Timothy Noah at Slate has put together a ten-part series about “the great convergence,” a Paul Krugman term for the recent thirty year stretch in the United States where the income gap has grown between the top 1% and the rest of the population.
Tag Archives: inequality
Gallup examines the link between religion and income
New figures from Gallup examine the link between religion and income. Based on results from asking the question “Is religion an important part of your daily life?”, it appears that religion is more important to the daily lives of those in poorer countries:
This reflects the strong relationship between a country’s socioeconomic status and the religiosity of its residents. In the world’s poorest countries — those with average per-capita incomes of $2,000 or lower — the median proportion who say religion is important in their daily lives is 95%. In contrast, the median for the richest countries — those with average per-capita incomes higher than $25,000 — is 47%.
Why exactly this is the case is briefly explored:
Social scientists have put forth numerous possible explanations for the relationship between the religiosity of a population and its average income level. One theory is that religion plays a more functional role in the world’s poorest countries, helping many residents cope with a daily struggle to provide for themselves and their families. A previous Gallup analysis supports this idea, revealing that the relationship between religiosity and emotional wellbeing is stronger among poor countries than among those in the developed world.
However, there are several countries that don’t fit the relationship:
The United States is one of the rich countries that bucks the trend. About two-thirds of Americans — 65% — say religion is important in their daily lives. Among high-income countries, only Italians, Greeks, Singaporeans, and residents of the oil-rich Persian Gulf states are more likely to say religion is important.
Figures like these provide more data to be interpreted within the secularization debate in sociol0gy. Briefly put, the theory of secularization suggests that the importance of religion in institutional life and personal life diminishes as a society or people become more modern. On one hand, this trend Gallup finds seems to support the theory: as countries become wealthier and generally join the industrialized/developed world, the need for religion diminishes. On the other hand, there are countries that don’t fit the trend. The United States is usually discussed as the primary exception but there are other nations with other religious traditions that also don’t fit.
For a graphical representation of the data, check out this New York Times piece.
The inequalities in higher education
Christopher Shea takes a look at two books that call for reforms to the university and college system, reforms which would include possible reforms for the tenure system. After considering what these books have to say, Shea suggests the real issue is how universities and colleges are being split into two groups: those with considerable resources and those with few resources:
Here we have the frightening subtext of all the recent hand-wringing about higher education: the widening inequality among institutions of various types and the prospects of the students who attend them. While the financial crisis has demoted Ivy League institutions from super-rich to merely rich, public universities are being gutted. It is not news that America is a land of haves and have-nots. It is news that colleges are themselves dividing into haves and have-nots; they are becoming engines of inequality. And that — not whether some professors can afford to wear Marc Jacobs — is the real scandal.
This is an interesting observation though it isn’t just public schools that are struggling with finances: many schools with fewer resources have had to make changes. What would Shea (or others) suggest could be done about closing this gap between schools?
Will the future be ruled by cities or suburbs?
Two commentators disagree in a special issue of Foreign Policy on global cities: one says cities are the places of the future while another says suburbs are key.
1. In Foreign Policy, Parang Khanna discusses global cities, a concept developed by sociologist Saskia Sassen. Khanna suggests such cities are growing to a point where they exceed the ability for nations or the United Nations to control them. The conclusion is that cities are quite important:
What happens in our cities, simply put, matters more than what happens anywhere else. Cities are the world’s experimental laboratories and thus a metaphor for an uncertain age. They are both the cancer and the foundation of our networked world, both virus and antibody. From climate change to poverty and inequality, cities are the problem — and the solution.
2. Joel Kotkin responds and claims a more dispersed population, in suburbs, can lead to better outcomes in areas like generating wealth, less inequality, and a cleaner environment. He suggests this is particular an issue if we encourage large cities in the developing world:
The goal of urban planners should not be to fulfill their own grandiose visions of megacities on a hill, but to meet the needs of the people living in them, particularly those people suffering from overcrowding, environmental misery, and social inequality. When it comes to exporting our notions to the rest of the globe, we must be aware of our own susceptibility to fashionable theories in urban design — because while the West may be able to live with its mistakes, the developing world doesn’t enjoy that luxury.
An interesting debate – both places have their own issues. One could ask what residents would prefer to live in (both in the developed and developing world): the wealthy and glamorous megacity or the comfortable and affluent suburbs? Or perhaps different nations could have different planning and policy goals? Or perhaps we need some of both cities and suburbs…
Inequality due to credit card fees
A study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston argues that credit card reward programs contribute to income inequality. According to the Yahoo story:
Merchants usually don’t charge different prices for card users to recover the costs of fees and rewards, but instead, mark up the prices for all consumers.
As a result, people who pay cash — and who are more likely to be lower income — end up subsidizing those who pay by credit card…
After accounting for rewards paid by banks, households who earn more than $150,000 annually receive a subsidy of $756 on average every year, while the households earning $20,000 or less pay $23.
On one hand, this seems fairly obvious: those with more money to spend will use credit cards in order to earn more rewards. On the other hand, the impact on prices of the fees on business owners pay to the credit card companies is generally hidden.
Perhaps more places could offer discounts for people who pay in cash? The only time I have encountered this on a large scale is at gas stations in New Jersey.
Quick Review: The Matthew Effect
Sociologist Daniel Rigney tackles the “Matthew Effect” in a book published earlier in 2010. The “Matthew effect” refers to a situation where those with more get even more and those with less continue to get less so that there is a growing gap. The effect is captured in the phrase “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.”
The “Matthew effect” was coined by famous sociologist Robert Merton and refers to a Biblical saying of Jesus (Matthew 13:12): “Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.”
My quick thoughts:
1. The book is a quick overview of the “Matthew effect” within different fields like science, technology, and politics. The book is not very deep and the examples are not fully explored. The primary goal seems to be to argue that Matthew effects are found throughout human activity.
2. Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell tackles the same subject. Gladwell’s book is mentioned by Rigney and I wish Rigney added more sociological insights as Gladwell already provided a good overview.
3. The implications section (Chapter 6) raises some interesting questions but does not provide a sufficient discussion. An intriguing question: is the Matthew effect a law or a social construction?
4. Overall: I found some good examples of how social inequality develops to use with future classes. Beyond that, the book is simplistic and would benefit from deeper discussions regarding specific Matthew effects and their implications.
Legally Sociable 