Inequality and Stratification(Ch. 12-13)

Dr. John Bradford

Outline

I. Inequality within the USII. Global InequalityIII. The importance of EqualityIV. Theories of Stratification

INEQUALITY IN THE US

30.0

32.9

35.7

38.6

41.4

44.3

47.1

50.0

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Percentage of Total Income Earned by the Top 10 PercentUnited States (1970-2009)

Year

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Income Inequality within the US

CEO and Worker PayCEOs' pay as a multiple of the average worker's pay, 1960-2007

Source: Domhoff 2011

Wealth and Financial Wealth Distribution 2007

Source: Domhoff 2011

Social Mobility

GLOBAL POVERTY AND INEQUALITY

Global Poverty

• World Bank defines two distinct sub-categories:1. World poverty, in which people live on less than

$365 per year2. Extreme poverty, in which individuals live on less

than $275 per year. • 600 million people estimated to live in extreme

poverty

Global Poverty: long-term trendsPeople living on less than $1 per day (millions)

1820-2000

Distribution of Global Poverty: 1970

http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/human-development-trends-2005/

Distribution of Global Poverty: 1970

http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/human-development-trends-2005/

Distribution of Global Poverty: 2000

http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/human-development-trends-2005/

Inequality within countries

Causes of Global Mortality

2/6/11

Life expectancy vs. GDP per person 2010

Map of World Happiness

Note: The happiest country on earth is Denmark!

III. WHY EQUALITY MATTERS

Inequality and Health

Inequality and Mental Health

Inequality and Drug Abuse

Inequality and Education

Inequality and Imprisonment

Inequality and Obesity

Inequality and Social Mobility

Inequality and Trust and Community Life

Inequality and Violence

Inequality and Child Well-Being

IV. THEORIES OF STRATIFICATION

Social Stratification

• Social Stratification = a social hierarchy, or evaluation-ranking-reward system.– In a hierarchy, those at the top

are not just different, they are considered better or superior.

– The definition of ‘better’ depends on the criterion of evaluation: Braver, Smarter, Stronger, Purer…

Social Stratification

• Social Stratification = – In nearly all societies, people are

evaluated on the basis of some characteristic and placed into higher or lower-ranking groups.

– Actors are sorted into social positions that carry unequal rewards, obligations, and expectations

How does inequality arise in class-based societies?

Two possible explanations:1. Individualist, or Market framework

– Hierarchies are emergent ( = unintended).– Inequality of individuals’ effort or talent lead to inequality of

status positions (income, power, prestige, etc.)– Higher ‘rewards’ for some individuals are both i) compensation

for their effort, and ii) incentives to elicit that effort

2. ‘Structural’ framework = ‘Rich Get Richer’ – Hierarchies are enacted (= imposed)– Differences in outcomes (status) not due to intrinsic individual

attributes, but to the social positions they occupy.

How does inequality arise in class-based societies?

Structural, or ‘Rich get richer’ framework: – Hierarchies are emergent, (i.e. unintended,

spontaneous) but resulting inequalities don’t reflect the efforts or talents of the individuals.

– People in higher-ranking groups receive disproportionally more rewards, and those in lower-ranking groups disproportionally fewer rewards,

– In other words, differences in social rewards are far greater than the differences in ‘talent’ upon which these rewards are ostensibly based.

‘Rich get richer’• Even assuming perfect equality of opportunity, and assuming

everyone desires to live in a society where social rewards are based on one’s talents and/or hard work, we should not expect that the differences in the social rewards received will be proportional to the differences in the talents/efforts of the individuals!

• Those with a little more ‘talent’ get disproportionately more rewards, far more than they ‘deserve’, even assuming perfect equality of opportunity!

Lots of talentNo talent

Differences in talent

Differences in social rewards

‘Rich get richer’

• Do these people have talent? (acting skill, charisma, beauty, etc.)

• If so, is the above-average wealth and fame they receive proportional to their above-average talents?

• Why are these people wealthy and famous and not you!?

‘Rich get richer’How it works:• Our evaluations of others are socially influenced: People pay

attention to how everyone else is being evaluated by everyone else.

• This amplifies underlying differences between individuals and makes the rewards allotted to them disproportional to their talents and/or efforts. – Examples: i. People who are popular tend to attract more attention than non-

popular people. Why? Because they are already popular! ii. Children with a reputation for being ‘bad’ are more likely to get in

trouble compared to a ‘good’ kid, for doing the same things.iii. Some journal articles get cited way more than others, simply

because they are more frequently cited.

‘Rich get richer’(Summary)

• The ‘rich get richer’ effect is also known as: winner-take-all effects, cascade effects, popularity tournaments, the Matthew effect, and preferential attachment.

• These are all examples of positive (reinforcing) feedback.

• Conclusion: even if there was total equality of opportunity, and everyone had identical talents, you should still expect hierarchies in class-based societies!

Michels’ Iron Law of Oligarchy• German sociologist Robert Michels

claimed in his 1911 book Political Parties that “rule by an elite or "oligarchy" is inevitable, an “iron law” within any organization.

• Democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and oligarchy is inevitable.

• Why? Large organizations require bureaucracies in order to function effectively; bureaucracy entails centralization, and centralization means that power will end up in the hands of the few.