{"title":"Untangling the tolerance of socioeconomic inequality: Comparing Japan, the United States, South Korea, and the People's Republic of China","authors":"Joanna Kitsnik","doi":"10.1111/ijjs.12129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The last three decades have witnessed major institutional and structural transformations across both economically developed and developing countries. While many individuals and groups have benefited from these changes, they have simultaneously resulted in growing disparities between the haves and have-nots. The growing socioeconomic inequalities, however, have not been met with significant resistance and it has been even observed that people have become more tolerant of inequalities. This article explores the motivations behind tolerating socioeconomic inequality, and investigates how the tolerance of socioeconomic inequality has changed over the past 25 years, while also comparing it across very distinctive political and socioeconomic regimes. This study overcomes a gap in research by employing longitudinal, cross-sectional survey data to analyze temporal change in attitudes towards inequality. Fixed effects models are applied on five waves of World Values Survey data (1994–2020) on four distinctly different post-industrial countries: Japan, the People's Republic of China, South Korea, and the United States. The paper argues that, on an individual level, there is a tendency to accept inequality normalizing narratives and defend one's own self-interest, derived from one's structural position. This accounts for a considerable part of the variation in tolerance for socioeconomic inequality across these nations. The article concludes that trends in tolerating socioeconomic inequality have over time become more similar across these four countries with distinctly different political–economic regimes.</p>","PeriodicalId":29652,"journal":{"name":"Japanese Journal of Sociology","volume":"31 1","pages":"86-109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese Journal of Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijjs.12129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
The last three decades have witnessed major institutional and structural transformations across both economically developed and developing countries. While many individuals and groups have benefited from these changes, they have simultaneously resulted in growing disparities between the haves and have-nots. The growing socioeconomic inequalities, however, have not been met with significant resistance and it has been even observed that people have become more tolerant of inequalities. This article explores the motivations behind tolerating socioeconomic inequality, and investigates how the tolerance of socioeconomic inequality has changed over the past 25 years, while also comparing it across very distinctive political and socioeconomic regimes. This study overcomes a gap in research by employing longitudinal, cross-sectional survey data to analyze temporal change in attitudes towards inequality. Fixed effects models are applied on five waves of World Values Survey data (1994–2020) on four distinctly different post-industrial countries: Japan, the People's Republic of China, South Korea, and the United States. The paper argues that, on an individual level, there is a tendency to accept inequality normalizing narratives and defend one's own self-interest, derived from one's structural position. This accounts for a considerable part of the variation in tolerance for socioeconomic inequality across these nations. The article concludes that trends in tolerating socioeconomic inequality have over time become more similar across these four countries with distinctly different political–economic regimes.