The Legitimation of Inequality: Occupational Earnings in Nine Nations

Kelley, Jonathan; Evans, Mdr

doi:10.1086/230230

Cited by 204 publications

(181 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

152

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, occupational status differences are more likely seen as consensually shared and legitimate. When asked to rank various professions according to their social status in terms of pay, for example, research has shown that there is a large consensus even across different countries (Kelley & Evans, 1993). Iatridis (in press) started from this reasoning and adopted the emotion attribution paradigm of Leyens et al (2001) to test the role of stable and legitimate occupational status differences in the (de)humanisation of the ingroup and the outgroup.…”

Section: Relations Moderating Ingroup Humanisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup

Vaes

Leyens

Paladino

et al. 2012

European Review of Social Psychology

138

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mostly invigorated by infrahumanisation theory, our knowledge on processes of dehumanisation in intergroup relations has grown considerably in the last decade. Building on these earlier endeavours, the present chapter reviews some recent empirical extensions that highlight the importance of differentiating between ingroup humanisation and outgroup dehumanisation because they are often moderated by specific variables. The role of these separate processes is discussed as a function of the main structural elements that define intergroup behaviour; that is, the defining boundaries of the groups, the relation between the groups at hand, and the ideologies of its members. Finally, the role of the different senses of humanness is discussed, suggesting that the folk conception of humanness differs between cultures

show abstract

Section: Relations Moderating Ingroup Humanisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup

Vaes

Leyens

Paladino

et al. 2012

European Review of Social Psychology

138

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As noted earlier, the "income differences are too large" question combines Inequality, Public Opinion, and Redistribution 9 a positive assessment of the degree of inequality with a normative view about what level of inequality is fair or appropriate. Normative views on this issue tend to vary considerably across countries (Kelley and Evans 1993;Marshall et al 1999;Kelley and Zagorski 2005;Lübker 2006). Hence there is reason to be skeptical about whether or not similar changes in mean responses in, say, Sweden and the United States would indicate true similarity in the degree of change in the perceived level of inequality in the two countries.…”

Section: Which Variation?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequality, public opinion and redistribution

Kenworthy¹,

McCall²

2007

Socio-Economic Review

333

225

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. According to the "median-voter" hypothesis, greater inequality in the market distribution of earnings or income tends to produce greater generosity in redistributive policy. We outline the steps in the causal chain specified by the hypothesis and attempt to assess these steps empirically. Prior studies focusing on cross-country variation have found little support for the median-voter model. We examine over-time trends in eight nations during the 1980s and 1990s. Here too the median-voter hypothesis appears to have little utility. Terms of use: Documents inIncome inequality has two components: (1) "market" inequality and (2) government redistribution via taxes and transfers. In principle, the two can be combined in any of a variety of ways: low market inequality with high redistribution, low market inequality with low redistribution, high market inequality with moderate redistribution, and so on. Of particular interest in the study of inequality is what happens when market inequality is high or increases. Does government compensate with high redistribution in order to secure a relatively egalitarian distribution of posttax-posttransfer income? According to one influential theoretical approach, that is indeed what tends to happen. This approach is based on a median-voter model of the politics of redistribution. Its best-known exposition is by Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard (1981). A higher level of market inequality implies a greater distance between * Forthcoming in Socio-Economic Review. Kenworthy: Department of Sociology, University of Arizona, lane.kenworthy@arizona.edu. McCall: Department of Sociology, Northwestern University, l-mccall@northwestern.edu. We are grateful to the Russell Sage Foundation for financial support, to Julian Brash for research assistance, to Jonathan Kelley for generously sharing his calculations, and to Klaus Armingeon, Jessica Epstein, Lloyd Gruber, Julia Lynch, Jonas Pontusson, David Rueda, Stefan Svallfors, and two anonymous SER reviewers for comments on earlier drafts. Inequality, Public Opinion, and Redistribution2 mean and median (pretax-pretransfer) income, with the latter further below the former. The lower the median relative to the mean, the more the median income person or household is likely to benefit from government redistribution, in the sense that the transfers she receives will exceed her share of the tax burden. Hence the greater the amount of redistribution she will favor. More market inequality thus leads t...

show abstract

“…Inequality has been linked to poor health, increased crime, unwanted pregnancy (Kawachi, Kennedy, Lochner, & ProthrowStith, 1997), lower levels of happiness (Oishi, Kesebir, & Diener, 2011), and less trust in others (Fiske, Moya, Russell, & Bearns, 2012;Fritsche et al, 2017). Despite these costs and the preference that individuals have for a more egalitarian society (Norton & Ariely, 2011), some individuals tend to legitimize or at least not oppose economic inequality (Hadler, 2005;Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Ni Sullivan, 2003;Kelley & Evans, 1993). Moreover, justification of inequality negatively relates to attitudes toward low-income individuals and redistribution (Cozzarelli, Wilkinson, & Tagler, 1989;Dion, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%