Search results

A critique of the APSA Task Force on Inequality & American Democracy report challenges claims that the US is experiencing a reinforcing cycle of political & economic inequality. Attention is called to countertendencies & opportunities to lessen the forces that create inequality in voice, governance, & public policy. It is maintained that political scientists must focus more on the internal dynamics/processes of groups like the Sierra Club which have the potential to create a more engaged & mobilized base. State & local factors that produce or exacerbate inequality are explored, especially the concentration of Latinos & African Americans in low-income urban areas; the ineffectiveness of policies designed to address problems of low-income minorities; & the impact of large-scale immigration. Emphasis is placed on the capacity of churches to teach the skills of participation & the importance of the "war of ideas." It is concluded that discussions about inequality must move beyond the realm of government responsibility to cultural outlets that will encourage people to imagine new forms of democratic engagement. 20 References. J. Lindroth

Contents -- Contributors -- Acknowledgments -- Part I: Introduction: Foundations of a Prismatic Metropolis -- Chapter 1: Analyzing Inequality in Los Angeles // Lawrence D. Bobo, Melvin L. Oliver, James H. Johnson Jr., and Abel Valenzuela Jr. -- Chapter 2: A Demographic Portrait of Los Angeles County, 1970 to 1990 // David M. Grant -- Chapter 3: Racial Attitudes in a Prismatic Metropolis: Mapping Identity, Stereotypes, Competition, and Views on Affirmative Action // Lawrence D. Bobo and Devon Johnson -- Part II: Opportunities Divided: Race, Space, and Gender in Los Angeles

The international is already constituted through the legitimation of specific forms of inequality. This paper explores four: (1) worldwide patterns of economic inequality; (2) the principle & historical experience of the "great powers" as a guarantee of international "order"; (3) the capacities of specific kinds of political community to participate in the modern system of states; & (4) the constitutive value field in which the international is judged as the negation of the positive values ascribed to statist forms of political community. It does so in relation to claims about freedom, scale, & the necessary practices of modern discrimination. This exploration leads to the conclusion that the primary significance of claims about new inequalities in an international context is that they express the increasing difficulty of thinking about equality/inequality in political terms, let alone of responding adequately to the "violences" & injustices that might be attributed to multiple kinds of inequalities in various settings. Adapted from the source document.

ABSTRACT Cross-national studies on happiness have focused on differences in level of happiness. The focus of this paper is on spread in happiness in the nation, also called 'inequality in happiness'. Inequality in happiness in nations can be measured by the size of the standard deviation of responses to survey questions about the 'overall appreciation of one's life-as-a-whole'. This paper considers spread in happiness in 28 countries around 1980. Contrary to notions of a 'divided' society none of these countries shows a bi-modal distribution of happiness. All distribution are uni-modal, but the distributions are not equally flat. There are considerable differences in size of the standard deviations. These differences are not a statistical artifact of variation in level of happiness and appear quite constant through time. Inequality in happiness appears to be greater in the socio-economically most unequal countries and smaller in politically democratic and economically developed nations. Contrary to expectation, inequality in happiness appears to be more closely linked to social equality among rich natio

Richard Layard is one of Britain's foremost applied economists, whose work has had a profound impact on the policy debate in Britain and abroad. This book contains his most influential articles on education, equality and income distribution and on the lessons of economic transition in Eastern Europe. It is published along with a companion volume. Inequality argues that lifetime inequality is the basic inequality we should worry about. In this context education is a powerful instrument of redistribution, as well as a national investment. Cash redistribution has efficiency costs which can be calculated, but it may also serve to discourage inefficient over-work arising from each person's efforts to earn more than his neighbour. A final series of essays is based on Layard's recent work on reform strategies in Russia and Poland. The book opens with Richard Layard's personal credo 'Why I became an economist'.

The idea that a Study of Social and Economic Inequalities (SSEI) should be undertaken in Australia was first proposed in 1988 by the then Minister for Social Security, Brian Howe. The main focus of the Study is to shed new light on various dimensions of inequality in Australia - both economic and social - and to investigate the factors causing them. The research involves the analysis of existing data rather than the collection of new data, a task which has been facilitated by the public availability of unit record and other data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. By adopting an empirical approach, the study will inform the development of government policies directed at alleviating those forms of inequality requiring policy action. Some of the work is being conducted in an international comparative context, thus providing a framework in which we in Australia can learn from experience in other countries where appropriate. The five main themes of the Study are: Money Income Inequality, Poverty and Living Standards in Australia; Non-Monetary Benefits and Income Inequality; Factors Contributing to Inequalities in Monetary Income; Economic Inequality over the Family Life Cycle; and International Dimensions of Inequality and Redistribution. As Directors of the Study, one of our first tasks was to bring together researchers associated with the Study and with other organisations in Australia in order to review what is currently known about inequality in Australia. To this end, a two day Conference was held at the University of New South Wales in July 1991. This report contains some of the papers presented at that Conference, organised under the theme: 'Some Factors Causing Inequality'. The other main theme 'Government and Redistribution', is covered in SSEI Monograph No. 1. Together these reports represent an overview of the current state of knowledge and point to areas where further research is required. Some of that research will be conducted as part of the Study and will be reported on in due course.

This text seeks to analyse and explain inequality, challenging traditional conceptions and providing a new critical perspective. The authors provide a comprehensive historical account of inequality, and show how that account no longer adequately explains the new and different forms experienced in recent decades. They argue that transformations in industrial, familial and political relations since the 1970s must be taken into account when trying to come to grips with the 'new' inequalities. As society has changed, new forms of inequality have emerged, conditioning the subject's very experience of identity, embodiment and politics. Inequality is understood, then, not as something that can be determined only with reference to traditional categories such as class but as that which works more insidiously. The authors demonstrate, for example, how bio and medical technologies produce inequalities. The book is at once a critical overview of contemporary inequality and a thorough-going textbook suitable for undergraduates

David Dollar & Aart Kraay claimed in these pages that globalization reduced economic inequality. Three writers argue they got it wrong, & the authors respond. Adapted from the source document.