the association between origin and education (OE) or education and destination (ED) has not consistently weakened or strengthened over time. This suggests that education has not been "the great equalizer".

Conflict Perspective

This view suggests that while there might have been an initial increase in relative mobility with industrialization, long-term patterns show stability in relative mobility with little cross-country variation. This stability is attributed to the general capitalist system, similar social class dynamics, the self-maintaining properties of power and inequality, and the predominance of nuclear families.

Bukodi & Goldthorpe (2022) General Theory

This theory focuses on the micro-level of individual action, particularly the motivation and capacity of advantaged parents to protect their children from downward mobility. This is driven by a theory of loss aversion, where maintaining relative educational position is crucial in the context of educational expansion.

Great Gatsby Curve

Introduced by Alan Krueger (2012), this concept suggests that the larger the wealth concentration or social inequality in a country, the smaller the relative mobility in that country

Hertel & Groh-Samberg (2019) Status Maintenance Theory

This theory proposes that cross-country variations in social fluidity are linked to absolute between-class inequalities. Larger absolute between-class inequalities make relative class mobility harder. It emphasizes that status losses are weighted more heavily than gains, leading to a stronger motivation for downward mobility avoidance than for upward mobility, and highlights the necessity of using between-class inequalities rather than overall inequalities.

Post-War Context and Debates

The post-war period was marked by optimism and a debate between functionalist and conflict perspectives on social inequality. This included discussions on the "liberal industrial society thesis" and the use of "gradational prestige scales" versus "relational class typologies"

Functionalist Perspective on Social Inequality: 

This perspective argues that social inequality and stratification exist in all societies, implying they must be functional. It posits that various jobs need to be done, and since not all jobs are equally pleasant, important, or demanding of talent, rewards are necessary to place and motivate the right people.

Davis & Moore (1945): 

These theorists argued that stratification is "functionally necessary" for any society. They suggested that positions requiring greater talent or training and holding greater importance should receive higher rewards (e.g., income, prestige, power) to ensure qualified individuals occupy them.

• Critiques of Davis & Moore:

  • It is difficult to determine how important certain jobs are for society.

  • The theory struggles to explain the actual rewards given to certain professions (e.g., CEOs versus nurses).

  • It raises questions about the "pool of talent" and whether it is a fair and open competition.

Trickle-Down Economics: 

This economic theory, also known as "supply-side economics" or "Reaganomics," suggests that reducing taxes on corporations and the wealthy will stimulate the economy. The idea is that the wealthy will invest more, create jobs, and increase consumption, with the benefits eventually "trickling down" to the rest of society.

Socioeconomic Consequences (reality)

This theory has not been shown to reduce income inequality, and may even exacerbate it. Studies, like those from the IMF and LSE, suggest that higher income shares for the rich can lead to lower economic growth.

The Bell Curve Thesis

This thesis, popularized by Richard Herrnstein & Charles Murray (1994) in their book The Bell Curve, argues that intelligence (measured by IQ) is the most significant predictor of socioeconomic success, more so than parental socioeconomic status.

• Key Arguments:

  • There is a strong correlation between IQ and various socioeconomic outcomes (e.g., job performance, income, poverty, crime).

  • IQ is largely inherited, making it difficult to change.

  • Modern society is becoming a "cognitive elite," with a growing gap between a smart upper class and a less intelligent lower class.

• Critiques of The Bell Curve:

  • The concept of intelligence is complex and cannot be reduced solely to IQ scores.

  • The book uses problematic and cherry-picked data.

  • It underplays the role of social and environmental factors in shaping intelligence and socioeconomic outcomes.

  • It has been criticized for promoting eugenics and scientific racism

The Spirit Level: 

This concept, popularized by Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett (2009) in their book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, argues that greater income equality within countries leads to better societal outcomes across a range of social and health indicators.

• Main Idea: Material growth contributes little to well-being, and within countries, there is a "social gradient" in many problems. More income-equal societies perform better for both lower and higher-income groups.

• Indicators: The book examines indicators such as life expectancy, math and literacy scores, infant mortality, homicides, imprisonment rates, teenage births, trust levels, obesity, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, and social mobility.

• Explanations: Inequality creates differences in social status, leading to "social-evaluative threat" (stress, anxiety, narcissism) and reduced social capital (fewer friends, less trust, lower social cohesion). It also notes that inequality leads to expenditures and risks for the rich.

• Critiques of The Spirit Level: Some critics argue that the book engages in "cherry-picking" of data and that causality is not definitively proven.

Meritocracy:

• The idea that an individual's position should depend on their combination of ability and effort.

• Merit = talent + effort.

• The concept was invented by British sociologist Michael Young in his 1958 book, The Rise of the Meritocracy.

• Characteristics of a Meritocratic Society: People get ahead based on natural talents/ability and effort. It relies on equal opportunities, mainly through providing education for all. It forbids discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics like race, gender, or sexuality. Access to jobs is through open competition based on achievement (skills, experience) instead of ascription, patronage, or nepotism.

• Meritocracy is seen as both an allocation system to direct talent to socioeconomic positions and an ideology that legitimizes inequalities.

• It generally implies high social mobility, as people can move up or down based on their merit.

The Meritocratic Dream and its Challenges

• Despite the ideal, the reality is that the association between origin and destination class remains strong, especially in countries with high inequality.

• Parents from advantaged backgrounds try to pass on their advantages to their children.

• The expansion of education has not necessarily led to perfect equality of opportunity, as relative educational inequality has decreased only moderately in most countries.

• Children of parents from the dominant classes often maintain their position

Michael Sandel's Arguments Against Meritocracy

• Sandel argues that meritocracy fosters hubris among the successful and humiliation among those who fall behind.

• It erodes the common good by promoting excessive credentialism and hyper-parenting.

• The "dignity of work" is diminished for those in non-meritocratic professions.

• Sandel critiques the idea that success is solely earned, pointing out the role of luck and inherited advantages. He believes the successful often feel they deserve their position completely, fostering arrogance.

• He highlights that people in a meritocracy tend to look down on those who are less successful, diminishing their dignity

Adrian Wooldridge's Arguments in Favor of Meritocracy

• Wooldridge defends meritocracy as a necessary and beneficial system.

• He argues that meritocracy provides a robust argument against "crony capitalism" and promotes social mobility.

• It channels talent to the best use through an allocation system based on merit.

• He contends that meritocracy is an efficient and fair system for distributing power and responsibility

John Rawls's Theory of Justice

• Rawls proposes how to organize a just society through the concept of "the original position" behind a "veil of ignorance".

• He emphasizes that socioeconomic positions that produce inequality should be open to all, ensuring equal opportunities.

• His "difference principle" allows inequalities if they also benefit the least advantaged.

Rawls's Stance on Talent

He argues that "the talented don't deserve their talents".

Wooldridge's Counter to Rawls

Wooldridge believes Rawls ignores the importance of hard work needed to develop talents and that market rewards are necessary to encourage people to work, apply their talents, and direct them to areas that benefit society

Sandel's Agreement and Critique of Rawls

Sandel agrees that the talented don't deserve their positions but argues that Rawls doesn't fully explain why the community should benefit from their talents. He also suggests that even in a Rawlsian just society, there would still be a "higher" and "lower," leading to hubris and resentment

General Definition of Racism

"The racial ideologies and practices at the micro-, meso- and macro-level that are upholding a historically grown structure of systematic disadvantage of some ethnic or racial groups." 

Racism,  Ideological component

• Refers to frameworks of attitudes, prejudices, beliefs, biases, and discourses. These are both cognitive and affective, ordering ethno-racial groups hierarchically and legitimizing inequalities. Different racial ideologies can coexist. 

  • Prejudices: "Antipathies based on a faulty or inflexible generalization" (Allport, 1954). 

    • Differentiated into biological vs. cultural racism, and blatant vs. subtle prejudices. 

  • Racial beliefs: Include support for equality vs. inequality, perception of discrimination, and support for specific policy measures (e.g., affirmative action). 

  • Evolution over time: Explicit and blatant prejudices have decreased over the past four decades, with a transition from biological to cultural racism and the rise of "colour-blind racism."  

  • Critique on measuring racial attitudes: Traditional survey questions face issues like social desirability bias, inability to capture hidden or unconscious prejudices, and inadequacy for new migrant groups and super-diversity

Colour-blind racism

A new racial ideology among some progressive-liberals that minimizes the current existence of racism, formally supports equality, but offers less support for positive actions. It legitimizes persistent ethno-racial inequalities through meritocracy and free-market competition, and cultural racism. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva's work "Racism without Racists" is central to this concep

form of racism that occurs when people claim not to "see" race or say that race does not matter, often with the intention of promoting equality. While it may sound well-meaning, this approach actually ignores the real and ongoing effects of racism and racial inequality in society

Racism, Behavioral component

• Encompasses all racial practices that disadvantage ethno-racial groups judged as inferior, such as discrimination, micro-aggressions, and exclusionary laws. 

  • Ethno-racial discrimination: Unequal and adverse treatment based on perceived ethno-racial origin, which cannot be justified. It occurs in various aspects of life, including labor and housing markets, education, and healthcare. 

  • Everyday racism: Smaller or larger daily violations of equality that accumulate, reflecting an ideology of white superiority and impacting health and social cohesion. Philomena Essed is associated with this concept. 

Racial policies: Policies that differentiate between ethno-racial groups at meso or macro levels, often legitimizing discrimination. The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) compares countries based on 167 policy indicators across eight domains (e.g., labor migration, citizenship acquisition), with a higher score indicating more inclusivity

Raisism, Implicit bias

• Positive or negative associations automatically activated by contact with ethno-racial groups, operating unconsciously and influencing prejudices, beliefs, and behavior. It can be part of both ideological and behavioral components. 

  • Measured by the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which has critiques regarding low test-retest reliability and predictive power for individual behavior.

  • "Bias of crowds" theory: Suggests that implicit bias is systematic at meso and macro levels, demonstrated by individual implicit bias. 

Racial structure with ethno-racial inequities (Structural/Systematic Racism): 

• Refers to the country's historical and cumulative processes of racism that result in systematic disadvantage for certain ethno-racial groups (e.g., in socio-economic status, health, housing).

• Assumes no biological or genetic differences explain inequities, meaning all inequities are socially constructed due to historical and cumulative racism

Personal experiences of racism

• Survey questions among ethnic-cultural minorities about perceived personal or group discrimination. 

  • "Integration paradox": The more integrated a migrant is, the higher their perceived experiences of discrimination, possibly due to more exposure, greater awareness, or higher standards for equal treatment.

Racism: Individualist vs. Structural Accounts

• Ideological Tradition (Liberal): Views racism as a problem of individual racist exceptions driven by irrationality or lack of knowledge. Remedy involves education and interethnic contact, tackling racism at the micro level. 

Critiques: Racism is not irrational but can be advantageous for some groups, and it is not disappearing but rather changing its form and content

Racism: Individualist vs. Structural Accounts

• Structural Tradition: Sees racism as a structural characteristic of modern societies, stemming from the capitalist system with post-colonial and imperial dimensions. Remedy requires fundamental systemic change focusing on power division, tackling racism at the macro level. 

Society is a "racialized social system" where advantages are distributed along ethno-racial boundaries, creating a racial structure with inequalities. These boundaries are social constructions initially serving ruling groups but perpetuate independently

Levels of Racism

• Interpersonal racism: Micro-level individual prejudices and practices. 

• Institutional racism: Meso-level culture, structure, and policies of organizations, institutions, and markets. 

Structural racism: Macro-level culture, structure, and policies

Welfare States

• Definition: A societal regime in some rich, capitalistic parliamentary countries that guarantees basic social rights of citizens through an institutional, legal framework.

• Characteristics: High standard of living, social rights, free market capitalism, democratic corporatism, parliamentary reforms, and a focus on nation-states (with tension concerning Europe and globalization).

• Conceptualization: Can be approached narrowly (income transfers and social security) or broadly (organization of labor market, education, family life). The class focuses on the "political economy of state, market and family".

Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Esping-Andersen, 1990)

This framework categorizes welfare states based on their degree of de-commodification and their political economy of state, market, and family.

Social Democratic-, Conservative-, Liberal-, Welfare Regime

Social Democratic Welfare Regime:

• De-commodification: High. Social rights are extensive, enabling individuals to live independently of market forces.

• Characteristics: Universal benefits, strong public provision, emphasis on equality, strong labor market participation (especially for women), and family services.

• Examples: Scandinavian countries (e.g., Sweden).

Conservative Welfare Regime

• De-commodification: Medium. Social rights are tied to work and family status.

• Characteristics: Emphasis on traditional family, strong role for social insurance (contributory schemes), less focus on universalism, often corporate/occupational segmentation.

• Examples: Continental European countries (e.g., Germany, France).

Liberal Welfare Regime

• De-commodification: Low. Social rights are minimal, encouraging reliance on the market.

• Characteristics: Means-tested benefits, private provision of welfare, emphasis on individual responsibility, residual role for the state.

• Examples: Anglo-Saxon countries (e.g., USA, UK).

Universal vs. Selective Policies:

Universal: Benefits for all citizens, regardless of income or need (e.g., public education, child benefits)

Selective: Benefits based on specific criteria (e.g., income, disability)

Flat-rated vs. Earnings-related Policies

• Flat-rated: Everyone receives the same amount.

• Earnings-related: Benefits are proportional to previous earnings

Paradox of Redistribution (Korpi & Palme, 1998)

This paradox states that the more universal and generous welfare programs are, the more effectively they reduce poverty and inequality. This is because universal programs gain broader political support, including from the middle and upper classes, making them more resilient and effective in redistribution

Matthew Effects in Social Policy

• Based on the biblical quote "For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him" (Matthew 25:29).

  • In social policy, this means higher-income groups often benefit more from social benefits and services than lower-income groups.

  • Explanation: May include better access to information, ability to navigate complex systems, or policies designed to benefit the middle class.

Policy Implication: Raises questions about "selectivity within universalism".

Basic Income (Philippe Van Parijs, 2004)

• Definition: A universal basic income is an income paid in cash on a regular basis by a political community to all its members on an individual basis, without a means test or work requirement.

• Characteristics: Paid in cash, regular basis, by a political community, to all members, individual basis, without means test, without work requirement.

• Discussion Points: Ideal level of income, relationship with other benefits, affordability, advantages/disadvantages, and differences from existing welfare state regimes

The Orient

The East, often depicted by the West in a generalized, inferior, and exoticized manner

The Oriental

A person from the Orient, typically portrayed as static, unchanging, and lacking agency

The Orientalist

Someone who studies or represents the Orient from a Western perspective, often perpetuating stereotypes

The Occidental

The West, representing itself as superior, rational, and modern.

The Metropole

The colonizing power's home country

People of color

A term referring to non-white individuals, often used in discussions about race and colonialism

Edward Said (in Orientalism): 

Describes it as "a library or archive of information commonly and, in some of its aspects, unanimously held" about the Orient, which became a unifying set of values for Western understanding.

Gloria Wekker (in White Innocence): 

Defines it as a "racial grammar, a deep structure of inequality in thought and affect based on race," installed in 19th-century European imperial populations, from which a sense of self has been formed and fabricated

Orientalism

• The representation of the Orient by the Orientalist, portraying Orientals as almost universally the same and inferior to the superior, dominating West.

• This "knowledge" conferred authority and denied the autonomy of the "Orient."

• It created both the "Orientals" and the "West," constraining thinking and perpetuating stereotypes.

• Reinforcement: It is reinforced by various elements such as tourism, music, literature, advertising, and scientific research

European Self-Representations & Positionality

• Colonialism not only affected the colonized but also deeply shaped the identity of the colonizers.

• The concept of the "Other" (the colonized) was crucial for the construction of the European "self."

• Memory of Colonialism: The class notes that in Belgium, for example, the memory of colonialism is complex and often characterized by "white innocence," where a sense of denial or minimized responsibility for colonial atrocities exists. This includes the idea that Belgium was a "good" colonizer.

• Impact on Knowledge Production: Colonialism influenced academic disciplines like anthropology, linguistics, and literature, often collecting and interpreting knowledge about the "Other" through a colonial lens

Decolonization Processes

• Efforts to dismantle colonial legacies within universities and broader society.

• "Diversity breeds academic excellence": A guiding principle for decolonization efforts, aiming to diversify people and knowledge within academic institutions.

• Towards a Socially Just University: This involves:

  • Strongly anchoring social justice and diversity.

  • Opening the university to the diversity of society.

  • Moving from "egalitarian thinking" (which might assume equality already exists) to "diversity literacy" (understanding and valuing differences).

  • Transitioning from "closed" knowledge (Eurocentric, dominant narratives) to "open" knowledge (inclusive of diverse perspectives).

• Challenging Assumptions of "Egalitarian Thinking": This includes questioning beliefs such as "Our meritocracy/egalitarianism ensures equality," "Targeted measures jeopardize excellence," "Science is independent from actors and power structures," "The canon leads the way," and "Good scientists are nonreligious."

Residential Segregation

Unequal dispersion of groups over neighborhoods within cities, with several dimensions

Socio-Economic and Ethnic Segregation (Massey & Denton, 1988)

A key framework for understanding segregation, often analyzed in tandem.

• Explaining Socio-Economic Segregation:

• Social Inequality: Higher income inequality often leads to increased socio-economic residential segregation, with a potential time lag (e.g., 10 years). This is driven by preferences of high and middle-income groups for certain neighborhoods and a lack of affordable housing for low-income groups.

• Changing Occupational Structures: Shifts in job types and industries can influence residential patterns.

• Changing Housing Systems: Liberalization of housing markets can exacerbate segregation, as housing becomes less about public provision and more about market forces.

• Urban Renewal and Gentrification: These processes can displace lower-income residents and lead to increased socio-economic segregation.

Explaining Ethnic Segregation:

• Socio-Economic Integration: Differences in socio-economic status among ethnic groups contribute to segregation.

• Cultural Preferences and Networks: Ethnic groups may prefer to live near others with similar cultural backgrounds or rely on existing social networks.

• Discrimination in the Housing Market: Discriminatory practices can limit housing options for ethnic minorities.

• Duration of Stay: Longer residence in a country may lead to a decrease in ethnic segregation for some groups as they integrate more.

• Contextual Factors: Factors like the local housing market, welfare state provisions, and national immigration policies play a role

"Ghettos" in Europe?

• The term "ghetto" originated in Venice to describe a Jewish quarter, but in the US, it refers to segregated areas with high poverty, crime, and social disorganization, often associated with involuntary confinement.

• European Context: While some European cities have areas with high concentrations of ethnic minorities and socio-economic disadvantages, they generally do not match the characteristics of US ghettos (e.g., not exclusively one ethnic group, residents are often upwardly mobile, not characterized by extreme social disorganization).

• "Ethnic Enclaves" or "Concentrated Disadvantage": These terms might be more appropriate for describing some European neighborhoods, indicating areas with a high concentration of a particular ethnic group or significant socio-economic issues, but without the same level of involuntary confinement or complete social isolation as US ghettos