To Run Inequality State 5
Transcript of 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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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%
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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)
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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 %
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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%
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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)
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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?
-
8/10/2019 To Run Inequality State 5
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