Module 16 - INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES: SOCIAL
STRATIFICATION
0. OBJECTIVES
In this module you will learn about trends in
the industrial era concerning
-
4 dimensions of stratification (distribution of
income; distribution of wealth; distribution of occupation and occupational
mobility; distribution of education)
-
the general decline in inequality within industrial
societies
-
the more complex trend in inequality between industrial
and nonindustrial societies
1. DIMENSIONS OF STRATIFICATION
1. Distribution of Income
During industrialization, inequality of the distribution
of income has been characterized by 2 historical trends:
1. The Kuznets Curve (named after
economist Simon Kuznets)
During industrial development in the long run,
income inequality at first rises and then declines, tracing an inverted-U-shaped
trajectory. As a result, industrial societies are more equal
than nonindustrial societies
Exhibit: Distribution
of household incomes in industrial societies (HS Table 12.1 p.
291)
Exhibit: The Kuznets
curve: Income inequality by GDP/capita (Alderson and Nielsen
1998, Figure 1)
The inverted-U shape of the Kuznets curve is
due to
-
the expansion of education (producing a linear
decline in inequality with economic development)
-
the shift from agriculture to the secondary and
tertiary sectors (producing an inverted-U trend of inequality)
-
the demographic transition (also producing an
inverted-U trend of inequality, with inequality highest at point of fastest
population growth)
Q - On average the income distributions of industrial
societies are ___ the income distributions of nonindustrial societies?
(more unequal than, about as unequal as, less unequal than)
Q - The distribution of income in the U.S.,
compared to other industrial societies, is ___ ? (more unequal,
about as unequal, less unequal)
2. The Great U-Turn (phrase coined
by Bennett Harrison & Barry Bluestone)
Since early 1970s, income inequality has increased
in some industrial societies (especially the U.S. and U.K.)
Exhibit: The Great
U-Turn in the U.S. (Nielsen and Alderson 1997, Figure 1)
Exhibit: Income
Inequality in the U.S. from 1960 to the late 1990s (Scientific
American June 1999 pp. 26-27)
Why these inequality trends?
The inequality upswing seems to be the result
of a combination of factors:
-
deindustrialization ( = decline in manufacturing
employment) caused in part by globalization and international competition
-
increasing reliance on technology causing increased
demand for education and cognitive skills
-
increasing proportion of female-headed households
Q - How would you describe the trend in income
inequality in the U.S. over the past 60 years or so?
Additional reference (optional). The following article from the
Census Bureau looks at income inequality trends in the US from 1947 to
1998. Two salient features of the recent trend discussed in the article
are
-
in 1993 the Census Bureau changed data collection procedures of the Current
Population Survey to raise the maximum value of reported income.
This change resulted in higher inequality figures; inequality figures before
and after 1993 are therefore not comparable.
-
since 1993, inequality has not changed much (it has neither increased nor
decreased substantally)
Exhibit:
The Changing Shape of the Nation's Income Distribution, 1947-98 (Jones
and Weinberg 2000.)
Exhibit:
Other Census site location
2. Distribution of Wealth
Wealth is typically more unequally distributed
than income, in part because wealth is closely associated with age (because
of the progressive accumulation of possessions, equity, etc., over a lifetime).
Historically there has been a trend of declining wealth inequality followed
by a recent resurgence of inequality parallel to the Great U-Turn.
Exhibit: Wealth
inequality trends in the UK since 1875 (Lindert 1998, Figure
2)
Exhibit: Wealth
inequality trends in the US since colonial times (Lindert 1998,
Figure 3)
Exhibit: The 15 wealthiest men (Table
12.1)
Nevertheless, there is considerable income inequality in industrial
societies:
Exhibit: The Fifteen Wealthiest Individuals in
the World (10th ed p. 259)
3. Occupational Stratification & Vertical
Mobility
Social structure (in this context) - distribution
of occupations at different levels of status
Vertical mobility - movements of individuals
within a system of stratification
Three important distinctions:
-
Upward vs. downward mobility - movement
corresponds to an increase (upward) or decrease (downward)
in status
-
Inter- vs. intra-generational mobility
- movement occurs between generations (EX: occupation of son compared
to occupation of father) or within a single generation (EX: current
job compared to first job of the same individual)
-
Exchange vs. structural mobility - movement
takes place within an unchanging social structure (exchange) or
is the result of a changing social structure (structural)
Exhibit: Pure exchange
mobility and pure structural mobility compared
Real societies are characterized by a mixture
of exchange and structural mobility
Exhibit: Occupational
distribution in the US, 1900 and 1996 (HS Table 12.2 p. 294)
Exhibit: Occupational distribution (updated
to 2003) (HS Table 12.3)
The foundations of the "American Dream"?
On average, families during the 20th Century
have experienced a considerable amount of upward social mobility.
Much of the mobility experienced by families during the 20th century has
been structural mobility due to expansion of higher status occupations
(EX: between 1900 and 1996, upper white-collar from 10% to 29%; lower blue
collar + farm from 72% to 31%)
Q - From an examination of trends in occupational
distribution during the 20th century, will later generations (including
yours) experience the same amount of upward mobility than earlier ones
in the century?
Q - What does the term "vertical mobility"
refer to?
Q - How does one call mobility that results
from change in the proportion of individuals in various occupational categories?
Q - What is the main factor generating the
great amount of upward mobility in industrial societies during the first
half of the 20th century?
4. Educational Stratification
Industrialization has entailed a tremendous
expansion of education, because of:
-
need for literacy & technical competence
-
decline in child labor
Education affects individuals with respect to:
-
their point of entry in a career
-
their chances for promotion
-
their political influence (through expertise)
Exhibit: Effect of
education on recruitment and promotion in industry and the military
(HS Figure 12.3 p. 296)
Is there educational "inflation"?
Fixed number of positions (jobs) entails competition
among candidates
The diffusion of education in industrial societies
is not homogenous, as illustrated by:
-
substantial rate of "functional illiteracy" among
adults
-
differences in graduation rates among states
Exhibit: "13% of adults
in U.S. failed this test" [of literacy]
jpg
Exhibit: Graduation
rates of states of the U.S., 1982 & 1984 (New York Times
21 feb. 1986)
2. SOCIAL INEQUALITY: 2 BASIC TRENDS
Evolution of social inequality in the contemporary
World System:
1. WITHIN industrial societies
In the long run, there has been a general trend
of decreasing inequality of all kinds (economic, political, etc.),
except for the recent upswing in income inequality.
The long run trend of declining inequality
may be attributed to:
-
growing importance of (demand for) human capital
(= education, natural talent, acquired skills)
-
growing productivity of industrial technology
-> concessions more advantageous for elites than refusal to share the "pie"
2. BETWEEN industrial societies and nonindustrial
(developing) societies
Since 1960, intercountry income inequality has:
-
increased if each country is viewed as a single
income-receiving unit, without taking into account the size of its population
-
decreased if countries are weighted by the size
of their population
Exhibit: Weighted
versus unweighted trend in intercountry income inequality, 1960-89
(Firebaugh 1998, Table 2)
Exhibit: Trends
in intercountry income inequality using different indexes, 1960-89
(Firebaugh 1998, Table 4)
Overall, industrial societies have achieved
substantial improvements in the quality of life, compared with non-industrial
societies.
Exhibit: Quality
of life in industrial vs. non-industrial societies (HS Table
12.4 p. 304)
Q - "In general, considering all aspects of
inequality including income, education, political influence, etc., inequality
has been declining in industrial societies." (TRUE/FALSE)?
Q - How would you describe the trend in intercountry
income inequality during the part 40 years or so?
Last modified 27 July 1999
