To Run Inequality State 5

8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5

1/26

1

Semi-plenary session:Role of the state in reduction/amplification of inequality

State retrenchments and class dynamics:the new middle class under strain

Louis ChauvelPr at Sciences-Po University Paris

and Institut Universitaire de France

Site : http://louis.chauvel.free.fr

[email protected]


2/26

2

Explaining (some of) the French problem(s)?

Political instability, extreme right wing candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen

qualification for the 2nd turn of presidential elections April 21 2002,

rejection of the European Treaty May 29 2005, anti-globalisationmovements, populist streams, xenophobia, fears,

Yes at two European referendums in France by socio-occupational group (%)

Source : My own computation of CEVIPOF 1995 microdata and CSA postelectoral survey 2005.

Maastrichttreatyreferendum

20 September 1992

European constitutionaltreaty referendum

29 may 2005

Change

Professionals & managers 66 67 1

Self employed 49 53 4

Semi prof. and lower managers 55 46 -9

Routine white collars 47 37 -10

Blue collar workers 43 30 -13

Diff = 23% Diff = 37%

Tot = 51% Tot = 46%


3/26

3

Plan

Europe as a middle-class exception in the world

Objective degree of inequality and class consciousness:paradoxical dynamics

The middle class dynamics and welfare state retrenchments

Conclusion: post-affluent societies and the middle class(es)


4/26

4

1. The social specificity of Europe in the world

An affluent and relatively equal club

Europe as a strong middle class (median class)Complex evolutions during the last 20 years


5/26

5

Development (per capita GDP PPP)

Inequality

(Gini coeff)

Venezuela

Ukraine

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Bangladesh

Belarus

Belgium

BoliviaBrazil

Bulgaria

Cambodia Cameroon

Canada

Chile

China

Colombia

Costa Rica

Cote d`Ivoire

Croatia

Czech R.

Denmark

Dom.Rep.

Ecuador

Egypt

El Salvador

Estonia

Finland

France

Gambia

Georgia

Germany

Ghana

Greece

Guatemala

Guyana

Honduras

Hungary

India

Indonesia

Iran

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Jamaica

Japan

Kazakhstan

Korea R.

Kyrgyz R.

Latvia

Lesotho

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Macedonia

Malaysia

Mauritania

Mexico

Moldova

Morocco

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Norway

Pakistan

Panama

Paraguay

PeruPhilippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russia

Slovak Rep.Slovenia

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sweden

SwitzerlandTaiwan

Tajikistan

Thailand

TunisiaTurkey

U.K.

U.S.

y = -5,6712Ln(x) + 88,851

R2 = 0,3085

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

1000 10000 100000

(World

Income

InequalityDatabase)

(Penn World

Tables Database)

Data 2000

Nordic countries

Corporatist countr.

Liberal and

Mediterranean countr.

Transitional Eastern Europe

Latin America


6/26

6

50

100

Lower income class = poor

200

Median income class =

middle class

Higher income class = rich

median income

IncomeThe strobiloid

representation of income distribution


7/26

7

Comparisons of national strobiloids : national median

Sweden :

Median

disposableincome per year

per capita :

23.000 $PPP/an

Gini coef.:

25.2 %

Median class =84 %

US :

Median

disposable

income per yearper capita :

32.000 $PPP/an

Gini coef.:

34.5 %

Median class =58 %

Brazil :

Median

disposable

income per

year per capita

: 6.900

$PPP/an

Gini coef.:

59.8 %

Median class =

44 %

Median

national income


8/26

8

Comparisons of national strobiloids : PPP exchange rate

Sweden :Median disposable

income per year per

capita : 23.000

$PPP/an

Gini coef.:

25.2 %

Median class =

84 %

US :

Median disposable

income per year

per capita : 32.000

$PPP/an

Gini coef.:

34.5 %

Median class =

58 %

Brazil :

Median

disposable incomeper year per

capita : 6.900

$PPP/an

Gini coef.:

59.8 %

Median class =

44 %


9/26

9

Development (per capita GDP PPP)

Inequality

(Gini coeff)

Venezuela

Ukraine

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Bangladesh

Belarus

Belgium

BoliviaBrazil

Bulgaria

Cambodia Cameroon

Canada

Chile

China

Colombia

Costa Rica

Cote d`Ivoire

Croatia

Czech R.

Denmark

Dom.Rep.

Ecuador

Egypt

El Salvador

Estonia

Finland

France

GambiaGeorgia

Germany

Ghana

Greece

Guatemala

Guyana

Honduras

Hungary

India

Indonesia

Iran

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Jamaica

Japan

Kazakhstan

Korea R.

Kyrgyz R.

Latvia

Lesotho

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Macedonia

Malaysia

Mauritania

Mexico

Moldova

Morocco

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Norway

Pakistan

Panama

Paraguay

PeruPhilippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russia

Slovak Rep.Slovenia

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sweden

SwitzerlandTaiwan

Tajikistan

Thailand

TunisiaTurkey

U.K.

U.S.

y = -5,6712Ln(x) + 88,851

R2 = 0,3085

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

1000 10000 100000

Data 2000


10/26

10

Development

log10(per capita GDP PPP)

Inequality

(Gini coeff)

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Czech R.

DenmarkFinland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea R

Malaysia

NetherlandsNorway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russia

Slovak Rep.Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland.

Taiwan

TunisiaTurkey

U.K.

U.S.

y = -16,122x + 101,38R2= 0,3387

20

25

30

35

40

45

3,6 3,7 3,8 3,9 4 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6

Data 2000


11/26

11

Development

log10(per capita GDP PPP)

Inequality

(Gini coeff)

U.S.

U.K.

Turkey

Tunisia

Taiwan

Switzerland.

Sweden

Spain

SloveniaSlovak Rep.

Russia

Romania

Portugal

Poland

NorwayNetherlands

Malaysia

Korea, Republic of

Japan

Italy

Israel

Ireland

Hungary

Greece

Germany

France

FinlandDenmark

Czech R.

Canada

Belgium

Austria

Australia

20

25

30

35

40

45

3,6 3,7 3,8 3,9 4 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6

Australia

AustriaBelgium

Canada

Costa Rica

Czech R.

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

IsraelItaly

Japan

Korea, Republic of

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Russia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland.

Taiwan

Tunisia

U.K.

U.S.

Venezuela

From early 1980 to 2000


12/26

12

Development

(per capita GDP - PPP)

Inequality

(Gini coeff)

U.S.

U.K.

Turkey

Tunisia

Taiwan

Switzerland.

Sweden

Spain

SloveniaSlovak Rep.

Russia

Romania

Portugal

Poland

Norway

Netherlands

Malaysia

Korea R

Japan

Italy

Israel

Ireland

Hungary

Greece

Germany

France

FinlandDenmark

Czech R.

Canada

Belgium

Austria

Australia

20

25

30

35

40

45

3,6 3,7 3,8 3,9 4 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6

Australia

AustriaBelgium

Canada

Costa Rica

Czech R.

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

IsraelItaly

Japan

Korea R

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Russia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland.

Taiwan

Tunisia

U.K.

U.S.

Venezuela

From early 1980 to 2000


13/26

13

Construction europenne et croissance des ingalits

European

enlargement

step

European Gini

(exchange rate)

European

Gini

(PPP)

6 29% 28%

12 32% 30%15 31% 30%

25 42% 33%

28 58% 43%

31 59% 43%


14/26

14

2. Objective intensity of inequality and class

consciousness: paradoxical dynamics

(in the French case)

Distinction between objective and subjective class systems

Class system without class consciousness

The spiral of social classes


15/26

15

Objective and subjective intensity of class system

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1810-

1819

1820-

1829

1830-

1839

1840-

1849

1850-

1859

1860-

1869

1870-

1879

1880-

1889

1890-

1899

1900-

1909

1910-

1919

1920-

1929

1930-

1939

1940-

1949

1950-

1959

1960-

1969

1970-

1979

1980-

1989

1990-

1999

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1810-

1819

1820-

1829

1830-

1839

1840-

1849

1850-

1859

1860-

1869

1870-

1879

1880-

1889

1890-

1899

1900-

1909

1910-

1919

1920-

1929

1930-

1939

1940-

1949

1950-

1959

1960-

1969

1970-

1979

1980-

1989

1990-

1999

classe ouvrire or classes sociales

classes sociales

Source :Bibliothque nationale de France catalogue

Number of Book Titles in the catalogue of Bibliothque nationale de France (BNF) containing

classes sociales or classe ouvrire (20-years mobile average of per decade occurrences)


16/26

16

1960 to 1980 decline in income inequality and stability after

Older Source : Paper publications : Enqute revenus fiscaux ERF ; Newer source : INSEE reevaluation ERF

Inequality measure : Interdecile ratio D9/D1 1954 to 2002

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010


17/26

17

Independence of objective and subjective dimensions :

a typology

Older Source : Paper publications : Enqute revenus fiscaux ERF ; Newer source : INSEE reevaluation ERF

Victory of proletariat Class Society

Classless society Alienation

Strong degree of

subjectivation of

inequalities

Weak degree of

subjectivation of

inequalities

Weak objective degree of

inequalities

Strong objective degree of

inequalities


18/26

18The historical social classes spiralObjectivity of class:

Intensity of Inequalities

Subjectivity of class:consciousness

movments, and classstruggle

F 1890

F 1950F 1970

F 1989

F 2000

Victory of proletariat

classless societyAlienation

Class society

F 1830

F 1982 Decommodification

Recommodification


19/26

19

3. The middle class dynamics and

Welfare state expansions and retrenchments

Back to Schmoller : the state and the new middle class(es)Post-affluent societies:

the lost paradise of the new middle class

The fate of generational dynamics


20/26

20

The state and the new middle class

SCHMOLLER G. 1897, Was verstehen wir unter dem Mittelstande? Hat er im

19. Jahrhundert zu oder abgenommen?, Gttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Against the Marxist theory of absolute pauperization :=> Late Nineteenth century and the expansion of large state and private technical,

managerial and expertise bureaucraciessupported and institutionalized by increasing

social rightsfoster the constitution of a culturally educated and economically

comfortable neu mittelstand

Educational

ressources

Economic

Ressources

Higherstrata

Lower

Strata

New higher

middle classOld higher

middle class

New lowermiddle class

Old lowermiddle class

=> The state is not simply an

equalitarian ruler, a provider of

decommodified resources,

it could be also a specific employer


21/26

21

Post-affluent societies:

the lost paradise

of the new middle class

Artisans

Commerants

Chefs d'entreprises

de 10 salaris et plus

Professions librales

Cadres de la

fonction pub.

Professeurs,

professions

scientifiques

Cadres

administratifs

d'entreprise

Ingnieurs

Instituteurs ou

assimilsProfessions

intermdiaires de la

sant et du travail

social

Professions

intermdiaires

administratives de la

fonction publique

Professions

intermdiaires

administrativesentreprises

Techniciens

Contrematres,agents de matrise

Employs fonc pub,

agents de servicePoliciers et militaires

Employs

entreprisesEmploys

Personnels desservices directs auxparticuliers

Ouvriers qualifis de

type industriel Ouvriers qualifis de

Chauffeurs

Ouvriers qualifis,

manutention,

magasinage,

transportOuvriers non qualifindustriel

artisanal

Ouvriers agricoles

The Bourdieu scheme

Educational

ressourcesdominant

Economic

Ressourcesdominant

Higher

strata

Lower

Strata


22/26

22

-0,4-0,3-0,2-0,100,10,20,3

0,2-0,3

0,1-0,2

0-0,1

-0,1-0-0,2--0,1

-0,3--0,2

-0,4--0,3

-0,

4

-0,

3

-0,

2

-0,

100,10,20,3

1992 to 2002 densification on the Bourdieu scheme

50 to 59 Years old 30 to 39 Years old


23/26

23

Available explanations ?

Decline in the return to educational assets (and not to

economic assets)is it really a knowledge society?

State as an employer is more and more a state as a pensionsystem for former civil servants (strong decline in hiring for

the newer generations)

The fate of generational dynamics: the newer generations

are the children of a gifted generation (first cohorts of the

baby-boom) which was massively new middle-class, but thenewer generations have little room in the new middle-class


24/26

24

The fate of generational dynamics

first cohorts

of the baby-

boomtheir

children

their

parents

Upward and downward mobility rate (cohort diagrams) -male population

Upward mob rate Downward mob rate

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

3035

4045

50

Age%

Cohorte

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

3035

4045

50

Age%

Cohorte


25/26

25

4. Conclusion:

Farewell to the new middle class?

What is ever new with new middle class, 1 century later?

A social backlash after affluence?Which consequences?

Which are the adequate social policies:

feeding the poor (bread and circuses),

or rehomogeneisation of Europe?

Were are sociologists in terms of new/old higher/lower

middle class : are we the next slice of the salami?


26/26

26

Semi-plenary session:Role of the state in reduction/amplification of inequality

THE ENDLouis ChauvelPr at Sciences-Po University Paris

and Institut Universitaire de France

Site : http://louis.chauvel.free.fr

[email protected]

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kapilr363
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

To Run Inequality State 5

Documents