Given the background of rising economic inequalities, the topic has reentered the field of economic science. Yet the problem of how economic inequality is being mediated to the public is not discussed in economics at all, and hardly mentioned in communication studies. Through an analysis of recent empirical studies on the coverage of inequality in the media, we debate the role mass media play as information providers. Assessing the underlying assumptions and the methodological approaches guiding the respective empirical findings, we can highlight the merits of this body of work and identify open questions for further research. The last part of the article provides a discussion of (currently rather neglected) political economy theories that offer rich theoretical approaches to study media, power, and inequality.
In this review, I provide an overview of the literature investigating the social psychology of economic inequality, focusing on individuals' understandings, perceptions, and reactions to inequality. I begin by describing different ways of measuring perceptions of inequality, and conclude that absolute measures-which ask respondents to estimate inequality in more concrete terms-tend to be more useful and accurate than relative measures. I then describe how people understand inequality, highlighting the roles of cognitive heuristics, accessibility of information, self-interest, and context and culture. I review the evidence regarding how people react to inequality, suggesting that inequality is associated with higher well-being in developing nations but lower well-being in developed nations, mostly because of hopes or fears for the future. The evidence from developed nations suggests that inequality increases individuals' concerns about status and economic resources, increases their perception that the social world is competitive and individualistic, and erodes their faith in others, political systems, and democracy in general.
This paper tests the hypothesis that the presence of economic inequality may lead to erosions of economic freedom. Using Economic Freedom of the World as a measure of free economic institutions, it finds that a one standard deviation increase in the gini coefficient reduces the presence of free economic institutions by 0.18 standard deviations. This effect is modest but not at all trivial, and the magnitude of the effect may be especially important in increasing the size of government. Surprisingly, the evidence is mixed for the effect of inequality on regulation, with modest evidence suggesting it may improve the regulatory environment. While many methods of reducing economic inequality involve restrictions on economic freedom, this evidence underscores the importance of stressing reforms free market proponents are confident will mitigate inequality.
We live in an era of growing economic inequality. Luminaries ranging from the President to the Pope to economist Thomas Piketty in his bestselling book Capital in the Twenty- First Century have raised alarms about the disparity between the haves and the have-nots. Overlooked, however, in these important discussions is the reality that economic inequality is not a uniform experience; rather, its effects fall more harshly on women and minorities. With regard to gender, American women have higher rates of poverty and get paid less than comparable men, and their workplace participation rates are falling. Yet economic inequality is neither inevitable nor intractable. Given that the government creates the rules of the market, it is essential to analyze the government's role in perpetuating economic inequality. This Article specifically examines the role of the Supreme Court in contributing to gender- based economic inequality. The thesis is that the Supreme Court applies oversimplified economic assumptions about the market in its decision-making, thereby perpetuating economic inequality on the basis of gender. Applying insights of feminist economic theory, the Article analyzes recent Supreme Court jurisprudence about women workers, including Wal-Mart v. Dukes (denying class certi cation to female employees who were paid and promoted less than men), Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (granting business owners the right to deny contraception coverage to female employees on religious grounds), and Harris v. Quinn (limiting the ability of home health care workers to unionize and thereby improve their working conditions). In these cases, the Court elevates its narrow view of efficiency over more comprehensive understandings, devalues care work, upholds harmful power imbalances, and ignores the intersectional reality of the lives of low-wage women workers. The Article concludes that the Court is eroding collective efforts by women to improve their working conditions and economic standing. It suggests advocacy strategies for reforming law to obtain economic justice for women and their families.
In this review, I provide an overview of the literature investigating the social psychology of economic inequality, focusing on individuals' understandings, perceptions, and reactions to inequality. I begin by describing different ways of measuring perceptions of inequality, and conclude that absolute measures—which ask respondents to estimate inequality in more concrete terms—tend to be more useful and accurate than relative measures. I then describe how people understand inequality, highlighting the roles of cognitive heuristics, accessibility of information, self-interest, and context and culture. I review the evidence regarding how people react to inequality, suggesting that inequality is associated with higher well-being in developing nations but lower well-being in developed nations, mostly because of hopes or fears for the future. The evidence from developed nations suggests that inequality increases individuals' concerns about status and economic resources, increases their perception that the social world is competitive and individualistic, and erodes their faith in others, political systems, and democracy in general.
The study of economic inequality in preindustrial economies has received recent attention by economic historians, who have tried to unlock the mysteries of the left side of the Kuznets curve. This paper will try to shed some light on the debate providing new estimations of economic inequality in the province of Madrid using a sample of rural locations around the capital. Estimates of inequality are based on fiscal records that are demonstrated in this paper to be adequate source for measuring differentials in wealth and income across individuals. We will offer not just an overview of the changes in economic inequality in the long run, but will also provide enough periodicity in our calculations to observe short and middle term changes to capture better the connection between changes in inequality and the economic cycle. The initial results seem to indicate that economic inequality in the province of Madrid rose between 1500 and 1840, although the pattern was not a linear one and was closely connected with the economic cycle, with inequality rising together with economic growth and viceversa. ; European Community's Seventh Framework Program. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC Grant agreement n° 283802, EINITE-Economic Inequality across Italy and Europe, 1300-1800
Is racial inequality an unwelcome intruder to the new discourse on economic inequality? The present discourse on economic inequality emphasizes decades-long trends that have increased economic inequality, whether as a result of reoccurring features in the structure of capitalist economies or more recent changes in institutional, structural, and economic conditions. Researchers direct us to the rising fortunes of the top earners and asset holders relative to the rest, the declining fortunes of the middle class harmed by stagnating wages, and the declining share of industries (like manufacturing) in the economy. This new economic inequality discourse has preoccupied economists, garnered its own "beat" in leading publications, led to bestselling books, transfixed current political debates, and now (finally) seduced legal academia. The new economic inequality is salient in part because it is a phenomenon not fully constrained by race, ethnicity, or geography that risks altering the fortunes of all "our kids," including those formerly firmly ensconced within the American dream. Racial inequality, by contrast, is not new. One might debate the extent, trend line, and causes of racial inequality, but the fact of racial inequality (that socioeconomic status differs on the basis of race or ethnicity) is neither much in contention nor novel. Perhaps for this reason, the role of racial inequality in this new calculus is uncertain. One may note that certain racial, ethnic, or gender groups have experienced greater income and wealth losses from the recession, losses as yet unrecovered. Or even that trends that affect many Americans, such as wage stagnation for lower skilled jobs, declines in unionization, or changes in the relative share of manufacturing jobs, affect some groups more than others. But the fact of racial inequality is a given. Indeed, what is "new" about the present discourse on American inequality is that it emphasizes changes that affect us all. As one commentator recently put it pointedly: "[S]tructural inequity has leapt the racial barrier." Add to the unremarkable, un-newness of racial inequality that race may complicate the search for solutions. The proffered solutions to the new economic inequality are not typically targeted at particular racial or ethnic groups. Rather, solutions seek to increase the rewards from work for all (through stronger worker organizations and wage gains), alter the general tax structure, and increase investments in and the quality of training and credentialing institutions like college and apprenticeship programs. And momentum on economic inequality seems most vigorously organized behind movements such as minimum-wage increases and paid sick leave that eschew a racial lens not just, it seems, for expedience, but because these remedies urgently address the immediate harm of wage and work conditions. Indeed, even highlighting racial inequality as a distinct problem does not necessarily require adopting race- or ethnicity-specific solutions. Many of the interventions needed for everyone in the emerging economic reality – better education and training, higher wages – may simply be needed more urgently for historically disadvantaged groups. But the interventions are not fundamentally different. Given this account, what does one gain from highlighting racial inequality in contemporary inequality discourse? One can start by acknowledging that sometimes nothing is gained. For reasons of social-movement solidarity, tactics and strategy, and efficacy of solutions, race is often not the point. The workers who benefit from recent wage reforms or affordable housing creation are typically racially and ethnically diverse, and a majority are women. The role of racial, ethnic, or gender stratification may be salient in the condition of these workers and families, but it need not always be the dimension around which the remedies are organized.
Excessive accumulation and raising income inequality reflected on the high rates of poverty in the European Union countries. Economic literature has wide research on the link between income inequality and economic growth. However, knowledge about correlation between income inequality and poverty is scare. In this paper, we have proved that poverty is not synonymous for income inequality, but that is a product of income inequality. Income inequality, measured by the Gini coefficient, reflected the movement of the percentage of the population who are at risk of poverty. The coefficient of simple on correlation showed that income inequality affects the growth risk of poverty in the countries of the European Union. Besides poverty, as a consequence of income inequality, other socio-economic problems also appeared: the suppression of economic growth, the rise in crime rate, the decline in the quality of education and health, the political inequality growth. All these problems should warn governments to take economic policy for reducing economic inequality. The European Union, as an area of 28 member states, needs to carefully select economic policy instruments to reduce income inequality and ensure stable ground for economic growth. The differences between the level of development, the index of democracy, income and living standards in observed countries have influenced the difficulty in observing the problem and computing mathematical and statistical connection. Through equalization of incomes, the European Union could solve problems of poverty, social exclusion and democracy (measured by index of democracy). ; ??????????? ??????????? ? ??????? ??????????? ? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ?????????? ? ??????? ???????? ?????. ? ?????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ?? ???? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ?? ????????? ????. ???????, ????? ? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ? ????????? ???????????? ?? ???????. ? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ?????????? ???? ??????? ?? ????????? ??????????? ???? ?? ???????? ????. ??????????? ? ?????????? ??????? ??????? Gini ????????????? ???????? ?? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????????. ??????????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ??????????? ? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????????? ? ??????? ???????? ?????. ????? ??????????, ??? ????????? ???????????? ? ?????????? ???????, ?????? ? ?? ?????? ?????-?????????? ????????: ?????? ?????????? ?????, ????? ????? ?????????????, ??????? ????????? ?????????? ? ???????, ????? ????????? ????????????. ????????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ????????????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ????????? ???????? ?? ??????? ????????? ????????????. E??????? ?????, ??? ????????? ?? 28 ?????? ???????, ????? ??????? ?? ???? ??????????? ????????? ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????????? ? ?????????? ??????? ? ????????? ???????? ??? ?? ????????? ????. ??????? ?????? ????? ???????, ??????? ???????????????, ??????? ? ???????? ??????????? ? ??????????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ????????? ? ?????????? ???????? ? ???????? ??????????? ? ??????????? ????. ???? ???????????? ?????????? ???????, ???????? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ???????? ??????????, ????????? ???????????? ? ??????????? (??????? ???????? ???????????????).
Since Aristotle, who observed that great economic inequality leads the wealthy to seek a share of power matching their share of resources and so to subvert democratic government, scholars of politics have theorized that the proper functioning of a democracy depends on a relatively equal distribution of economic resources. Inequality, though, has been rising in the nearly all of the world's rich and upper-middle-income democracies since the at least the mid-1980s, and in many countries this trend began in the early 1970s. Examining individual behavior in twenty-four countries at multiple points in time, this paper investigates whether increases in economic inequality have had a negative effect on the functioning of democracy, focusing specifically on citizens' political engagement. It finds that contexts of greater income inequality reduce interest in politics, views of government responsiveness, and participation in elections.
One of the most significant economic developments over the past decades has been the rise in income and wealth inequality. After decades of benign neglect, the issues of economic and social inequalities have reentered the stage of mainstream political attention in the Western heartland over the past couple of years. This is due, in part, to the high public profile of publications by Thomas Piketty and Tony Atkinson. In line with the growing significance of deepening economic inequalities, this Special Section engages with two broad, if overlapping, questions: (1) How do new forms of economic inequality, power, and privilege relate to relevant theories and conceptualizations of the media and institutions of public communication, whether in the fields of communication studies or political economy? (2) What role do the new forms of economic inequality play today in the typical narratives of mediated communication, and how is such inequality framed and discussed?
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 survey documents the different arguments discussed in the academic literature on whether and how economic inequality and the emergence and stability of democratic political systems are connected. While early research in this domain has often focused on new and emerging democracies, this paper also provides an overview of the more recent literature in economics and neighboring fields that discusses democratization as well as established democracies' stability and other institutional traits. In doing so, the survey contains a critical review of both theoretical and empirical contributions on the topic. The different arguments are systematically evaluated and their core hypotheses are distilled in order to document the main lines of argumentation prevalent in the literature. Together with a summary of the theoretical arguments, the main findings of related empirical research are also documented and shortly discussed. Whereas taken together, research so far generally does not suggest any conclusive results concerning economic inequality and the emergence of democracies, the survey indicates that the stability and institutional quality of established democracies can be negatively affected by economic inequality, and it outlines the conditions for this to occur. However, additional research especially on some of the more tentative hypotheses is required to allow for a more profound understanding of the different channels and relationships. Therefore, points of departure for further research, e. g. on how to operationalize specific theoretical constructs of interest and thereby on how to get a better understanding of the relations, are also suggested.
Given the background of rising economic inequalities, the topic has reentered the field of economic science. Yet the problem of how economic inequality is being mediated to the public is not discussed in economics at all, and hardly mentioned in communication studies. Through an analysis of recent empirical studies on the coverage of inequality in the media, we debate the role mass media play as information providers. Assessing the underlying assumptions and the methodological approaches guiding the respective empirical findings, we can highlight the merits of this body of work and identify open questions for further research. The last part of the article provides a discussion of (currently rather neglected) political economy theories that offer rich theoretical approaches to study media, power, and inequality.
We examine how in-kind transfers provided by local governments affect economic inequality. The allocation of in-kind transfers to households and the adjustment for differences in needs are derived from a model of local government spending behavior. The model distinguishes between fixed and variable costs in production as well as mandatory programmatic spending components versus discretionary spending on different service sectors and target groups. To estimate the model, we combine Norwegian data from municipal accounts and administrative registers for the period 1982- 2013. We find that economic inequality is considerably lower when taking in-kind transfers into account. While the poor benefit from receiving a relatively large share of public services, the equalizing effect of in-kind transfers tends to be smaller than the equalizing contribution from public cash transfers. When examining the time trends in inequality, we find that local governments attenuated the growth in cash income inequality by re-allocating in-kind transfers to low-income families. This reduction in inequality is mostly due to changes in spending priorities across service sectors and target groups, whilst the contribution from re-allocation of resources across municipalities is much smaller.
Funding This research was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under Grant (PID2019-105643GB-I00/SRA/10.13039/501100011033) and Grant (PCI2020-112285); and Junta of Andalucia under Grant (B-SEJ-128-UGR18). ; Prior research has shown the relationship between objective economic inequality and searching for positional goods. It also investigated the relationship between social class and low income with conspicuous consumption. However, the causal relationship between economic inequality (the difference in wealth between individuals and groups living in a shared context and consumer behavior) has been less explored. Furthermore, there are also few studies looking for the psychological mechanisms that underlie these effects. The current research's main goal is to analyze the consequences of perceived economic inequality (PEI) on conspicuous and status consumption and the possible psychological mechanisms that could explain its effects. Furthermore, the current research aims to examine whether there is a causal relationship between PEI and materialism preferences and attitudes toward indebtedness. This work includes two preregister experimental studies. In the Study 1 (n = 252), we manipulated PEI and its legitimacy through a 2 (high vs. low inequality) × 2 (Illegitimate vs. legitimate) between-participants experiment. Results showed a main effect of PEI on status consumption, status seeking, status anxiety, materialism, and attitude toward indebtedness. No interaction effect between legitimacy and inequality was found. In the Study 2 (n = 301), we manipulated the PEI through the Bimboola Paradigm. We replicated the effect of PEI on status consumption, status seeking, and materialism and found that status seeking mediated the relationship between PEI and status and conspicuous consumption. Economic inequality affects consumer behavior and favors consumption preferences for products that provide desirable symbolic values associated with status. These results could have important implications in the interpersonal and intergroup processes, including those related to consumption and purchase. ; Spanish Government PID2019-105643GB-I00/SRA/10.13039/501100011033 PCI2020-112285 ; Junta de Andalucia B-SEJ-128-UGR18