Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Repartimonialization: Wage Based Middle Class and Wealth Based Middle Class in a Comparative Perspective Louis Chauvel Pr at Sciences-Po Paris and Institut.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Repartimonialization: Wage Based Middle Class and Wealth Based Middle Class in a Comparative Perspective Louis Chauvel Pr at Sciences-Po Paris and Institut."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Repartimonialization: Wage Based Middle Class and Wealth Based Middle Class in a Comparative Perspective Louis Chauvel Pr at Sciences-Po Paris and Institut Universitaire de France Site : http://louis.chauvel.free.fr chauvel@sciences-po.fr

2 2 Plan *The four middle classes *The 1964-1984 coming of a wage-earner middle class society? *The old mapping of the middle classes in the world *Farewell to the European exception? *The coming wealth-based society *Conclusion : toward a sociology of European backlashes ?

3 3 The four middle classes : The State and the new middle class = intermediate wage earner middle class SCHMOLLER G. 1897, Was verstehen wir unter dem Mittelstande? Hat er im 19. Jahrhundert zu oder abgenommen?, Göttingen, 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 bureaucracies – supported and institutionalized by increasing social rights – foster the constitution of a culturally educated and economically comfortable neu mittelstand Educational ressources Economic Ressources Higher strata Lower Strata New higher middle class Old higher middle class New lower middle class Old lower middle class => The state is not simply an equalitarian ruler, a provider of decommodified resources, it could be also a specific employer

4 4 Former elements of middle-ization *Homogenization (economic equality) *Objective upward mobility (socioeconomic expansion) *Security, control on ones future (welfare state and labour protection) => Middle class expansion and wage earner society (soc. salariale) The wage earner middle class

5 5 x3x3 Private sector wage earner (full time full year), net real wages ( constant euros 2004) (source INSEE DADS) Period Managers, professionals & experts Lower professionals Routine white or blue collars 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 19401950196019701980199020002010 Cadres Professions intermédiaires Employés / Ouvriers

6 6 Source : Long term series on wages – INSEE. Note : in 1955, the cadres average wage was 3,9 times higher than the workers. Between 1950 and 1955, the average real growth wage was 4,8%; in 1955, with this rhythm, Catch-up time lag (= the time after which workers wage catch up the cadres) was 29,1 years. Catch-up time lag

7 7 Decline and stabilization in the income inequality Sources : publications des Enquête revenus fiscaux ERF ; nouvelle série : INSEE reevaluation ERF Equivalized household disposable income : Interdecile Ratio D9/D1 1954 à 2004 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1950196019701980199020002010

8 8 50 100 Lower income class = poor 200 Median income class = « middle class » Higher income class = rich median income Income The strobiloid representation of distribution

9 9 Comparisons of national strobiloids : national median 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 % Chile : Median disposable income per year per capita : 8.000 $PPP/an Gini coef.: 57.2 % Median class = 47 % Median national income

10 10 lComparisons 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 % Chile : Median disposable income per year per capita : 8.000 $PPP/an Gini coef.: 57.2 % Median class = 47 %

11 11 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…

12 12 Development (per capita GDP PPP) Inequality (Gini coeff) 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 100010000100000 (World Income Inequality Database) (Penn World Tables Database) Poor & unequalRich & unequal Poor & equalRich & equal

13 13 Development (per capita GDP PPP) Inequality (Gini coeff) Venezuela Ukraine Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bangladesh Belarus Belgium Bolivia Brazil 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 Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Romania Russia Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sri Lanka Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Tajikistan Thailand Tunisia Turkey U.K. U.S. y = -5,6712Ln(x) + 88,851 R 2 = 0,3085 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 100010000100000 (World Income Inequality Database) (Penn World Tables Database) Data 2000 Nordic countries Corporatist countr. Liberal and Mediterranean countr. Transitional Eastern Europe Latin America

14 14 Development (per capita GDP PPP) Inequality (Gini coeff) Venezuela Ukraine Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bangladesh Belarus Belgium Bolivia Brazil 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 Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Romania Russia Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sri Lanka Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Tajikistan Thailand Tunisia Turkey U.K. U.S. y = -5,6712Ln(x) + 88,851 R 2 = 0,3085 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 100010000100000 Data 2000

15 15 Development log10(per capita GDP PPP) Inequality (Gini coeff) Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech R. Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea R Malaysia Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland. Taiwan Tunisia Turkey U.K. U.S. y = -16,122x + 101,38 R 2 = 0,3387 20 25 30 35 40 45 3,63,73,83,944,14,24,34,44,54,6 Data 2000 Bulgaria

16 16 Development log10(per capita GDP PPP) Inequality (Gini coeff) U.S. U.K. Turkey Tunisia Taiwan Switzerland. Sweden Spain Slovenia Slovak Rep. Russia Romania Portugal Poland Norway Netherlands Malaysia Korea, Republic of Japan Italy Israel Ireland Hungary Greece Germany France Finland Denmark 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 Austria Belgium Canada Costa Rica Czech R. Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Italy 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 Bulgaria

17 17 Development (per capita GDP - PPP) Inequality (Gini coeff) U.S. U.K. Turkey Tunisia Taiwan Switzerland. Sweden Spain Slovenia Slovak Rep. Russia Romania Portugal Poland Norway Netherlands Malaysia Korea R Japan Italy Israel Ireland Hungary Greece Germany France Finland Denmark 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 Austria Belgium Canada Costa Rica Czech R. Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Italy 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 Bulgaria

18 18.U.S.U.S.U.K.U.K Taiwan Sweden Spain Israel Germany France 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 1975198019851990199520002005 Rapport interdécile Année Evolution du degré dinégalité de 8 pays 1980 à 2000 : Les inégalités économiques sont restées stables en France

19 19 Development (per capita GDP PPP) Inequality (Gini coeff) 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 100010000100000 (World Income Inequality Database) (Penn World Tables Database) Brazil China India Pakistan Western Europe US Eastern Europe Latin America (1980-2000 trends) France 30 glorieuses 1945-1975 trend

20 20 European Enlaregment and inequality intensification 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%

21 21 The coming wealth based society *The wealth distribution: back to he Pareto distribution *Age/cohort and wealth *modelling wealth: emerging factors

22 22 French Income and Wealth Strobiloïd 2004 in euro 100 = median income 100 = median wealth Note : the strobiloïd is the shape of social pyramid corresponding to the distribution of income (versus wealth) (see Chauvel, 1995). At a given level of income, the larger is the curve, the more people are positioned around this point. If 100 is the median income (per capita in the household) a large strobiloïd at level 100 shows a large middle class (in the Swedish situation, for instance) at an equal distance between extremes. For wealth, there is clearly no middle class, and the population is stretched between the extreme high level of accumulation and the extreme low. The points C, I, E et O shows the median C cadres = higher professionals, managers etc. I professions intermédiaires = lower professionals and intermediate white collars, E Employés routine white collars, and O ouvriers = blue collar workers. For Wealth, these are not the median but average positions. Source : income : Budget des ménages survey INSEE 1995 and wealth : Actifs financiers INSEE 1992, reevaluation for year 2000 (growth and inflation) Median wealth : 100K Median income : 10K/capit /year Gini= 28% Gini= 68%

23 23 US change in the income / wealth distribution Zhu Xiao Di, 2007, « Growing Wealth, Inequality, and Housing in the United States, WP Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.

24 24 Age distribution of wealth (100= average wealth in 1992/2004) Marie Cordier, Eric Gautier et Cédric Houdré, WP CREST 2007¶

25 25 Income Age Household type Main bread earner occ. (-) (=) (+) (-) Marie Cordier, Eric Gautier et Cédric Houdré, « Inégalités de patrimoine en 2004 » Données sociales 2006, INSEE, Paris. ¶

26 26 Urban community type Education Self empl. Housing property Inheritance (-) (+) (-) (+)

27 27 % R² of the model with the variable – R² of the model without the variable

28 28 Former elements of middle-ization *Homogenization (economic equality) *Objective upward mobility (socioeconomic expansion) *Security, control on ones future (welfare state and labour protection) => Middle class expansion and wage earner society (soc. salariale) New challenges in a globalized world *Heterogeneity (income stagnation, old/new inequalities and wealth boom) *Risks of downward intergenerational mobility (+ overeducation) *Lack of predictability affecting welfare, precarity, anxiety => middle class expansion results of the wage earner society Farewell to the wage earner middle class

29 29 Public policies * State as an employer and an investor in the knowledge soc. * Fiscal policies (labour taxation and wealth taxation) * Future of labour regulations


Download ppt "1 Repartimonialization: Wage Based Middle Class and Wealth Based Middle Class in a Comparative Perspective Louis Chauvel Pr at Sciences-Po Paris and Institut."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google