1

Semi-plenary session: “Role of the state in reduction/amplification of inequality”

State retrenchments and class dynamics: the “new” middle class under strain

Louis ChauvelPr at Sciences-Po University Paris and Institut Universitaire de France

Site : http://louis.chauvel.free.fr

chauvel@sciences-po.fr

2

Explaining (some of) the French problem(s)?Political instability, extreme right wing candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen qualification for the 2nd turn of presidential elections April 21 2002, rejection of the European Treaty May 29 2005, anti-globalisation movements, populist streams, xenophobia, fears, …

« Yes » at two European referendums in France by socio-occupational group (%)

Source : My own computation of CEVIPOF 1995 microdata and CSA postelectoral survey 2005.

Maastricht treaty referendum

20 September 1992

European constitutional treaty referendum

29 may 2005 Change

Professionals & managers 66 67 1

Self employed 49 53 4

Semi prof. and lower managers 55 46 -9

Routine white collars 47 37 -10

Blue collar workers 43 30 -13

Diff = 23% Diff = 37%

Tot = 51% Tot = 46%

3

Plan

Europe as a middle-class exception in the worldObjective degree of inequality and class consciousness:

paradoxical dynamicsThe middle class dynamics and welfare state retrenchmentsConclusion: post-affluent societies and the middle class(es)

4

1. The social specificity of Europe in the world

An affluent and relatively equal clubEurope as a strong middle class (“median class”)Complex evolutions during the last 20 years…

5

Development (per capita GDP PPP)

Inequality (Gini coeff)

Venezuela

Ukraine

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Bangladesh

BelarusBelgium

BoliviaBrazil

Bulgaria

Cambodia Cameroon

Canada

Chile

China

Colombia

Costa Rica

Cote d`Ivoire

Croatia

Czech R.Denmark

Dom.Rep.

Ecuador

Egypt

El Salvador

Estonia

Finland

France

Gambia

Georgia

Germany

Ghana

Greece

Guatemala

Guyana

Honduras

Hungary

India

Indonesia

Iran

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Jamaica

JapanKazakhstan

Korea R.

Kyrgyz R.

Latvia

Lesotho

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Macedonia

Malaysia

Mauritania

Mexico

Moldova

Morocco

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Norway

Pakistan

PanamaParaguay

PeruPhilippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russia

Slovak Rep.Slovenia

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sweden

SwitzerlandTaiwan

Tajikistan

Thailand

TunisiaTurkey

U.K.

U.S.

y = -5,6712Ln(x) + 88,851R2 = 0,3085

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

1000 10000 100000

(World Income Inequality Database)

(Penn World Tables Database)

Data 2000

Nordic countries

Corporatist countr.

Liberal and Mediterranean countr.

Transitional Eastern Europe

Latin America

6

50

100

Lower income class = poor

200

Median income class =« middle class »

Higher income class = rich

median income

IncomeThe strobiloid

representation of income distribution

7

Comparisons of national strobiloids : national median

Sweden :Median disposable income per year per capita : 23.000 $PPP/an

Gini coef.: 25.2 %

Median class = 84 %

US :Median disposable income per year per capita : 32.000 $PPP/an

Gini coef.: 34.5 %

Median class = 58 %

Brazil :Median disposable income per year per capita : 6.900 $PPP/an

Gini coef.: 59.8 %

Median class = 44 %

Median national income

8

Comparisons of national strobiloids : PPP exchange rate

Sweden :Median disposable income per year per capita : 23.000 $PPP/an

Gini coef.: 25.2 %

Median class = 84 %

US :Median disposable income per year per capita : 32.000 $PPP/an

Gini coef.: 34.5 %

Median class = 58 %

Brazil :Median disposable income per year per capita : 6.900 $PPP/an

Gini coef.: 59.8 %

Median class = 44 %

9

Development (per capita GDP PPP)

Inequality (Gini coeff)

Venezuela

Ukraine

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Bangladesh

BelarusBelgium

BoliviaBrazil

Bulgaria

Cambodia Cameroon

Canada

Chile

China

Colombia

Costa Rica

Cote d`Ivoire

Croatia

Czech R.Denmark

Dom.Rep.

Ecuador

Egypt

El Salvador

Estonia

Finland

France

Gambia

Georgia

Germany

Ghana

Greece

Guatemala

Guyana

Honduras

Hungary

India

Indonesia

Iran

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Jamaica

JapanKazakhstan

Korea R.

Kyrgyz R.

Latvia

Lesotho

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Macedonia

Malaysia

Mauritania

Mexico

Moldova

Morocco

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Norway

Pakistan

PanamaParaguay

PeruPhilippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russia

Slovak Rep.Slovenia

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sweden

SwitzerlandTaiwan

Tajikistan

Thailand

TunisiaTurkey

U.K.

U.S.

y = -5,6712Ln(x) + 88,851R2 = 0,3085

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

1000 10000 100000

Data 2000

10

Development log10(per capita GDP PPP)

Inequality (Gini coeff)

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Czech R.

DenmarkFinland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea R

Malaysia

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russia

Slovak Rep.Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland.

Taiwan

TunisiaTurkey

U.K.

U.S.

y = -16,122x + 101,38R2 = 0,3387

20

25

30

35

40

45

3,6 3,7 3,8 3,9 4 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6

Data 2000

11

Development log10(per capita GDP PPP)

Inequality (Gini coeff)

U.S.

U.K.

Turkey Tunisia

Taiwan

Switzerland.

Sweden

Spain

Slovenia Slovak Rep.

Russia

Romania

Portugal

Poland

Norway Netherlands

Malaysia

Korea, Republic of

Japan

Italy

Israel

Ireland

Hungary

Greece

Germany

France

Finland Denmark

Czech R.

Canada

Belgium

Austria

Australia

20

25

30

35

40

45

3,6 3,7 3,8 3,9 4 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6

Australia

Austria Belgium

Canada

Costa Rica

Czech R.

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Israel Italy

Japan

Korea, Republic of

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Russia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland.

Taiwan

Tunisia

U.K.

U.S.

Venezuela From early 1980’ to 2000

12

Development (per capita GDP - PPP)

Inequality (Gini coeff)

U.S.

U.K.

Turkey Tunisia

Taiwan

Switzerland.

Sweden

Spain

Slovenia Slovak Rep.

Russia

Romania

Portugal

Poland

Norway Netherlands

Malaysia

Korea R

Japan

Italy

Israel

Ireland

Hungary

Greece

Germany

France

Finland Denmark

Czech R.

Canada

Belgium

Austria

Australia

20

25

30

35

40

45

3,6 3,7 3,8 3,9 4 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6

Australia

Austria Belgium

Canada

Costa Rica

Czech R.

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Israel Italy

Japan

Korea R

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Russia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland.

Taiwan

Tunisia

U.K.

U.S.

Venezuela From early 1980’ to 2000

13

Construction européenne et croissance des inégalités

European enlargement

step European Gini(exchange rate)

European Gini

(PPP)

6 29% 28%

12 32% 30%

15 31% 30%

25 42% 33%

28 58% 43%

31 59% 43%

14

2. Objective intensity of inequality and class consciousness: paradoxical dynamics (in the French case)

Distinction between objective and subjective class systemsClass system without class consciousnessThe spiral of social classes

15

Objective and subjective intensity of class system

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1810-1819

1820-1829

1830-1839

1840-1849

1850-1859

1860-1869

1870-1879

1880-1889

1890-1899

1900-1909

1910-1919

1920-1929

1930-1939

1940-1949

1950-1959

1960-1969

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1810-1819

1820-1829

1830-1839

1840-1849

1850-1859

1860-1869

1870-1879

1880-1889

1890-1899

1900-1909

1910-1919

1920-1929

1930-1939

1940-1949

1950-1959

1960-1969

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999

« classe ouvrière » or « classes sociales »

« classes sociales »

Source : Bibliothèque nationale de France catalogue

Number of Book Titles in the catalogue of Bibliothèque nationale de France (BNF) containing « classes sociales » or « classe ouvrière » (20-years mobile average of per decade occurrences)

16

1960 to 1980 decline in income inequality and stability after

Older Source : Paper publications : Enquête revenus fiscaux ERF ; Newer source : INSEE reevaluation ERF

Inequality measure : Interdecile ratio D9/D1 1954 to 2002

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

17

Independence of objective and subjective dimensions : a typology

Older Source : Paper publications : Enquête revenus fiscaux ERF ; Newer source : INSEE reevaluation ERF

Victory of proletariat Class Society

Classless society Alienation

Strong degree of subjectivation of

inequalities

Weak degree of subjectivation of

inequalities

Weak objective degree of inequalities

Strong objective degree of inequalities

18The historical social classes spiral

Objectivity of class: Intensity of Inequalities

Subjectivity of class: consciousness

movments, and class struggle

F 1890

F 1950 F 1970

F 1989

F 2000

Victory of proletariat

classless society Alienation

Class society

F 1830

‚

ƒ „

F 1982 Decommodification

Recommodification

19

3. The middle class dynamics and Welfare state expansions and retrenchments

Back to Schmoller : the state and the “new middle class(es)”Post-affluent societies:

the lost paradise of the new middle class The fate of generational dynamics

20

The state and the “new middle class”SCHMOLLER G. 1897, Was verstehen wir unter dem Mittelstande? Hat er im

19. Jahrhundert zu oder abgenommen?, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Against the Marxist theory of absolute pauperization :

=> Late Nineteenth century and the expansion of large state and private technical, managerial and expertise bureaucracies – supported and institutionalized by increasing social rights – foster the constitution of a culturally educated and economically comfortable “neu mittelstand”

Educational ressources

Economic Ressources

Higher strata

Lower Strata

New higher middle class

Old higher middle class

New lower middle class

Old lower middle class

=> The state is not simply an equalitarian ruler, a provider of decommodified resources, it could be also a specific employer

21

Post-affluent societies: the lost paradise of the new middle class

Artisans

Commerçants

Chefs d'entreprises de 10 salariés et plus

Professions libérales

Cadres de la fonction pub.

Professeurs, professions scientifiques

Cadres administratifs

d'entreprise

Ingénieurs

Instituteurs ou assimilés

Professions intermédiaires de la santé et du travail social

Professions intermédiaires administratives de la fonction publique

Professions intermédiaires administratives

entreprisesTechniciens

Contremaîtres, agents de maîtrise

Employés fonc pub,

agents de service Policiers et militaires

Employés

entreprisesEmployés

Personnels des services directs aux particuliers

Ouvriers qualifiés de type industriel Ouvriers qualifiés de

Chauffeurs

Ouvriers qualifiés, manutention, magasinage, transport

Ouvriers non qualifindustriel

artisanal

Ouvriers agricoles

The Bourdieu scheme

Educational ressourcesdominant

Economic Ressourcesdominant

Higher strata

Lower Strata

22

-0,4-0,3-0,2-0,100,10,20,3

0,2-0,3

0,1-0,2

0-0,1

-0,1-0

-0,2--0,1

-0,3--0,2

-0,4--0,3

-0,4-0,3-0,2-0,100,10,20,3

0,2-0,3

0,1-0,2

0-0,1

-0,1-0

-0,2--0,1

-0,3--0,2

-0,4--0,3

1992 to 2002 densification on the Bourdieu scheme

50 to 59 Years old 30 to 39 Years old

23

Available explanations ?

Decline in the return to educational assets (and not to economic assets) — is it really a “knowledge society”?

State as an employer is more and more a state as a pension system for former civil servants (strong decline in hiring for the newer generations)

The fate of generational dynamics: the newer generations are the children of a gifted generation (first cohorts of the baby-boom) which was massively new middle-class, but the newer generations have little room in the “new” middle-class

24

The fate of generational dynamics

first cohorts of the baby-boom

their children

their parents

Upward and downward mobility rate (cohort diagrams) - male population

Upward mob rate Downward mob rate

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

3035404550

Age %

Cohorte0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

3035404550

Age %

Cohorte

25

4. Conclusion: Farewell to the “new” middle class?

What is ever “new” with new middle class, 1 century later?A social backlash after affluence?Which consequences?Which are the adequate social policies:

feeding the poor (bread and circuses), or rehomogeneisation of Europe?

Were are sociologists in terms of new/old higher/lower middle class : are we the next slice of the salami?

26

Semi-plenary session: “Role of the state in reduction/amplification of inequality”

THE ENDLouis Chauvel

Pr at Sciences-Po University Paris and Institut Universitaire de France

Site : http://louis.chauvel.free.fr

chauvel@sciences-po.fr