Why do people accept different income ratios?

被引:90
作者
Hadler, M [1 ]
机构
[1] Graz Univ, Dept Sociol, A-8010 Graz, Austria
关键词
dominant ideology; income; inequality; international comparison; multi-level;
D O I
10.1177/0001699305053768
中图分类号
C91 [社会学];
学科分类号
030301 ; 1204 ;
摘要
Although evaluation of income inequality has been the subject of many studies, there are questions that remain to be answered. In regard to the structural position thesis, the reflection thesis and dominant ideology thesis, this article examines how much income inequality people will accept before deciding that the disparity is too large and how societal differences can be explained adequately. For this purpose, the attitudes of about 35,000 respondents in 30 countries are investigated. A multi-level analysis is carried out using data from the ISSP survey 'Social Inequality III' of 1999. At the societal level, both socio-economic and cultural characteristics are considered. While much research places emphasis on dominant ideologies, this analysis in addition attempts to grasp these ideologies by aggregating individual beliefs. It is shown that societal differences are well explained by ideologies, but that socio-economic characteristics are important as well. At the micro-level, several individual characteristics are considered. Among other things, people at the top of the vertical axis are less critical than those at the bottom. There are also substantial differences between societies in regard to how much inequality in income ratio will be accepted. Thus, people not only accept different amounts of income, they even have different preferences about which ratio is just.
引用
收藏
页码:131 / 154
页数:24
相关论文
共 45 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1996, VOLKSRELIGION HERRSC
  • [2] Welfare states, solidarity and justice principles: Does the type really matter?
    Arts, W
    Gelissen, J
    [J]. ACTA SOCIOLOGICA, 2001, 44 (04) : 283 - 299
  • [3] Austen Siobhan, 2002, International Journal of Social Economics, V29, P218, DOI [10.1108/03068290210417106, DOI 10.1108/03068290210417106]
  • [4] Beck Ulrich., 1986, RISIKOGESELLSCHAFT
  • [5] CYBA E, 2000, GESCHLECHT SOZIALE U
  • [6] Erikson R., 1992, The constant flux: A study of class mobility in industrial societies
  • [7] FRIEDRICHS P, 1997, KLASSE GESCHLECHT, V1
  • [8] Fukuyama F., 1999, GREAT DISRUPTION HUM
  • [9] Internationally comparable measures of occupational status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations
    Ganzeboom, HBG
    Treiman, DJ
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH, 1996, 25 (03) : 201 - 239
  • [10] Gijsberts M, 2002, ACTA SOCIOL, V45, P269