Search results

We propose an elaboration of the social structure and personality framework from sociological social psychology that is intended to promote integration across social psychological traditions and between social psychology and sociology, using the study of inequality as an example.

We develop a conceptualization of “generic” proximate processes that produce and reproduce inequality in face-to-face interaction: status, identity, and justice.

The elaborated framework suggests fundamental questions that analysts can pose about the macro-micro dynamics of inequality. These questions direct attention to the “how” and “why” of macro-micro relations by connecting structural and cultural systems, local contexts, and the lives of individual persons; highlighting implicit processes; making meaning central; and directing our attention to how people act efficaciously in the face of constraint.

Applying this framework, scholars can use existing theories and generate new ones, and can do so inductively or deductively.

Research on inequality is enriched by social psychological analyses that draw on the full complement of relevant methods and theories.

We make visible the social psychological underpinnings of sociological research on inequality and provide a template for macro-micro analyses that emphasizes the centrality of social psychological processes.

In recent decades, research across the social sciences has linked higher income inequality to poorer health and social outcomes in advanced market democracies. According to general theories, this relationship is mediated by social cohesion; an absence of which is said to be the cause behind such poor outcomes. This article aims to examine the first step in this theory by exploring whether there is an empirical relationship between income inequality and social cohesion.

To achieve this, social cohesion is operationalized as 18 variables across six unique dimensions of social cohesion. Subsequently, the relationship between each variable and inequality is tested in a range of statistical models that include two measures of income inequality, numerous control variables and a range of different country samples.

The relationship between inequality and social cohesion is found to be problematic, with significant associations for some dimensions but not for others. Further, the relationship between social cohesion and inequality is dependent on the measure of inequality used, whether other variables are controlled for and the number of countries in the sample. To explain this paradox, a distinction is made between “horizontal” and “vertical” social relations.

This article argues that research into the health and social effects of income inequality has thus far largely failed to address the causal mechanisms by which negative outcomes are purportedly produced. By empirically examining the links between inequality and one of these hypothesized mechanisms, social cohesion, it is shown that there are relationships between inequality and some dimensions of social cohesion, but not between others. This suggests that the income inequality-social cohesion hypothesis is more complex than has hitherto been implied.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the social and economic disparities across social groups in rural Uttar Pradesh. The paper demonstrates that the structure of the rural economy in India is characterised by deeply ingrained prejudices and social discrimination. The four-village study undertaken in one of the most populated states in India, Uttar Pradesh, clearly reveals that there is a huge disparity in terms of various social and economic indicators and that the so-called high growth has hardly helped in bettering their lives.

The paper is based on primary data collected from the Census survey of villages exploring socio-economic disparities across social groups by using decomposition models.

The results evidently lend credence to the postulations that a large proportion of the disadvantaged groups are prone to multiple deprivations, both in the society and in labour markets. The inquiry reveals this phenomenon clearly.

From the policy point of view, it is therefore imperative to ensure the direct and focussed provision of basic human requirements in terms of education, employment and income of the state. The implementation of direct policy interventions is an absolute necessity if the state has to guarantee convergence and the inclusive growth process on a sustained basis.

This paper fulfils an identified need to study the inequality among the social groups in terms of education, employment, income and livelihood opportunities in selected villages of four districts of Uttar Pradesh.

Thailand is a developing economy underpinned by high levels of wealth inequality and an ingrained patronage culture. This research aims to examine how social enterprises (SEs) have been encouraged in Thailand in recent years as “micro-level challenges” to capitalism and their potential impact in addressing inequality.

Through analysing policy documents and consultations, this paper traces the development of Thai policies intended to encourage SEs’ development. Additionally, the paper uses case study interviews and documents to demonstrate how SEs tackle inequality. From these, a framework is developed, outlining SEs’ roles and interventions to reduce inequality.

Thailand’s new policy is in contrast to those countries where SEs face policy neglect. Nevertheless, government has been slow to embed processes to encourage new SEs. Despite SEs’ “challenge” to capitalism, listed companies are increasingly providing in-kind and financial support. The case study data shows SEs reduce inequality as they work with rural citizens to increase their employment and incomes. This work may also contribute to diminishing rural citizens’ dependency on political patronage.

While SEs can address inequality gaps, the research includes only existing SEs on specific lists. Nevertheless, the Thai experience will be useful to other developing countries, especially those beset by political patronage.

The research shows legislation is insufficient to support SE growth and inequality reduction. The framework highlights the need for both government policy attention and interventions from donors and companies to support SEs’ efforts.

The chapter deals with social inequalities in post-conflict and post-2007/2008 financial crisis Northern Ireland. From the late 1970s to the late 1990s, Northern Ireland was characterised by a Catholic/Protestant sectarian conflict and affected by marked political, economic and social discrepancies disadvantaging the Catholic minority.

The combined effects of the economic boom of the late 1990s and early 2000s, and of the signing of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, improved the social and economic living conditions of Northern Ireland citizens and diversified the ethnic composition of the population, as immigrants were attracted by new opportunities offered in the booming Northern Ireland labour market. The 2007/2008 financial crisis was to curb these positive trends, although Northern Ireland’s economy has now recovered as its unemployment rate indicates.

In the light of this specific context, this chapter first examines key indicators of social inequalities in Northern Ireland: wealth, employment and housing. It then focuses on traditional indicators of Catholic/Protestant inequalities: education employment and housing. It finally examines to what extent the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, the 2006 St Andrew’s Agreement and the 2014 Stormont House Agreement have tackled the issue of social inequalities.

Introduces the different types of inequality. Argues the distinction between inequality and differences. Asks if social inequality is important or a mistaken ideal? Briefly looks at the different forms inequality takes.

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.

This paper empirically examines the inequalities related to social class and income using individual self‐reported health status data. Health inequalities are estimated by different indexes using individual standardised and unstandardised health status data. The population was divided into income and social class, respectively. From this two main results are obtatined: inequalities are sensitive to the health status variable and the social position variable employed. It was found that significant health related social class inequalities were insignificant when income was employed as a reference variable.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse whether social capital inequalities are smaller in more extensive welfare states.

The paper analyses data from European/World Values Surveys.

No effect of welfare stateness on social capital inequality is found.

An extension of the analysis with a broader range of welfare states might show effect.

This is the first time in literature that the relationship between welfare stateness and social capital inequality is empirically studied.