Suchergebnisse

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.

Looks at the historical positioning of housework as unpaid and questions the correctness of this idea. States that there is a fundamental theoretical error in defining housework as unpaid as market concepts are being applied to non‐market work. Continues to distinguish between the two markets considering the features of both, outlining the gender differences and the recent changes in the twentieth century.

Investigates the possible social causes of unemployment; focuses on how competition among employers can increase and perpetuate already high levels of unemployment. Starts from the premise that, despite divergent attitudes, most industrialized nations make some collective provision for the unemployed, with firms ultimately bearing the costs. Describes how, although a firm may reduce its labour force to save money, it is ultimately, albeit collectively, paying the costs of unemployment via taxes to the State ‐ the main effect is to redistribute the costs to other organizations; depicts a resulting downward spiral in the economy. Looks at the relationships between increased productivity and the costs to society. Concludes that competitive unemployment is a reality and suggests possible solutions.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explain the difference between social inequality and identity.Design/methodology/approachThe paper presents a conceptual view.FindingsThe paper notes that the concepts are often confused, as in arguments that equality is impossible because everyone is different. It is pointed out that equality and inequality are not opposites; that equality is simply the zero point on the infinite range of inequality. The existence of inequality depends on socially recognised difference. The difference may often be simply a basis for socially imposed inequalities, as with ethnicity and gender, or it may be a real cause of inequality as with health differences. Nine important inter‐related bases of inequality are considered. Equality does not require zero inequality on all aspects but merely a balance of inequalities. However, the complexity means it is difficult to define or recognise total equality. The nearest would be that all individuals are regarded and treated as equally important. The zero point of inequality may be unattainable, but the real issue is the actual extent of inequality, which could be very substantially reduced.Originality/valueThis original paper is of value in correcting some misconceptions and improving understanding of an important subject.

While the existence of occupational gender segregation is well known, it has been usual to see it as a reflection of women's disadvantage. However, cross-national data show that the greater the segregation, the less tends to be women's disadvantage. The solution to this puzzle entails the introduction of the two orthogonal dimensions of segregation, where only the vertical dimension measures inequality while the horizontal dimension measures difference without inequality. Furthermore, the two dimensions tend to be inversely related, with a tendency for the horizontal component to be larger and so have more effect on the resultant overall segregation; hence the inverse relation between overall segregation and inequality. The usual explanations of segregation, being focused on inequality, are inadequate. To understand the situation it is necessary to take account of the many related factors in social change, and to recognize that horizontal segregation reduces opportunities for gender discrimination within occupations. An exploratory test of the argument is conducted for the US, Canada and Britain. With pay as the vertical dimension the results are essentially as predicted. With CAMSIS, a measure of occupational advantage, a slight advantage lies with women. The test is less clear but consistent with the argument.

Ideological assumptions of equality and economic individualism have permeated the traditional analysis of social mobility. This is shown most clearly in the use of perfect mobility as the theoretical model that underlies most of the empirical analyses. A major consequence is that these analyses have offered a poor conceptualisation of the nature of the structure within which movement occurs, and have tended to ignore the question of relative distances between the objects, typically conceived as social classes, making up that structure. A further consequence is that they have concentrated on the issue of how much mobility, rather than on why it does, or does not, occur. It is argued that a more adequate conceptualisation would involve a move away from rigidly defined class categories towards a recognition of the hierarchical structure of occupational groups.

PurposeThis paper aims to conceptualise and measure the technical aspects of the division of labour (DoL) with a new survey indicator of technical complexity (ITC) at work.Design/methodology/approachTwo technical criteria skills and functions are used to distinguish positions in the DoL and to cluster and rank them into a 28‐category ordinal survey ITC. The indicator's construct‐validity is tested by assessing the correlation between these criteria and occupational activities' levels of substantive and organizational complexity, as uncovered by categorical principal component analysis. Criterion‐validity is assessed by testing the indicator's ability to predict occupational prestige, absolutely and relatively to other indicators.FindingsThe indicator shows high levels of construct and criterion‐validity.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to a better understanding and measurement of technical constraints in the DoL, facilitating a future evaluation of their impact on class inequalities.

PurposeThis paper seeks to study the influence of industrialisation, urbanisation and means of communication on the association between father's and son's occupational status in all 117 municipalities in the province of Zeeland, The Netherlands from 1811 to 1890.Design/methodology/approachHypotheses from both the logic of industrialism thesis and reproduction theory are tested with multi‐level analyses on data on the individual as well as the contextual level. First, the paper studies the influence of contextual factors on intergenerational occupational status attainment. Second, it uses relatively large‐scale individual and contextual historical data over a long period of time.FindingsThe paper adds to the current literature by showing that the association of father's and son's occupational status differs between municipalities and over time and that these differences are partly explained by industrialisation, urbanisation and means of communication. All findings point in one direction, that the province of Zeeland became a more closed society in the nineteenth century. This finding goes against claims that the increasing openness in Dutch society, found after the Second World War, is a trend that came about with the rise of industrialisation.Originality/valueThe results provide support for the reproduction theory and they refute the logic of the industrialism thesis.