为什么我们不介意差距

IF 0.6 Q4 SOCIOLOGY COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY Pub Date : 2023-09-08 DOI:10.1163/15691330-bja10092
Joanna Kitsnik
{"title":"为什么我们不介意差距","authors":"Joanna Kitsnik","doi":"10.1163/15691330-bja10092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Rising socio-economic inequality has been paired with tolerance of inequality. When explaining individual tolerance of unequal income distribution, contextual factors capturing socio-economic conditions and objective inequality are less important than individual-level values and beliefs about the origins of and reasonings behind the unequal circumstances. These inequality-legitimizing narratives constitute a range of ideas from equal opportunities and individual liberties to egalitarian values and beliefs about the function of meritocracy. Findings from the linear mixed effects models on the cross-sectional data from the Integrated Values Study (2017–2020) on 34 OECD countries support the argument that individuals’ agreement with inequality legitimizing narratives predicts higher tolerance of unequal income distribution. However, country-level objective inequality and economic prosperity both fail to directly predict tolerance of unequal incomes. When compared to contextual factors, the acceptance of inequality legitimizing narratives is a significantly better predictor of inequality tolerance.","PeriodicalId":46584,"journal":{"name":"COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why We Don’t Mind the Gap\",\"authors\":\"Joanna Kitsnik\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15691330-bja10092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Rising socio-economic inequality has been paired with tolerance of inequality. When explaining individual tolerance of unequal income distribution, contextual factors capturing socio-economic conditions and objective inequality are less important than individual-level values and beliefs about the origins of and reasonings behind the unequal circumstances. These inequality-legitimizing narratives constitute a range of ideas from equal opportunities and individual liberties to egalitarian values and beliefs about the function of meritocracy. Findings from the linear mixed effects models on the cross-sectional data from the Integrated Values Study (2017–2020) on 34 OECD countries support the argument that individuals’ agreement with inequality legitimizing narratives predicts higher tolerance of unequal income distribution. However, country-level objective inequality and economic prosperity both fail to directly predict tolerance of unequal incomes. When compared to contextual factors, the acceptance of inequality legitimizing narratives is a significantly better predictor of inequality tolerance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15691330-bja10092\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15691330-bja10092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

社会经济不平等的加剧伴随着对不平等的容忍。在解释个人对收入分配不平等的容忍时,捕捉社会经济条件和客观不平等的背景因素不如个人层面的价值观和对不平等情况的起源和原因的信念重要。这些将不平等合法化的叙述构成了一系列观念,从机会平等和个人自由,到平等主义价值观和关于精英统治功能的信仰。对34个经合组织国家的综合价值研究(2017-2020)的横截面数据进行的线性混合效应模型的研究结果支持这样的观点,即个人对不平等合法化叙事的认同预示着对不平等收入分配的更高容忍度。然而,国家层面的客观不平等和经济繁荣都不能直接预测收入不平等的容忍度。与背景因素相比,接受不平等合法化叙事是不平等容忍的更好预测因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Why We Don’t Mind the Gap
Abstract Rising socio-economic inequality has been paired with tolerance of inequality. When explaining individual tolerance of unequal income distribution, contextual factors capturing socio-economic conditions and objective inequality are less important than individual-level values and beliefs about the origins of and reasonings behind the unequal circumstances. These inequality-legitimizing narratives constitute a range of ideas from equal opportunities and individual liberties to egalitarian values and beliefs about the function of meritocracy. Findings from the linear mixed effects models on the cross-sectional data from the Integrated Values Study (2017–2020) on 34 OECD countries support the argument that individuals’ agreement with inequality legitimizing narratives predicts higher tolerance of unequal income distribution. However, country-level objective inequality and economic prosperity both fail to directly predict tolerance of unequal incomes. When compared to contextual factors, the acceptance of inequality legitimizing narratives is a significantly better predictor of inequality tolerance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Comparative Sociology is a quarterly international scholarly journal dedicated to advancing comparative sociological analyses of societies and cultures, institutions and organizations, groups and collectivities, networks and interactions. All submissions for articles are peer-reviewed double-blind. The journal publishes book reviews and theoretical presentations, conceptual analyses and empirical findings at all levels of comparative sociological analysis, from global and cultural to ethnographic and interactionist. Submissions are welcome not only from sociologists but also political scientists, legal scholars, economists, anthropologists and others.
期刊最新文献
Comparing Small Gatherings in Their Urban Contexts Do Trials as Part of Transitional Justice Challenge the Stigma Related to Being Targeted by Serious Human Rights Violations? Environmentally Related Taxes and Forest Loss World Society, Cultural Diversity, and Gender Gap in Political Empowerment Digitalized Electoral Democracy, Subversive Politics, and Islam
×
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