Suchergebnisse

The paper explores theoretical and empirical evidence on whether progressivity of personal income taxation lead to less income inequality. The paper demonstrates that there is a lot of theoretical evidence, which question the simplistic notion that more progressivity lead to less inequality and vice versa. Paper provides comprehensive review of the spectrum of possible causal links between progressivity and inequality. Then the paper develops an empirical indicator to measure progressivity of personal income tax. It is used to estimate empirical relations between progressivity and income inequality in 27 European Union countries for the period of 2007-2013. The paper finds a weak relationship between a country being a flat-tax country and smaller reduction of income inequality measured by at-risk-of-poverty rate (but not with GINI inequality). However a statistical test finds no meaningful relationship between progressivity and reduction of at-risk-of-poverty income inequality. The paper concludes that it is impossible to find clear and unambiguous relationship between progressivity of income tax and income inequality. It suggests expanding the scope of research and including analysis of effects of transfer systems.

The paper explores theoretical and empirical evidence on whether progressivity of personal income taxation lead to less income inequality. The paper demonstrates that there is a lot of theoretical evidence, which question the simplistic notion that more progressivity lead to less inequality and vice versa. Paper provides comprehensive review of the spectrum of possible causal links between progressivity and inequality. Then the paper develops an empirical indicator to measure progressivity of personal income tax. It is used to estimate empirical relations between progressivity and income inequality in 27 European Union countries for the period of 2007-2013. The paper finds a weak relationship between a country being a flat-tax country and smaller reduction of income inequality measured by at-risk-of-poverty rate (but not with GINI inequality). However a statistical test finds no meaningful relationship between progressivity and reduction of at-risk-of-poverty income inequality. The paper concludes that it is impossible to find clear and unambiguous relationship between progressivity of income tax and income inequality. It suggests expanding the scope of research and including analysis of effects of transfer systems.

The aim of the dissertation research is to identify the features of Lithuanian educational system affecting social inequality in the direction to stimulation or reduction. The role of education regarding social inequality is one of the most controversial objects of scientific discussions. Is education an effective foundation of society emancipation, equal wrights and social mobility, or on the contrary, it enhances the current structure of the society? It is an open question for scientific discussions. Researches show that education connect in itself two contradictional elements: on the one hand, it is one of the most widely acknowledged social "elevators" helping to rise by the steps of social status, on the other hand, education also has the function of mobility control. Many researches revealed that correlations between education and social status of a man in different countries are different. Thus the role of education with respect to social inequality is directly connected with social, economical and cultural specificity of the country. The dissertation research employs tools of qualitative research, and they allow describe the relationship between education and social inequality as well as identify concrete features of education system that diminish or/and increase social inequality in specific socio-cultural and economic conditions in Lithuania. The composition of the research sample includes the levels of national politics and self-government, institution (education and other social institutions) and individual (teachers, social pedagogues, and others as well as persons from families of low social level). This diversity has allowed realise a holistic approach and avoid fragments.

The aim of the dissertation research is to identify the features of Lithuanian educational system affecting social inequality in the direction to stimulation or reduction. The role of education regarding social inequality is one of the most controversial objects of scientific discussions. Is education an effective foundation of society emancipation, equal wrights and social mobility, or on the contrary, it enhances the current structure of the society? It is an open question for scientific discussions. Researches show that education connect in itself two contradictional elements: on the one hand, it is one of the most widely acknowledged social "elevators" helping to rise by the steps of social status, on the other hand, education also has the function of mobility control. Many researches revealed that correlations between education and social status of a man in different countries are different. Thus the role of education with respect to social inequality is directly connected with social, economical and cultural specificity of the country. The dissertation research employs tools of qualitative research, and they allow describe the relationship between education and social inequality as well as identify concrete features of education system that diminish or/and increase social inequality in specific socio-cultural and economic conditions in Lithuania. The composition of the research sample includes the levels of national politics and self-government, institution (education and other social institutions) and individual (teachers, social pedagogues, and others as well as persons from families of low social level). This diversity has allowed realise a holistic approach and avoid fragments.

The aim of the dissertation research is to identify the features of Lithuanian educational system affecting social inequality in the direction to stimulation or reduction. The role of education regarding social inequality is one of the most controversial objects of scientific discussions. Is education an effective foundation of society emancipation, equal wrights and social mobility, or on the contrary, it enhances the current structure of the society? It is an open question for scientific discussions. Researches show that education connect in itself two contradictional elements: on the one hand, it is one of the most widely acknowledged social "elevators" helping to rise by the steps of social status, on the other hand, education also has the function of mobility control. Many researches revealed that correlations between education and social status of a man in different countries are different. Thus the role of education with respect to social inequality is directly connected with social, economical and cultural specificity of the country. The dissertation research employs tools of qualitative research, and they allow describe the relationship between education and social inequality as well as identify concrete features of education system that diminish or/and increase social inequality in specific socio-cultural and economic conditions in Lithuania. The composition of the research sample includes the levels of national politics and self-government, institution (education and other social institutions) and individual (teachers, social pedagogues, and others as well as persons from families of low social level). This diversity has allowed realise a holistic approach and avoid fragments.

This dissertation explores how and to what extent social inequality distorts political equality and becomes a threat to democracy. The perception of social inequality allows not only to acknowledge the fact of its existence but also to assume it as a threat to democracy and to one of the values of democracy – political equality. The innovation of the research is assessment of the factor of socioeconomic inequality in the securitisation of democracy, the contradiction between the theory of normative democracy and the theorization on existing democracies is actualized. When applying the methods of qualitative and quantitative research, the contradiction in the description of the relationship between democracy and socioeconomic inequality is highlighted. Also , our groups of countries – zones – where democracy is securitised through socioeconomic inequality are distinguished The objective of the research is to determine the nature of the impact of the socioeconomic inequality on political equality, when there is a distinction between the de jure and de facto of political equality. Seeking to achieve this objective, the extent of the threats to democracy posed by social inequality was identified, by critically assessing the discourse on the crisis of democracy and highlighting challenges to democracy, also the multidimensional concept of social inequality was analised. The impact of socioeconomic inequality on political participation based on the analysis of changes in mediatized politics and forms of political participation helped to analyze the causality. Formulated an analytical tool of the zones of securitisation of democracy through socioeconomic inequality and used it to identify the zones of the relationship between democracy and socioeconomic inequality in the countries. The research found out that there is no universal link between democracy and socioeconomic inequality. The relationship between democracy and socioeconomic inequality has variations that are influenced by: 1) the length of the history of democracy; 2) the material well-being of the country; 3) the extent of political participation; 4) perception of social justice. The analytical tool on the relationship between democracy and social inequality opens up the perspective of exploring in more detail the transformations of established and other democracies – responses to the challenges to democracy in different groups of countries perceiving and expressing social inequality

This dissertation explores how and to what extent social inequality distorts political equality and becomes a threat to democracy. The perception of social inequality allows not only to acknowledge the fact of its existence but also to assume it as a threat to democracy and to one of the values of democracy – political equality. The innovation of the research is assessment of the factor of socioeconomic inequality in the securitisation of democracy, the contradiction between the theory of normative democracy and the theorization on existing democracies is actualized. When applying the methods of qualitative and quantitative research, the contradiction in the description of the relationship between democracy and socioeconomic inequality is highlighted. Also , our groups of countries – zones – where democracy is securitised through socioeconomic inequality are distinguished The objective of the research is to determine the nature of the impact of the socioeconomic inequality on political equality, when there is a distinction between the de jure and de facto of political equality. Seeking to achieve this objective, the extent of the threats to democracy posed by social inequality was identified, by critically assessing the discourse on the crisis of democracy and highlighting challenges to democracy, also the multidimensional concept of social inequality was analised. The impact of socioeconomic inequality on political participation based on the analysis of changes in mediatized politics and forms of political participation helped to analyze the causality. Formulated an analytical tool of the zones of securitisation of democracy through socioeconomic inequality and used it to identify the zones of the relationship between democracy and socioeconomic inequality in the countries. The research found out that there is no universal link between democracy and socioeconomic inequality. The relationship between democracy and socioeconomic inequality has variations that are influenced by: 1) the length of the history of democracy; 2) the material well-being of the country; 3) the extent of political participation; 4) perception of social justice. The analytical tool on the relationship between democracy and social inequality opens up the perspective of exploring in more detail the transformations of established and other democracies – responses to the challenges to democracy in different groups of countries perceiving and expressing social inequality

This dissertation explores how and to what extent social inequality distorts political equality and becomes a threat to democracy. The perception of social inequality allows not only to acknowledge the fact of its existence but also to assume it as a threat to democracy and to one of the values of democracy – political equality. The innovation of the research is assessment of the factor of socioeconomic inequality in the securitisation of democracy, the contradiction between the theory of normative democracy and the theorization on existing democracies is actualized. When applying the methods of qualitative and quantitative research, the contradiction in the description of the relationship between democracy and socioeconomic inequality is highlighted. Also , our groups of countries – zones – where democracy is securitised through socioeconomic inequality are distinguished The objective of the research is to determine the nature of the impact of the socioeconomic inequality on political equality, when there is a distinction between the de jure and de facto of political equality. Seeking to achieve this objective, the extent of the threats to democracy posed by social inequality was identified, by critically assessing the discourse on the crisis of democracy and highlighting challenges to democracy, also the multidimensional concept of social inequality was analised. The impact of socioeconomic inequality on political participation based on the analysis of changes in mediatized politics and forms of political participation helped to analyze the causality. Formulated an analytical tool of the zones of securitisation of democracy through socioeconomic inequality and used it to identify the zones of the relationship between democracy and socioeconomic inequality in the countries. The research found out that there is no universal link between democracy and socioeconomic inequality. The relationship between democracy and socioeconomic inequality has variations that are influenced by: 1) the length of the history of democracy; 2) the material well-being of the country; 3) the extent of political participation; 4) perception of social justice. The analytical tool on the relationship between democracy and social inequality opens up the perspective of exploring in more detail the transformations of established and other democracies – responses to the challenges to democracy in different groups of countries perceiving and expressing social inequality

This dissertation explores how and to what extent social inequality distorts political equality and becomes a threat to democracy. The perception of social inequality allows not only to acknowledge the fact of its existence but also to assume it as a threat to democracy and to one of the values of democracy – political equality. The innovation of the research is assessment of the factor of socioeconomic inequality in the securitisation of democracy, the contradiction between the theory of normative democracy and the theorization on existing democracies is actualized. When applying the methods of qualitative and quantitative research, the contradiction in the description of the relationship between democracy and socioeconomic inequality is highlighted. Also , our groups of countries – zones – where democracy is securitised through socioeconomic inequality are distinguished The objective of the research is to determine the nature of the impact of the socioeconomic inequality on political equality, when there is a distinction between the de jure and de facto of political equality. Seeking to achieve this objective, the extent of the threats to democracy posed by social inequality was identified, by critically assessing the discourse on the crisis of democracy and highlighting challenges to democracy, also the multidimensional concept of social inequality was analised. The impact of socioeconomic inequality on political participation based on the analysis of changes in mediatized politics and forms of political participation helped to analyze the causality. Formulated an analytical tool of the zones of securitisation of democracy through socioeconomic inequality and used it to identify the zones of the relationship between democracy and socioeconomic inequality in the countries. The research found out that there is no universal link between democracy and socioeconomic inequality. The relationship between democracy and socioeconomic inequality has variations that are influenced by: 1) the length of the history of democracy; 2) the material well-being of the country; 3) the extent of political participation; 4) perception of social justice. The analytical tool on the relationship between democracy and social inequality opens up the perspective of exploring in more detail the transformations of established and other democracies – responses to the challenges to democracy in different groups of countries perceiving and expressing social inequality

The goal of this paper – to suggest a methodology and evaluate the impact of globalization on income inequality in Europe Union countries during period 1995-2011. The first part of the paper deals with theoretical aspects of relationship between globalization and unequal income distribution, as well as analyzes quantitative methods of measuring globalization and income inequality. In the second part, the analysis of factors and indexes of globalization and income inequality is made within Europe Union countries during period 1995-2011. The methodology of empirical research is presented, as well as hypotheses with respect to the goal of the paper. In the third part results are represented and analyzed. The recommendations are made: firstly, methodological ones for the future researches in the analogic topic, secondly, economic ones with a purpose of reducing income inequality. The empirical results showed that research and development increases income inequality as well as international trade, while democracy reduces the level of unequal income distribution.

The goal of this paper – to suggest a methodology and evaluate the impact of globalization on income inequality in Europe Union countries during period 1995-2011. The first part of the paper deals with theoretical aspects of relationship between globalization and unequal income distribution, as well as analyzes quantitative methods of measuring globalization and income inequality. In the second part, the analysis of factors and indexes of globalization and income inequality is made within Europe Union countries during period 1995-2011. The methodology of empirical research is presented, as well as hypotheses with respect to the goal of the paper. In the third part results are represented and analyzed. The recommendations are made: firstly, methodological ones for the future researches in the analogic topic, secondly, economic ones with a purpose of reducing income inequality. The empirical results showed that research and development increases income inequality as well as international trade, while democracy reduces the level of unequal income distribution.

The goal of this paper – to suggest a methodology and evaluate the impact of globalization on income inequality in Europe Union countries during period 1995-2011. The first part of the paper deals with theoretical aspects of relationship between globalization and unequal income distribution, as well as analyzes quantitative methods of measuring globalization and income inequality. In the second part, the analysis of factors and indexes of globalization and income inequality is made within Europe Union countries during period 1995-2011. The methodology of empirical research is presented, as well as hypotheses with respect to the goal of the paper. In the third part results are represented and analyzed. The recommendations are made: firstly, methodological ones for the future researches in the analogic topic, secondly, economic ones with a purpose of reducing income inequality. The empirical results showed that research and development increases income inequality as well as international trade, while democracy reduces the level of unequal income distribution.

Income inequality still is a sensitive topic in the Lithuanian economy. Lithuania, according to the indicators of income inequality, still is at the bottom of European Union even though the situation is improving. In recent years, the main way to solve the problem of income inequality in Lithuania was to change the benefits policy, which is aimed at solving this problem, but no decisions are made to change the tax policy. These decisions are avoided because they are complex, can have a negative impact on other economic factors and, of course, negative public opinion and opposition is avoided.

Income inequality still is a sensitive topic in the Lithuanian economy. Lithuania, according to the indicators of income inequality, still is at the bottom of European Union even though the situation is improving. In recent years, the main way to solve the problem of income inequality in Lithuania was to change the benefits policy, which is aimed at solving this problem, but no decisions are made to change the tax policy. These decisions are avoided because they are complex, can have a negative impact on other economic factors and, of course, negative public opinion and opposition is avoided.

Income inequality still is a sensitive topic in the Lithuanian economy. Lithuania, according to the indicators of income inequality, still is at the bottom of European Union even though the situation is improving. In recent years, the main way to solve the problem of income inequality in Lithuania was to change the benefits policy, which is aimed at solving this problem, but no decisions are made to change the tax policy. These decisions are avoided because they are complex, can have a negative impact on other economic factors and, of course, negative public opinion and opposition is avoided.