3
Re-Examining Economic and Social Polarisation Author(s): Linda M. McDowell Source: Area, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Jun., 1997), pp. 172-173 Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20003783 . Accessed: 17/06/2014 16:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Area. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:31:39 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Re-Examining Economic and Social Polarisation

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Re-Examining Economic and Social PolarisationAuthor(s): Linda M. McDowellSource: Area, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Jun., 1997), pp. 172-173Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20003783 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 16:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:31:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

172

Comments Discussion arising from papers in Area

Re-examining economic and social polarisation

Linda M McDowell, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place, Cambridge CB2 3EN

I read with interest the article by Clark and McNicholas (1996) in Area 28(1). Their approach to the assessment of Harrison and Bluestone's and Sassen's assertions of a declining middle to the income distribution and consequent polarisation in the light of recent changes to the population and economic structure of Los Angeles was thought-provoking. They provide welcome additional empirical data with which to evaluate claims about polarisation, and add some complexity to an often over simplified debate between the adherents of the polarisation and professionalisation theses. Their disaggregation of income and occupation data by race and ethnicity was especially welcome. However, I have a number of (related) comments about their approach.

First, Clark and McNicholas's income data were for households, whereas their occupational data were for individuals, which limits the scope for direct comparisons. Further, drawing conclusions about the impact of inequality based on the analysis of household data disguises inequalities within households. As is now well established, joint household incomes are seldom equally divided between household members.

Second, one of the most significant changes in the shift to a service-dominated economy is the parallel feminisation of the labour market. As women enter waged work in growing numbers, more households become dual income units. It is important to consider the impact that this might have on overall income distribution and hence on the trend towards polarisation. In Britain, evidence from national surveys of income inequality is contradictory. While the Social Justice Commission (1995) argued that growing numbers of dual income households reduced inequality (and polarisation) by ensuring that a 'lower middle' income group kept in touch

with higher income deciles, the Rowntree Foundation (1996) investigation into income and wealth suggested the reverse. It argued that the tendency for high income men to have high-earning partners exacerbated inequality by increasing the household incomes of the already affluent. These contradictory findings partly depend, of course, on where the boundaries are drawn to distinguish ' middle '

income households from high and low income households. However, as the rate of increase in labour market participation among women with low income partners was faster than that for those with high income partners during the last decade, these household inequalities may begin to reduce.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:31:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Comments 173

Third, it is thus important to consider gender differences, as well as ethnic/racial differences, where the evidence supporting or contradicting polarisation is complex. One of the impacts of women's growing labour market participation, and of the loss of relatively well-paid manufacturing employment for men, has been the exacer bation of inequalities between individuals in waged employment. Large numbers of women have entered poorly paid occupations compared with a much smaller group of higher status women with professional qualifications who have captured well-paid positions. As a result, the proportion of workers in the lowest paid occupations has increased over the 1980s and 1990s. However, as I have argued elsewhere (McDowell 1991), drawing on aggregate data for England and Wales, the income distribution for

women is becoming more unequal, paralleling that for men. A similar trend appears to be developing in France (Lipietz 1996) although great care needs to be exercised in cross-national comparisons as French women are far more likely to work in full-time employment than their English sisters. The impact of this ' stretching out '

of the female income distribution may reduce polarisation, as women in professional employment are generally less well remunerated than men in the same occupations.

Finally, as Bruegel et al (1996) have argued, it is incorrect to compare occupational categories over time as if they are unchanging. Women's entry into professional and semi-professional occupations has had an adverse effect on the associated status and pay levels. Managerial positions in retail banks are a classic example (Kerfoot and Knights 1994). Thus the relationships between professionalisation, income distribution and polarisation are variable over time.

I would be interested to see Clark and McNicholas's findings when they re-run their analyses taking gender differences, as well as race/ethnicity, into account.

References Bruegel I, Lyons M and Perrons D (1996) The Insecure Professionalisation of London, mimeo, School of

Land Management and Urban Policy, South Bank University, London

Clark W A V and McNicholas M (1996) ' Re-examining economic and social polarisation in a multi-ethnic

metropolitan area: the case of Los Angeles ' Area 28, 56-63

Kerfoot D and Knights D (1994) 'The gendered terrains of paternalism' in Wright S (ed) Anthropology

and Organisations (Routledge, London) Lipietz A (1996) La Societe en Sablier: le Partage du Travail Contre la Dechirure Social (Editions La

Decouverte, Paris) McDowell L (1991) 'Life without Father and Ford: the new gender order of post-Fordism ' Transactions

of the Institute of British Geographers 16, 400-19

Rowntree Foundation (1995) Inquiry into Income and Wealth (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York) Social Justice Commission (1994) Social Justice: Strategies for National Renewal. The Report of the Borrie

Commission on Social Justice (Vintage, London)

Naming names: brief thoughts on disability and geography

Hester Parr, Department of Geography, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN

In a recent paper in Area, Smith (1996) questioned the roles, meanings and contestations of language in research. Although Smith's concerns lay in problem atising the interpretation and translation of foreign language research, her recom

mendations are ones which might apply to other and all geographical research: 'As

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:31:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions