Search results

A review of recent notable research on socioeconomic inequality, including Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014), Rebecca Blank’s Changing Inequality (2011), Joseph Stiglitz’s The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future (2013), and Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger (2010).

I critically compare the contributions of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Joseph Stiglitz’s The Price of Inequality, Rebecca Blank’s Changing Inequality, and Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s The Spirit Level. The comparison is focused largely on discerning analytical trends in studies of inequality and differential relationships with capitalism.

Popular scholarship on inequality is surprisingly diverse with varying analytical approaches and conclusions represented. Each of the works was consistent with regard to important role of the state as a mitigating institution.

The intent of these works was to engage the general public on the subject of economic inequality. Thus, it is important to know what information is being disseminated in a general sense and how this “public political economy” might influence popular views on inequality.

Comparative reviews of scholarship intended for general popular consumption are rare. Postrecession economic realities have driven inequality to the fore in many advanced capitalist societies making such a review timely as well.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) individuals face an elevated level of prejudice in various social settings like sports. These biases can relate to internalized stigma, which might prompt LGBTQ+ athletes to implement numerous identity coping strategies. Muslim LGBTQ+ athletes are likely to experience these dynamics more than others. However, there remains a dearth of scholarship on understanding how Muslim LGBTQ+ athletes employ different identity development coping strategies to tackle the prevalent stigma against them and use their visible identity development process as a means of social activism. Hence, in this book chapter, the authors explore the development of Muslim LGBTQ+ sportspersons' visible identity by defining the forces that shape their identity. The first author of the book chapter sheds light on his experiences while working with the LGBTQ+ community in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and his recent interactions with the Muslim LGBTQ+ community in North America. The authors then highlight how Muslim LGBTQ+ athletes might use different identity coping strategies to show personal agency against the heteronormative system. Furthermore, the authors elucidate how sexual orientation intersects with religion within the sociocultural domain in shaping the identity and present global Muslim LGBTQ+ identity typology. Finally, the authors argue that Muslim LGBTQ+ athletes' visible identity depends upon two factors: religious negative/positive self-beliefs about religion Islam's openness toward LGBTQ+ rights and social acceptance, bounded by time and space.

Inequalities in English schools stem from numerous factors be they educational, social or economic. Thatcherite policies reshaped the education agenda in the 1980s and inequalities were ignored by successive governments until 1997 when New Labour included social objectives in its approach with measures, such as Education Action Zones and Excellence in Cities. The following Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition and Conservative governments of David Cameron maintained such objectives through the Pupil Premium and the Universal Infant Free School Meals scheme. Theresa May’s government seems to have adopted a different policy since July 2016, focusing on meritocracy. Methodological obstacles are inherent to studies on the evolution of inequalities at school level and it may be argued that successive Cabinets since 1997 have not implemented structural reforms designed to tackle economic inequalities, thus limiting the effect of their educational reforms.

The reduction in public services since 2008 has undoubtedly affected some groups, such as disabled people, more than others. Many of these cuts, ostensibly imposed in response to recession, bear similarities to measures previously tried and tested on disabled asylum seekers. I argue that the perception of national crisis was used by government as a smokescreen to expand the population affected by such policies, thereby asserting a predetermined neoliberal agenda of public expenditure cuts.

The inequality of this situation is compounded by the entitlements granted to people deemed exceptionally worthy. The Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme for Syrian nationals includes disability among the eligibility criteria, offering considerably greater entitlements than available to asylum seekers. If the response to certain people is markedly different to that offered to others, then negative consequences can be anticipated, as from any other example of inequality. Furthermore, this scheme promotes a significant shift in migrant entitlement. The UK government has no legal obligation towards this group; therefore, those people who are selected are recipients of gifts rather than people claiming their rights. I explore the nature and implications of such differences in entitlement, arguing that inequality in all its manifestations must be challenged to reduce deprivation and to avoid negative consequences for the wider population.

The secondary analysis of the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) is used to examine inequality in the United Kingdom compared with other European Union (EU) countries and to analyse how inequality has changed over the period from the start of the great financial crisis in 2008–2015. The analysis compares inequality in market income, gross income and disposable incomes, and measured inequality using the Gini coefficient, 80/20 and 90/10 ratios. It includes an analysis of the impact of cash benefits and direct taxes on market income and how the composition of households in different parts of the income distribution has changed over time. In addition, inequality within the EU is explored. The chapter concludes with a discussion of what contribution the EU itself through its own institutions and policies plays in mitigating market inequalities. We find that the distribution of market income in the United Kingdom is comparatively unequal, but the UK’s relative position on disposable income is greatly improved, due to an effective system of direct taxes and transfers. The conclusions remain broadly similar for all the inequality indices that are considered. There is evidence that households with children have moved down the distribution between 2008 and 2014 and aged households have moved up the distribution in most EU countries including the United Kingdom. The chapter concludes that EU policies have relatively little impact on inequality and that inequalities can really only be tackled using national redistributive policies.

This chapter explores the inter-urban dimensions of contemporary inequality in the United Kingdom. It does so by drawing on quantitative measures of inequality from the British Broadcasting Corporation’s ‘Great British Class Survey’ experiment of 2011–2013 and representative economic indicators of productivity. It takes its starting point as an acknowledgement of the deepening inequalities in western, developed economies, a reality reflecting in the burgeoning of literature on macro-economic disparities at the start of the twenty-first century. Whilst invaluable, this literature has tended to focus solely on economic definitions of inequality between countries or regions. The purpose of this chapter is to continue the expansion of our understanding of the manifold dimensions of inequality into the social and cultural domains. The data from the Great British Class Survey are uniquely positioned to do this: approximately 325,000 people participated in the online questionnaire, providing information not just on their stocks of economic capital but also on the size and scope of their social networks and the nature and extent of their cultural activities. The size of the sample thus provides an unparalleled tool for analysing the complex nuances of contemporary inequality in the United Kingdom using a framework informed by the theoretical approach to cultural class analysis pioneered by Pierre Bourdieu. The analysis here focuses solely on inter-urban disparities in the United Kingdom and demonstrates the ways in which economic inequalities are reflected and reinforced in the social and cultural domains.