an article by Paolo Barbieri, Giorgio Cutuli, Raffaele Guetto and Stefani Scherer (University of Trento, Italy) published in International Journal of Comparative Sociology Volume 60 Issue 4 (August 2019)
Abstract
Part-time employment has repeatedly been proposed as a solution for integrating women into the labor market; however, empirical evidence supporting a causal link is mixed. In this text, we investigate the extent to which increasing part-time employment is a valid means of augmenting women’s labor market participation.
We pay particular attention to the institutional context and the related characteristics of part-time employment in European countries to test the conditions under which this solution is a viable option.
The results reveal that part-time employment may strengthen female employment in Continental Europe and especially in Southern Europe, where an increase in part-time employment—even if it is demand-side driven—leads to greater employment participation among women.
We also discuss some policy implications and trade-offs: Although part-time work can lead to higher numbers of employed women, it does so at the cost of increasing gendered labor market segregation.
We analyze data from the European Labor Force Survey (EU-LFS) 1992–2011 for 19 countries and 188 regions and exploit regional variation over time while controlling for time-constant regional characteristics, time-varying regional labor market features, and (time-varying) confounding factors at the national level.
Showing posts with label social_inequality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social_inequality. Show all posts
Friday, 18 October 2019
Thursday, 26 September 2019
Internet use in the home: Digital inequality from a domestication perspective
an article by Anique J Scheerder, Alexander JAM van Deursen and Jan AGM van Dijk (University of Twente, The Netherlands) published in New Media & Society Volume 21 Issue 10 (October 2019)
Abstract
This study uses a domestication approach to digital inequality. The aim is to uncover whether and why less-educated families benefit less from Internet use than highly educated families.
The predominantly quantitative approach of digital divide research provides little explanation as to why digital inequalities exist.
Interviews were conducted with the heads of 48 Dutch families.
The results showed that Internet use and routines in the home are shaped differently for families with different educational backgrounds.
In all four phases of domestication, the highly educated demonstrated a critical view toward the Internet, resulting in considered use and redefinition.
Less-educated members tended to be less interested in Internet developments and overall have a less reflective stance. Inequalities between different social strata already arise in the early stages of domestication and are magnified in the subsequent phases.
Full text (PDF 20pp)
Abstract
This study uses a domestication approach to digital inequality. The aim is to uncover whether and why less-educated families benefit less from Internet use than highly educated families.
The predominantly quantitative approach of digital divide research provides little explanation as to why digital inequalities exist.
Interviews were conducted with the heads of 48 Dutch families.
The results showed that Internet use and routines in the home are shaped differently for families with different educational backgrounds.
In all four phases of domestication, the highly educated demonstrated a critical view toward the Internet, resulting in considered use and redefinition.
Less-educated members tended to be less interested in Internet developments and overall have a less reflective stance. Inequalities between different social strata already arise in the early stages of domestication and are magnified in the subsequent phases.
Full text (PDF 20pp)
Friday, 16 August 2019
Nobody Understands Democracy Anymore
an article by Shany Mor published in Tablet [grateful thanks to Arts & Letters Daily for this piece]
A wave of recent books warning about a ‘crisis of democracy’ reveals that even our experts are confused about how democracies actually work
Book after book in recent years has alerted us—as if we couldn’t tell by reading the news and absorbing the panicked media—that democracy is in crisis. Did it start with Trump or with Brexit? In Europe or the U.S.? The diagnosis varies among authors of different backgrounds and political persuasions, as do their prescriptions on what to do now. Not all of the books even share the premise that the loss of democracy is such a bad thing—at least one recent work argues that the real crisis was a democratic surplus.
What the books have in common, beyond their shared subject matter, is a common confusion over what democracy actually is. This confusion about the differences between democracy’s complementary functions like lawmaking and voting is, in its own way, rather illuminating, as the shared shortcoming in the books suggests a broader breakdown in democratic understanding that helped engender the very crisis they were written to address.
Probably the best, and certainly the most talked about entry in the “crisis of democracy” catalogue, is Yascha Mounk’s The People vs. Democracy.
Mounk was, at the time of the book’s release, a Harvard lecturer, and his well-timed tome has catapulted him into the world of celebrity academics. This clearly came as no surprise to his publishers at Harvard University Press, who put the book out with no fewer than four gushing blurbs from an exhaustive array of celebrity intellectuals ranging all the way from a Harvard AB (Dani Rodrik), a Harvard Ph.D. (Francis Fukuyama), a Harvard JD (Anne-Marie Slaughter), and all the way to a current Harvard professor (Michael Sandel).
Continue reading
I found this well worth the time and effort.
A wave of recent books warning about a ‘crisis of democracy’ reveals that even our experts are confused about how democracies actually work
Book after book in recent years has alerted us—as if we couldn’t tell by reading the news and absorbing the panicked media—that democracy is in crisis. Did it start with Trump or with Brexit? In Europe or the U.S.? The diagnosis varies among authors of different backgrounds and political persuasions, as do their prescriptions on what to do now. Not all of the books even share the premise that the loss of democracy is such a bad thing—at least one recent work argues that the real crisis was a democratic surplus.
What the books have in common, beyond their shared subject matter, is a common confusion over what democracy actually is. This confusion about the differences between democracy’s complementary functions like lawmaking and voting is, in its own way, rather illuminating, as the shared shortcoming in the books suggests a broader breakdown in democratic understanding that helped engender the very crisis they were written to address.
Probably the best, and certainly the most talked about entry in the “crisis of democracy” catalogue, is Yascha Mounk’s The People vs. Democracy.
Mounk was, at the time of the book’s release, a Harvard lecturer, and his well-timed tome has catapulted him into the world of celebrity academics. This clearly came as no surprise to his publishers at Harvard University Press, who put the book out with no fewer than four gushing blurbs from an exhaustive array of celebrity intellectuals ranging all the way from a Harvard AB (Dani Rodrik), a Harvard Ph.D. (Francis Fukuyama), a Harvard JD (Anne-Marie Slaughter), and all the way to a current Harvard professor (Michael Sandel).
Continue reading
I found this well worth the time and effort.
Monday, 9 April 2018
Lay Perceptions of Inequality and Social Structure
an article by Sarah Irwin (University of Leeds, UK) published in Sociology Volume 52 Issue 2 (April 2018)
Abstract
Lay perceptions of social structure and economic distribution have a particular salience in the current era of widening inequalities which has characterised Britain since the 1980s.
Research into subjective beliefs has generated puzzles: people underestimate the extent of inequalities, see themselves as being situated ‘near the middle’ irrespective of their objective position, and allegedly hold an a-social view of the underpinnings of socio-economic inequalities.
This article presents a new qualitative analysis of lay perceptions of inequality. It does so with a particular focus on context, biographical experience and social change.
The qualitative and temporal perspectives reveal that people are more sophisticated analysts of social process, and of their own situatedness within the wider social structure, than often thought. This has implications for sociological understanding but also holds relevance for renewing political options for intervention.
Additionally, the evidence offers insights into lived experiences of inequality through a period of significant restructuring.
Abstract
Lay perceptions of social structure and economic distribution have a particular salience in the current era of widening inequalities which has characterised Britain since the 1980s.
Research into subjective beliefs has generated puzzles: people underestimate the extent of inequalities, see themselves as being situated ‘near the middle’ irrespective of their objective position, and allegedly hold an a-social view of the underpinnings of socio-economic inequalities.
This article presents a new qualitative analysis of lay perceptions of inequality. It does so with a particular focus on context, biographical experience and social change.
The qualitative and temporal perspectives reveal that people are more sophisticated analysts of social process, and of their own situatedness within the wider social structure, than often thought. This has implications for sociological understanding but also holds relevance for renewing political options for intervention.
Additionally, the evidence offers insights into lived experiences of inequality through a period of significant restructuring.
Wednesday, 6 March 2013
The Financial Costs of Caring in the British Labour Market: Is There a Wage Penalty for Workers in Caring Occupations?
an article by David N. Barron (University of Oxford, UK) and Elizabeth West ((University of Greenwich, UK) published in British Journal of Industrial Relations Volume 51 Issue 1 (March 2013)
Abstract
Recent evidence from the USA suggests that people engaged in occupations involving providing care for others, such as childcare and teaching, suffer a wage penalty. After taking into account job and individual characteristics such as level of education and work experience, people in these occupations in the American study earned about 6 per cent less than their peers in other types of occupation.
However, we do not yet know if people working in similar occupations in other countries also suffer the same degree of disadvantage.
The issue is important because, despite the perception that people in caring jobs place a relatively low weight on the level of remuneration when making career decisions, a number of studies have shown clear evidence of an association between pay and the propensity to give up working in a caring occupation. There are implications too for social inequality as many caring jobs are done by women and associated wage penalties could contribute to the persistent gender gap in pay. This study compares and contrasts the predictions of neoclassical economics, cultural feminist theory and social closure theory.
Data are taken from 17 waves of the British Household Panel Survey and include a total of 23,773 individuals, giving 110,677 person-year observations. These data are analysed using multi-level linear regression.
The results show clear evidence of a statistically significant wage penalty associated with working in some caring occupations. Those occupations requiring lower levels of educational qualification, such as nursing assistants and auxiliaries, are particularly hard-hit by the wage penalty.
On the other hand, some occupations, such as medicine and teaching, have fared better than comparable non-caring occupations over the same period.
We discuss the implications of these results for the gender gap in pay, poverty, social inequality and the future supply of caring workers.
Full text (PDF 20pp)
Abstract
Recent evidence from the USA suggests that people engaged in occupations involving providing care for others, such as childcare and teaching, suffer a wage penalty. After taking into account job and individual characteristics such as level of education and work experience, people in these occupations in the American study earned about 6 per cent less than their peers in other types of occupation.
However, we do not yet know if people working in similar occupations in other countries also suffer the same degree of disadvantage.
The issue is important because, despite the perception that people in caring jobs place a relatively low weight on the level of remuneration when making career decisions, a number of studies have shown clear evidence of an association between pay and the propensity to give up working in a caring occupation. There are implications too for social inequality as many caring jobs are done by women and associated wage penalties could contribute to the persistent gender gap in pay. This study compares and contrasts the predictions of neoclassical economics, cultural feminist theory and social closure theory.
Data are taken from 17 waves of the British Household Panel Survey and include a total of 23,773 individuals, giving 110,677 person-year observations. These data are analysed using multi-level linear regression.
The results show clear evidence of a statistically significant wage penalty associated with working in some caring occupations. Those occupations requiring lower levels of educational qualification, such as nursing assistants and auxiliaries, are particularly hard-hit by the wage penalty.
On the other hand, some occupations, such as medicine and teaching, have fared better than comparable non-caring occupations over the same period.
We discuss the implications of these results for the gender gap in pay, poverty, social inequality and the future supply of caring workers.
Full text (PDF 20pp)
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Dualism, Job Polarization, and the Social Construction of Precarious Work
an article by Steven Vallas and Christopher Prener (Northeastern University, Boston, USA) published in Work and Occupations Volume 39 Number 4 (November 2012)
Abstract
Publication of Arne Kalleberg’s Good Jobs, Bad Jobs provides a welcome opportunity to re-examine the theoretical and conceptual frameworks that scholars bring to bear on precarious employment.
An exemplar of what was once called the “new structuralism,” Kalleberg’s book provides a rigorous, multidimensional analysis of the changes impinging on job stability and security. Although it identifies a vitally important trend toward a growing polarization in the distribution of job rewards, it does so in ways that illustrate the limits of the genre of research to which it belongs.
Constrained to view the subjective experience of work as merely dependent variables, the book cannot explore how social, political, and cultural processes have both shaped and legitimated the rise of precarious employment.
Drawing on recent studies of the popular business press and other media representations, we document the rise of a culture of enterprise that has idealised the uncertainties that have come to grip the labour market, defining the latter as a site on which individual agency can freely unfold.
Only by addressing the interplay between job structures and such discursive and political developments can we hope to understand the rise of labour market precarity, let alone expand workers’ rights to protection against market uncertainty.
Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s by Arne L. Kalleberg (published July 2011) is available from the publishers the Russell Sage Foundation
Abstract
Publication of Arne Kalleberg’s Good Jobs, Bad Jobs provides a welcome opportunity to re-examine the theoretical and conceptual frameworks that scholars bring to bear on precarious employment.
An exemplar of what was once called the “new structuralism,” Kalleberg’s book provides a rigorous, multidimensional analysis of the changes impinging on job stability and security. Although it identifies a vitally important trend toward a growing polarization in the distribution of job rewards, it does so in ways that illustrate the limits of the genre of research to which it belongs.
Constrained to view the subjective experience of work as merely dependent variables, the book cannot explore how social, political, and cultural processes have both shaped and legitimated the rise of precarious employment.
Drawing on recent studies of the popular business press and other media representations, we document the rise of a culture of enterprise that has idealised the uncertainties that have come to grip the labour market, defining the latter as a site on which individual agency can freely unfold.
Only by addressing the interplay between job structures and such discursive and political developments can we hope to understand the rise of labour market precarity, let alone expand workers’ rights to protection against market uncertainty.
Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s by Arne L. Kalleberg (published July 2011) is available from the publishers the Russell Sage Foundation
Monday, 29 October 2012
Changes in the economy, the labor market, and expectations for the future: What might Europe and the United States look like in twenty-five years?
an article by Sandra Buchholz and Hans-Peter Blossfeld (University of Bamberg, Germany) published in New Directions for Youth Development Volume 2012 Issue 135 (Autumn/fall 2012)
Abstract
In times of globalisation, modern societies’ labour markets have been marked by an increasing segmentation and growing social inequality. Youths in particular have experienced a worsening of their employment chances in the past three decades.
However, what will the future bring?
Hazel’s comment:
It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the abstracts in this publication are so scanty as there are several articles in this issue that look potentially interesting.
Abstract
In times of globalisation, modern societies’ labour markets have been marked by an increasing segmentation and growing social inequality. Youths in particular have experienced a worsening of their employment chances in the past three decades.
However, what will the future bring?
Hazel’s comment:
It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the abstracts in this publication are so scanty as there are several articles in this issue that look potentially interesting.
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
Social Inequality and Access to Higher Education in Russia
an article by David L. Konstantinovskiy (Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow) published in European Journal of Education Volume 47 Issue 1 (March 2012)
Abstract
This article analyses research on social inequality and access to higher education in Russia.
It argues that the myth about equality of life chances, as with certain other myths, was an important part of the Soviet ideology. However, children from privileged groups traditionally received the education and professional training which were most advantageous for their subsequent lives and careers.
Recent research indicates that conditions in post-Soviet Russia are not eliminating social differentiation. This is clearly seen in access to higher education. It is shown that the inequality is noticeable in secondary education and is aggravated during the transition to higher education and vocational training (universities, colleges, vocational schools).
In order to explain the genesis of such inequality, the article considers research focusing on the situation at secondary school. The dynamics must be analysed over a long period, since the problems that post-Soviet youth face today have roots in the Soviet past. Hence, the article considers the results of studies conducted between the 1960s and today.
Abstract
This article analyses research on social inequality and access to higher education in Russia.
It argues that the myth about equality of life chances, as with certain other myths, was an important part of the Soviet ideology. However, children from privileged groups traditionally received the education and professional training which were most advantageous for their subsequent lives and careers.
Recent research indicates that conditions in post-Soviet Russia are not eliminating social differentiation. This is clearly seen in access to higher education. It is shown that the inequality is noticeable in secondary education and is aggravated during the transition to higher education and vocational training (universities, colleges, vocational schools).
In order to explain the genesis of such inequality, the article considers research focusing on the situation at secondary school. The dynamics must be analysed over a long period, since the problems that post-Soviet youth face today have roots in the Soviet past. Hence, the article considers the results of studies conducted between the 1960s and today.
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
Flood risk, vulnerability and environmental justice: …
Evidence and evaluation of inequality in a UK context
an article by Gordon Walker (Lancaster University) and Kate Burningham (University of Surrey) published in Critical Social Policy Volume 31 Number 2 (May 2011)
Abstract
Flooding has only relatively recently been considered as an environmental justice issue. In this paper we focus on flooding as a distinct form of environmental risk and examine some of the key evidence and analysis that is needed to underpin an environmental justice framing of flood risk and flood impacts. We review and examine the UK situation and the body of existing research literature on flooding to fill out our understanding of the patterns of social inequality that exist in relation to both flood risk exposure and vulnerability to the diverse impacts of flooding. We then consider the various ways in which judgements might be made about the injustice or justice of these inequalities and the ways in which they are being sustained or responded to by current flood policy and practice. We conclude that there is both evidence of significant inequalities and grounds on which claims of injustice might be made, but that further work is needed to investigate each of these. The case for pursuing the framing of flooding as an environmental justice issue is also made.
Hazel’s comment:
And if you think about it the poor have always lived in the more vulnerable places – the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate. Or the rich man on the hill and the poor man in the meadows.
an article by Gordon Walker (Lancaster University) and Kate Burningham (University of Surrey) published in Critical Social Policy Volume 31 Number 2 (May 2011)
Abstract
Flooding has only relatively recently been considered as an environmental justice issue. In this paper we focus on flooding as a distinct form of environmental risk and examine some of the key evidence and analysis that is needed to underpin an environmental justice framing of flood risk and flood impacts. We review and examine the UK situation and the body of existing research literature on flooding to fill out our understanding of the patterns of social inequality that exist in relation to both flood risk exposure and vulnerability to the diverse impacts of flooding. We then consider the various ways in which judgements might be made about the injustice or justice of these inequalities and the ways in which they are being sustained or responded to by current flood policy and practice. We conclude that there is both evidence of significant inequalities and grounds on which claims of injustice might be made, but that further work is needed to investigate each of these. The case for pursuing the framing of flooding as an environmental justice issue is also made.
Hazel’s comment:
And if you think about it the poor have always lived in the more vulnerable places – the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate. Or the rich man on the hill and the poor man in the meadows.
Friday, 13 August 2010
Conceptualizing ‘precarious prosperity’: ...
Empirical and theoretical elements for debate
an article by Monica Budowski, Wiebke Keim and Michèle Amacker (University of Fribourg, Switzerland) and Robin Tillmann (Centre of Expertise in Social Sciences (FORS), Switzerland) published in International Journal of comparative Sociology Volume 51 Issue 4 (August 2010)
Abstract
Empirical studies have recently pointed towards a socio-structural category largely overlooked in social inequality research: the dynamic positions of households adjacent to those of the poor and yet not representing those of the established, more prosperous positions in society. These results suggest that the population in this category fluctuates into and out of poverty more often than moving into and out of secure prosperity. This category – still lacking theoretical conceptualisation – is characterised by both precariousness and a certain degree of prosperity; despite a restricted and uncertain living standard it holds a range of opportunities for action. We seek analytical elements to conceptualise ‘precarious prosperity’ for comparative empirical research by subjecting various concepts of social inequality research to critical scrutiny. We then operationally define ‘precarious prosperity’ to screen for this population in three countries. Based on qualitative interviews with households in precarious prosperity, we present first analyses of perceptions and household strategies that underline the relevance of the concept in different countries.
Hazel’s comment:
This is an interesting view of inequality – that those on the edge of poverty cross the line into and out of prosperity with a regularity that makes the prosperity precarious and short-lived. The concept implies that an increase in income has allowed some clearing of debt and possible increase in living standards which then results in falling below the poverty line again.
an article by Monica Budowski, Wiebke Keim and Michèle Amacker (University of Fribourg, Switzerland) and Robin Tillmann (Centre of Expertise in Social Sciences (FORS), Switzerland) published in International Journal of comparative Sociology Volume 51 Issue 4 (August 2010)
Abstract
Empirical studies have recently pointed towards a socio-structural category largely overlooked in social inequality research: the dynamic positions of households adjacent to those of the poor and yet not representing those of the established, more prosperous positions in society. These results suggest that the population in this category fluctuates into and out of poverty more often than moving into and out of secure prosperity. This category – still lacking theoretical conceptualisation – is characterised by both precariousness and a certain degree of prosperity; despite a restricted and uncertain living standard it holds a range of opportunities for action. We seek analytical elements to conceptualise ‘precarious prosperity’ for comparative empirical research by subjecting various concepts of social inequality research to critical scrutiny. We then operationally define ‘precarious prosperity’ to screen for this population in three countries. Based on qualitative interviews with households in precarious prosperity, we present first analyses of perceptions and household strategies that underline the relevance of the concept in different countries.
Hazel’s comment:
This is an interesting view of inequality – that those on the edge of poverty cross the line into and out of prosperity with a regularity that makes the prosperity precarious and short-lived. The concept implies that an increase in income has allowed some clearing of debt and possible increase in living standards which then results in falling below the poverty line again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
