Where You Sit Is Where You Stand: Perceived (In)Equality and Demand for Democracy in Africa

IF 2.8 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Social Indicators Research Pub Date : 2024-09-09 DOI:10.1007/s11205-024-03409-5
Thomas Isbell
{"title":"Where You Sit Is Where You Stand: Perceived (In)Equality and Demand for Democracy in Africa","authors":"Thomas Isbell","doi":"10.1007/s11205-024-03409-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this paper, I explore whether perceived individual inequality is associated with popular demand for democracy in 33 African countries. Past research has diverged on whether individual-level inequality should increase or decrease support for democracy, with some arguing that people might see democracy as a solution to inequality, and others that people might see it as a cause. Much of this research however uses country- level measures of inequality. Recent research however increasingly suggests that such country-level scores of inequality insufficiently capture how ordinary people perceive levels of inequality. I advance our understanding of co-variates of demand for democracy by using a perceptual measure of inequality from the Afrobarometer survey: how people feel their living situation compares to others in their country. I find that perceived relative equality is significantly associated with greater demand for democracy, while perceptions of both relative deprivation and relative advantage are significantly associated with lower democratic demand. These effects are largely significant above and beyond the effect of absolute poverty and known predictors of demand for democracy, such as free and fair elections and level of education.</p>","PeriodicalId":21943,"journal":{"name":"Social Indicators Research","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Indicators Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-024-03409-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, I explore whether perceived individual inequality is associated with popular demand for democracy in 33 African countries. Past research has diverged on whether individual-level inequality should increase or decrease support for democracy, with some arguing that people might see democracy as a solution to inequality, and others that people might see it as a cause. Much of this research however uses country- level measures of inequality. Recent research however increasingly suggests that such country-level scores of inequality insufficiently capture how ordinary people perceive levels of inequality. I advance our understanding of co-variates of demand for democracy by using a perceptual measure of inequality from the Afrobarometer survey: how people feel their living situation compares to others in their country. I find that perceived relative equality is significantly associated with greater demand for democracy, while perceptions of both relative deprivation and relative advantage are significantly associated with lower democratic demand. These effects are largely significant above and beyond the effect of absolute poverty and known predictors of demand for democracy, such as free and fair elections and level of education.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
你坐在哪里,你就站在哪里:非洲的(不)平等感与民主需求
在本文中,我将探讨在 33 个非洲国家中,个人认为的不平等是否与民众对民主的需求有关。过去的研究对个人层面的不平等是否会增加或减少对民主的支持存在分歧,有些人认为民主是解决不平等的方法,而另一些人则认为民主是不平等的原因。不过,这些研究大多采用国家层面的不平等衡量标准。然而,最近的研究越来越多地表明,这种国家层面的不平等评分并不能充分反映普通人对不平等程度的看法。我利用非洲晴雨表调查中对不平等的感知测量:人们认为自己的生活状况与本国其他人相比如何,从而加深了我们对民主需求共变因素的理解。我发现,相对平等的感知与更大的民主需求显著相关,而相对贫困和相对优势的感知与较低的民主需求显著相关。这些影响在很大程度上超越了绝对贫困的影响以及自由公平选举和教育水平等已知的民主需求预测因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.50%
发文量
174
期刊介绍: Since its foundation in 1974, Social Indicators Research has become the leading journal on problems related to the measurement of all aspects of the quality of life. The journal continues to publish results of research on all aspects of the quality of life and includes studies that reflect developments in the field. It devotes special attention to studies on such topics as sustainability of quality of life, sustainable development, and the relationship between quality of life and sustainability. The topics represented in the journal cover and involve a variety of segmentations, such as social groups, spatial and temporal coordinates, population composition, and life domains. The journal presents empirical, philosophical and methodological studies that cover the entire spectrum of society and are devoted to giving evidences through indicators. It considers indicators in their different typologies, and gives special attention to indicators that are able to meet the need of understanding social realities and phenomena that are increasingly more complex, interrelated, interacted and dynamical. In addition, it presents studies aimed at defining new approaches in constructing indicators.
期刊最新文献
How to Assess Livelihoods? Critical Reflections on the Use of Common Indicators to Capture Socioeconomic Outcomes for Ecological Restoration workers in South Africa Quantifying Turbulence: Introducing a Multi-crises Impact Index for Lebanon A Machine Learning Approach to Well-Being in Late Childhood and Early Adolescence: The Children’s Worlds Data Case Where You Sit Is Where You Stand: Perceived (In)Equality and Demand for Democracy in Africa An Evaluation of the Impact of the Pension System on Income Inequality: USA, UK, Netherlands, Italy and Türkiye
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1