Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Semi-plenary session: Role of the state in reduction/amplification of inequality State retrenchments and class dynamics: the new middle class under strain.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Semi-plenary session: Role of the state in reduction/amplification of inequality State retrenchments and class dynamics: the new middle class under strain."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Semi-plenary session: Role of the state in reduction/amplification of inequality State retrenchments and class dynamics: the new middle class under strain L ouis Chauvel Pr at Sciences-Po University Paris and Institut Universitaire de France Site : http://louis.chauvel.free.fr chauvel@sciences-po.fr

2 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-globalisation movements, 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. Diff = 23% Diff = 37% Tot = 51% Tot = 46%

3 3 Plan lEurope as a middle-class exception in the world lObjective degree of inequality and class consciousness: paradoxical dynamics lThe middle class dynamics and welfare state retrenchments lConclusion: post-affluent societies and the middle class(es)

4 4 1. The social specificity of Europe in the world lAn affluent and relatively equal club lEurope as a strong middle class (median class) lComplex evolutions during the last 20 years…

5 5 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

6 6 50 100 Lower income class = poor 200 Median income class = « middle class » Higher income class = rich median income Income The strobiloid representation of income distribution

7 7 lComparisons 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 % Brazil : Median disposable income per year per capita : 6.900 $PPP/an Gini coef.: 59.8 % Median class = 44 % Median national income

8 8 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 % Brazil : Median disposable income per year per capita : 6.900 $PPP/an Gini coef.: 59.8 % Median class = 44 %

9 9 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

10 10 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

11 11 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

12 12 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

13 13 Construction européenne et croissance des inégalités 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%

14 14 2. Objective intensity of inequality and class consciousness: paradoxical dynamics (in the French case) lDistinction between objective and subjective class systems lClass system without class consciousness lThe spiral of social classes

15 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 ouvrière » or « classes sociales » « classes sociales » Source : Bibliothèque nationale de France catalogue Number of Book Titles in the catalogue of Bibliothèque nationale de France (BNF) containing « classes sociales » or « classe ouvrière » (20-years mobile average of per decade occurrences)

16 16 1960 to 1980 decline in income inequality and stability after Older Source : Paper publications : Enquête 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 1950196019701980199020002010

17 17 Independence of objective and subjective dimensions : a typology Older Source : Paper publications : Enquête revenus fiscaux ERF ; Newer source : INSEE reevaluation ERF Victory of proletariat Class Society Classless societyAlienation Strong degree of subjectivation of inequalities Weak degree of subjectivation of inequalities Weak objective degree of inequalities Strong objective degree of inequalities

18 18 The historical social classes spiral Objectivity of class: Intensity of Inequalities Subjectivity of class: consciousness movments, and class struggle F 1890 F 1950 F 1970 F 1989 F 2000 Victoryof proletariat classless society Alienation Class society F 1830 F 1982 Decommodification Recommodification

19 19 3. The middle class dynamics and Welfare state expansions and retrenchments lBack to Schmoller : the state and the new middle class(es) lPost-affluent societies: the lost paradise of the new middle class lThe fate of generational dynamics

20 20 lThe state and the new 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

21 21 lPost-affluent societies: the lost paradise of the new middle class Artisans Commerçants Chefs d'entreprises de 10 salariés et plus Professions libérales Cadres de la fonction pub. Professeurs, professions scientifiques Cadres administratifs d'entreprise Ingénieurs Instituteurs ou assimilés Professions intermédiaires de la santé et du travail social Professions intermédiaires administratives de la fonction publique Professions intermédiaires administratives entreprises Techniciens Contremaîtres, agents de maîtrise Employés fonc pub, agents de service Policiers et militaires Employés entreprises Employés Personnels des services directs aux particuliers Ouvriers qualifiés de type industriel Ouvriers qualifiés de Chauffeurs Ouvriers qualifiés, manutention, magasinage, transport Ouvriers non qualif industriel artisanal Ouvriers agricoles The Bourdieu scheme Educational ressources dominant Economic Ressources dominant Higher strata Lower Strata

22 22 1992 to 2002 densification on the Bourdieu scheme 50 to 59 Years old 30 to 39 Years old

23 23 Available explanations ? lDecline in the return to educational assets (and not to economic assets) is it really a knowledge society? lState as an employer is more and more a state as a pension system for former civil servants (strong decline in hiring for the newer generations) lThe 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 the newer generations have little room in the new middle-class

24 24 lThe fate of generational dynamics first cohorts of the baby- boom their 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 1910192019301940195019601970 30 35 40 45 50 Age % Cohorte 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1910192019301940195019601970 30 35 40 45 50 Age % Cohorte

25 25 4. Conclusion: Farewell to the new middle class? lWhat is ever new with new middle class, 1 century later? lA social backlash after affluence? lWhich consequences? lWhich are the adequate social policies: feeding the poor (bread and circuses), or rehomogeneisation of Europe? lWere are sociologists in terms of new/old higher/lower middle class : are we the next slice of the salami?

26 26 Semi-plenary session: Role of the state in reduction/amplification of inequality THE END L ouis Chauvel Pr at Sciences-Po University Paris and Institut Universitaire de France Site : http://louis.chauvel.free.fr chauvel@sciences-po.fr


Download ppt "1 Semi-plenary session: Role of the state in reduction/amplification of inequality State retrenchments and class dynamics: the new middle class under strain."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google