Economic mobility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility 

 

Illustration from a 1916 advertisement for a vocational school in the back of a US magazine. Education has been seen as a key to economic mobility, and this advertisement appealed to Americans' belief in the possibility of self-betterment, as well as threatening the consequences of downward mobility in the great income inequality existing during the Industrial Revolution.

Economic mobility is the ability of an individual, family or some other group to improve (or lower) their economic status—usually measured in income. Economic mobility is often measured by movement between income quintiles. Economic mobility may be considered a type of social mobility, which is often measured in change in income.

Types of mobility

There are many different ideas in the literature as to what constitutes a good mathematical measure of mobility, each with their own advantages and drawbacks.

Mobility may be between generations ("inter-generational") or within a person's or group's lifetime ("intra-generational"). It may be "absolute" or "relative".

Inter-generational mobility compares a person's (or group's) income to that of her/his/their parents. Intra-generational mobility, in contrast, refers to movement up or down over the course of a working career.^{[citation needed]} Absolute mobility involves widespread economic growth and answers the question “To what extent do families improve their incomes over a generation?” Relative mobility is specific to individuals or groups and occurs without relation to the economy as a whole. It answers the question, "how closely are the economic fortunes of children tied to that of their parents?" Relative mobility is a zero-sum game, absolute is not.

• Exchange mobility is the mobility that results from a "reshuffling" of incomes among the economic agents, with no change in the income amounts. For example, in the case of two agents, a change in income distribution might be {1,2}->{2,1}. This is a case of pure exchange mobility, since they have simply exchanged incomes. More generally, for a set of incomes x_i, any permutation of the x_i will yield a pure exchange mobility. Measures of inequality (e.g. the Gini coefficient) will not change under pure exchange mobility.
• Structural mobility is mobility that results from a change in the income distribution function without regard to the identity of the agents. For two agents, a change in income distribution might be {1,3}->{2,2}. This case may involve some exchange mobility, depending on one's definition, but there is certainly some structural mobility since it does not involve a simple reshuffling of incomes.
• Growth mobility is mobility that results from an increase in total income. For two agents, a change in income distribution might be {1,2}->{2,4} or perhaps {1,2}->{3,5}. Growth mobility is certainly positive in these cases, since the sum of the incomes increases.

United States

Main article: Socio-economic mobility in the United States

Intergenerational mobility

According to the 2007 "American Dream Report" study, "by some measurements"—relative mobility between generations—"we are actually a less mobile society than many other nations, including Canada, France, Germany and most Scandinavian countries. This challenges the notion of America as the land of opportunity." Other research places the U.S. among the least economically mobile countries.

Another 2007 study ("Economic Mobility Project: Across Generations") found significant upward "absolute" mobility from the late 1960s to 2007, with two-thirds of those who were children in 1968 reporting more household income than their parents (although most of this growth in total family income can be attributed to the increasing number of women who work since male earnings have stayed relatively stable throughout this time).

However, in terms of relative mobility it stated: "contrary to American beliefs about equality of opportunity, a child's economic position is heavily influenced by that of his or her parents." 42% of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution ("quintile") remain in the bottom, while 39% born to parents in the top fifth remain at the top. Only half of the generation studied exceeded their parents economic standing by moving up one or more quintiles. Moving between quintiles is more frequent in the middle quintiles (2–4) than in the lowest and highest quintiles. Of those in one of the quintiles 2–4 in 1996, approximately 35% stayed in the same quintile; and approximately 22% went up one quintile or down one quintile (moves of more than one quintile are rarer). 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%.

Intragenerational mobility

According to a 2007 study by the US Treasury Department, Americans concerned over the recent growth in inequality (after-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent from 1979 to 2007 while it grew only 9% for the lowest 20%) can be reassured by the healthy income mobility in America: "There was considerable income mobility of individuals [within a single generation] in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period".

Other studies were less impressed with the rate of individual mobility in the United States. A 2007 inequality and mobility study by Wojciech Kopczuk and Emmanuel Saez and 2011 CBO study on "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income, found the pattern of annual and long-term earnings inequality "very close", or "only modestly" different. Another source described it as the mobility of "the guy who works in the college bookstore and has a real job by his early thirties," rather than poor people rising to middle class or middle income rising to wealth.

Relative vs. absolute

There are two different ways to measure economic mobility: absolute and relative. Absolute mobility measures how likely a person is to exceed their parents' family income at the same age. Research by the Pew Economic Mobility Project shows that the majority of Americans, 84 percent, exceed their parents' income. However, the size of absolute income gains is not always enough to move them to the next rung of the economic ladder.

A focus on how Americans' rank on the income ladder compares to their parents, their peers, or even themselves over time is a measure of relative mobility. The Pew Economic Mobility Project's research shows that forty percent of children in the lowest income quintile remain there as adults, and 70 percent remain below the middle quintile, meaning 30% moved up two quintiles or more in one generation.

Worldwide

In recent years several large studies have found that vertical inter-generational mobility is lower in the United States than in most developed countries. A 1996 paper by Daniel P. McMurrer, Isabel V. Sawhill found "mobility rates seem to be quite similar across countries." However a more recent paper (2007) found a person's parents is a great deal more predictive of their own income in the United States than other countries. The United States had about 1/3 the ratio of mobility of Denmark and less than half that of Canada, Finland and Norway. France, Germany, Sweden, also had higher mobility, with only the United Kingdom being less mobile.

Economic mobility in developing nations (such as those in Africa) is thought to be limited by both historical and global economic factors. Economic mobility is everywhere correlated with income and wealth inequality.

Men and women

Women in their 30s have substantially higher incomes today than their counterparts did in their parents' generation. Between 1974 and 2004, average income for women in their 30s has increased almost fourfold. This is a stark contrast to the growth in income of their male counterparts. The average income of men in their 30s has increased from 31,000 in 1964 to 35,000 in 2004, an increase of only 4,000.

However, much of this can be attributed to employment rates. The employment rate of women in their 30s has increased from 39% in 1964 to 70% in 2004; whereas, the rate of employment for men in this same age group has decreased from 91% in 1964 to 86% in 2004. This sharp increase in income for working women, in addition to stable male salaries, is the reason upward economic mobility is attributed to women.

See: De-industrialization crisis

Black and white families

Data shows substantial social segregation correlating with economic income groups. However, social connectedness to people of higher income levels is a strong predictor of upward income mobility.

Average income for both White and Black families has increased since the 1970s. However, average income for White families in their 30s has increased from $50,000 to $60,000 from 1975 to 2005, compared to an increase from $32,000 to $35,000 for Black families of the same age over the same period. So in addition to receiving a lower average income, its growth is also less for Black families (10% growth) than their White counterparts (19% growth). One way this can be explained is that even though marriage rates have declined for both races, Blacks are 25% less likely to be in a married couple. However, Blacks also have less economic mobility and are less likely to surpass their parents' income or economic standing than Whites. Two of three White children born into families in the middle quintile have achieved a higher family income than their parents. Conversely, only one of three Black children born into families in the middle quintile has achieved a higher family income than their parents. On average, Black children whose parents were in the bottom or second quintile do exceed their parents' income, but those whose parents were in the middle or fourth quintile actually have a lower income than their parents. This is a very large difference compared to Whites, who experience intergenerational income growth in every quintile except the highest. This shows that in addition to lower wages with less growth over time, it is less likely for Black families to experience upward economic mobility than it is for Whites.

Education

It is a widespread belief that there is a strong correlation between obtaining an education and increasing one's economic mobility. In the United States, the education system has always been considered the most effective and equal process for all individuals to improve one's economic standing. Despite the increasing availability to education for all, family background continues to play a huge role in determining economic success. To individuals who do not have or cannot obtain an education, the greater overall levels of education can act as a barrier, increasing their chance of being left behind at the bottom of the economic or income ladder. In this regard, education policy that allocates high ability students from lower social economic background to quality schools can have a large impact on economic mobility.

Studies have shown that education and family background has a great effect on economic mobility across generations. Family background or one's socioeconomic status affects the likelihood that students will graduate from high school or college, what type of college or institution they will attend, and how likely they are to graduate and complete a degree. According to studies, when split into income quintiles including the bottom, second, middle, fourth and top, adult children without a college degree and with parents in the bottom quintile remained in the bottom quintile. But if the adult children did have a college degree, there was only a 16% chance that they would remain at the bottom of the quintile. Therefore, it was proven that education provided an increase in economic status and mobility for poorer families. Not only does obtaining a college degree make it much more likely for individuals to make it to the top two quintiles, education helps those who were born in the top quintiles to remain in the top quintiles. Therefore, hard work and increasing education from those who are born into the lower quintiles can boost economic status and help them move ahead, but children born into wealthier families do seem to have the advantage. Even when the likelihood of attending college is ignored, studies have shown that out of all the students that enroll in college, socioeconomic status or family background still has an effect on graduation rates with 53% of those from the top quintile receiving bachelor's degrees along with 39% from the middle and 22% from the bottom quintile. According to the 2002 US Census, students can expect to earn on average about $2.1 million with a bachelor's degree over the course of their working career. That is almost $1 million more than what individual's without a college degree can expect to earn.

Considering that inflation rates have not kept up with increasing tuition rates, disadvantaged families have a much harder time affording college. Especially considering the increased competition for college admittances at public schools, students from lower economic quintiles are at an even greater disadvantage. Tuition rates over the past ten years has risen 47% at public universities and 42% at private universities. While having to take out more loans and work jobs while taking classes, students from lower income quintiles are considering college to be “a test of their endurance rather than their intelligence”.

By obtaining an education, individuals with low economic status can increase the income potential and therefore earn more than their parents and possibly surpass those in the upper income quintiles. Overall, each additional level of education an individual achieves whether it be a high school, college, graduate, or professional degree can add greatly to income levels. On the other hand, there are reports that disagree with the idea that individuals can work hard, obtain an education and succeed because there is the notion that America is actually getting poorer and actually more likely to stay poor as compared to any other western country. Some claim that the idea of the “American Dream” is starting to fade since the middle-class family income has remained constant since 1973. But upward mobility clearly still exists. One study claims that economic mobility is 3 times stronger in Denmark, 2.5 times higher in Canada, and 1.5 times higher in Germany as compared to the United States.

Immigration

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of legal immigrants has been rising steadily since the 1960s. The number has increased from about 320,000 to almost a million per year. About 500,000 illegal immigrants also remain in the United States each year. People immigrate to the United States in hopes of greater economic opportunities and most first generation immigrants experience a boost in their income from the American economy. But since most do not have an education, their wages quickly begin to fall relative to non-immigrants. According to studies, there is a great upward jump in economic mobility from the first to the second immigrant generation because of education. These second generation immigrants exceed the income levels of the first generation immigrants as well as some non-immigrants.

Through intergenerational mobility research, the mobility of immigrants and their children from different nations can be measured. Considering relative wages from male workers from certain nations in 1970 to second generation male workers in 2000, conclusions can be drawn about economic mobility. In 1970, if immigrants had come from an industrialized nation, then their average wages tended to be more than the average wages of non-immigrant workers during that time. In 2000, the second generation workers had experienced a downfall in relative mobility because their average wages were much closer to the average wages of a non-immigrant worker. In 1970, for the immigrant workers migrating from less industrialized countries, their average wages were less than the average wages of non-immigrant workers. In 2000, the second generation workers from less industrialized nations have experienced an increase in relative mobility because their average wages have moved closer to those of non-immigrants.

By computing the intergenerational correlation between relative wages of first and second generation workers from the same country a conclusion was made regarding whether or not first generation immigrants influence the wages of the second generation immigrants. This computation was also reported for native-born first and second generation American families. The study found that both immigrants and natives pass along almost exactly the same level of economic advantages or disadvantages to their offspring. These conclusions predict diminishing correlations in wages from the first and second generations if change in the level of education for each immigrant is considered. Since the majority of immigrants have low levels of education, it may be increasingly difficult for future second generation immigrants to ever surpass the average wages of non-immigrants.

Social status

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_status

Social status is the level of social value a person is considered to possess. More specifically, it refers to the relative level of respect, honour, assumed competence, and deference accorded to people, groups, and organizations in a society. Status is based in widely shared beliefs about who members of a society think holds comparatively more or less social value, in other words, who they believe is better in terms of competence or moral traits. Status is determined by the possession of various characteristics culturally believed to indicate superiority or inferiority (e.g., confident manner of speech or race). As such, people use status hierarchies to allocate resources, leadership positions, and other forms of power. In doing so, these shared cultural beliefs make unequal distributions of resources and power appear natural and fair, supporting systems of social stratification. Status hierarchies appear to be universal across human societies, affording valued benefits to those who occupy the higher rungs, such as better health, social approval, resources, influence, and freedom.

Definition

The sociologist Max Weber outlined three central aspects of stratification in a society: class, status, and power. In his scheme, which remains influential today, people possess status in the sense of honor because they belong to specific groups with unique lifestyles and privileges. Modern sociologists and social psychologists broadened this understanding of status to refer to one's relative level of respectability and honor more generally.

Some writers have also referred to a socially valued role or category a person occupies as a "status" (e.g., gender, social class, ethnicity, having a criminal conviction, having a mental illness, etc.). As social network analysts, Stanley Wasserman and Katherine Faust Stanley cautioned "there is considerable disagreement among social scientists about the definitions of the related concepts of social position, social status, and social role." They note that while many scholars differentiate those terms, they can define those terms in a way that clashes with the definitions of another scholar; for example they state that "[Ralph] Linton uses the term 'status' in a way that is identical to our use of the term "position".

Determination

Status hierarchies depend primarily on the possession and use of status symbols. These are cues or characteristics that people in a society agree indicate how much status a person holds and how they should be treated. Such symbols can include the possession of valued attributes, like being conventionally beautiful or having a prestigious degree. Other status symbols include wealth and its display through conspicuous consumption. Status in face-to-face interaction can also be conveyed through certain controllable behaviors, such as assertive speech, posture, and emotional displays. Social network analysts have also shown that one's affiliations can also be a source of status. Several studies document that being popular or demonstrating dominance over peers increases a person's status. Analyses of private companies also find that organizations can gain status from having well-respected corporate partners or investors.

A medical professional shows students a model of human anatomy. People with higher status, like this instructor, command more attention, are more influential, and their statements are evaluated as more accurate, compared to others in the group.

Because status is always relative to others, that means a person can enter many situations throughout their life or even a single day in which they hold high, equal, or low status depending on who is around them. For instance, a doctor holds high status when interacting with a patient, equal status in a meeting with fellow doctors, and low status when meeting with their hospital's chief of medicine. A person can also be a 'big fish in a small pond' such that they have higher status than everyone else in their organization, but low or equal status relative to professionals in their entire field.

Some perspectives on status emphasize its relatively fixed and fluid aspects. Ascribed statuses are fixed for an individual at birth, while achieved status is determined by social rewards an individual acquires during his or her lifetime as a result of the exercise of ability and/or perseverance. Examples of ascribed status include castes, race, and beauty among others. Meanwhile, achieved statuses are akin to one's educational credentials or occupation: these things require a person to exercise effort and often undergo years of training. The term master status has been used to describe the status most important for determining a person's position in a given context, like possessing a mental illness.

However, the concept of a master status is controversial. Status characteristics theory argues members of a task group will listen to whomever they believe will most help them solve a problem. One's external status in society (e.g., race or gender) determines influence in small groups, but so does a person's known ability on the task (e.g., mechanical ability when a car breaks down). This implies that known ability would attenuate the effect of external status, implying a given external status characteristic is not a master status. The program of research finds characteristics assumed to be master statuses (e.g., mental illness) are, in fact, attenuated by known ability. Moreover, status affects group members' assertiveness only when characteristics differentiate group members (i.e., groups are mixed-race or mixed-gender). With respect to gender, experimental tests repeatedly found that women are highly deferential only in the presence of men. Although for disadvantaged groups, status disadvantage is not completely negated by valued characteristics, their social status does not depend predominantly on any one group membership. As such, status characteristics research has yet to identify a social characteristic that operates like a robust cross-situational master status.

Uses of status

Although a person's status does not always correspond to merit or actual ability, it does allow the members of a group to coordinate their actions and quickly agree on who among them should be listened to. When actual ability does correspond to status, then status hierarchies can be especially useful. They allow leaders to emerge who set informed precedents and influence less knowledgeable group members, allowing groups to use the shared information of their group to make more correct decisions. This can be especially helpful in novel situations where group members must determine who is best equipped to complete a task.

In addition, groups accord more respect and esteem to members who help them succeed, which encourages highly capable members to contribute in the first place. This helps groups motivate members to contribute to a collective good by offering respect and esteem as a kind of compensation for helping everyone in the group succeed. For instance, people recognized as achieving great feats for their group or society are sometimes accorded legendary status as heroes.

Finally--for good or ill--status maintains social inequality. Because status is based on beliefs about social worth and esteem, sociologists argue it can then appear only natural that higher-status people have more material resources and power. Status makes it appear that a person's rank or position in society is due to their relative merit, and therefore deserved. For instance, if a society holds that the homeless are unworthy of respect or dignity, then their poor material conditions are not evaluated as unjust by members of that society, and therefore are not subject to change.

In different societies

Whether formal or informal, status hierarchies are present in all societies. In a society, the relative honor and prestige accorded to individuals depends on how well an individual is perceived to match a society's values and ideals (e.g., being pious in a religious society or wealthy in a capitalist society). Status often comes with attendant rights, duties, and lifestyle practices.

In modern societies, occupation is usually thought of as the main determinant of status, but other memberships or affiliations (such as ethnic group, religion, gender, voluntary associations, fandom, hobby) can have an influence. Achieved status, when people are placed in the stratification structure based on their individual merits or achievements like education or training, is thought to be reflective of modern developed societies. Consequently, achieved status implies that social mobility in a society is possible, as opposed to caste systems characterized by immobility based solely on ascribed status.

In pre-modern societies, status differentiation is widely varied. In some cases it can be quite rigid, such as with the Indian caste system. In other cases, status exists without class and/or informally, as is true with some Hunter-Gatherer societies such as the Khoisan, and some Indigenous Australian societies. In these cases, status is limited to specific personal relationships. For example, a Khoisan man is expected to take his wife's mother quite seriously (a non-joking relationship), although the mother-in-law has no special "status" over anyone except her son-in-law—and only then in specific contexts.

Status maintains and stabilizes social stratification. Mere inequality in resources and privileges is perceived as unfair and thus prompts retaliation and resistance from those of lower status, but if some individuals are seen as better than others (i.e., have higher status), then it seems natural and fair that high-status people receive more resources and privileges. Historically, Max Weber distinguished status from social class, though some contemporary empirical sociologists combine the two ideas to create socioeconomic status or SES, usually operationalized as a simple index of income, education and occupational prestige.

In nonhuman animals

Social status hierarchies have been documented in a wide range of animals: apes, baboons, wolves, cows/bulls, hens, even fish, and ants. Natural selection produces status-seeking behavior because animals tend to have more surviving offspring when they raise their status in their social group. Such behaviors vary widely because they are adaptations to a wide range of environmental niches. Some social dominance behaviors tend to increase reproductive opportunity, while others tend to raise the survival rates of an individual’s offspring. Neurochemicals, particularly serotonin, prompt social dominance behaviors without need for an organism to have abstract conceptualizations of status as a means to an end. Social dominance hierarchy emerges from individual survival-seeking behaviors.

Status inconsistency

Main article: Status inconsistency

Status inconsistency is a situation where an individual's social positions have both positive and negative influences on his or her social status. For example, a teacher may have a positive societal image (respect, prestige) which increases their status but may earn little money, which simultaneously decreases their status. In task-focused interpersonal encounters, people unconsciously combine this information to develop impressions of their own and others' relative rank. At one time, researchers thought status inconsistency would be a source of stress, though evidence for this hypothesis proved inconsistent, leaving some to conclude conflicting expectations through occupying incompatible roles may be the true stressor.

Social stratification

Main article: Social stratification

Status is one of the major components of social stratification, the way people are hierarchically placed in a society. The members of a group with similar status interact mainly within their own group and to a lesser degree with those of higher or lower status in a recognized system of social stratification. Although the determinants of status are specific to different cultures, some of the more common bases for status-based stratification include:

• Wealth/Income
• Gender
• Race/Ethnicity
• Social class
• Occupation
• Popularity (also called sociometric status)
  

• Social status is often associated with clothing and possessions. Compare the foreman with a horse and high hat with the inquilino in picture. Image from 19th century rural Chile.

Max Weber's three dimensions of stratification

Main article: Three-component theory of stratification

The German sociologist Max Weber argued stratification is based on three factors: property, status, and power. He claimed that social stratification is a result of the interaction of wealth (class), prestige status (or in German Stand) and power (party).

• Property refers to one's material possessions. If someone has control of property, that person has power over others and can use the property to his or her own benefit.
• Status refers to a person's relative level of respectability and social honor. Weber's interest was particularly in status groups, which have distinct cultural dispositions and privileges, and whose members mostly socialize with one another.
• Power is the ability to do what one wants, regardless of the will of others. (Domination, a closely related concept, is the power to make others' behavior conform to one's commands).

Status group

Main article: Status group

Max Weber developed the idea of "status group" which is a translation of the German Stand (pl. Stände). Status groups are communities that are based on ideas of lifestyles and the honor the status group both asserts, and is given by others. Status groups exist in the context of beliefs about relative prestige, privilege, and honor. People in status groups are only supposed to engage with people of like status, and in particular, marriage inside or outside the group is discouraged. Status groups in some societies include professions, club-like organizations, ethnicity, race, and any other socially (de)valued group that organizes interaction among relative equals.

Modernization theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernization_theory 

Modernization theory is used to explain the process of modernization within societies. The "classical" theories of modernization of the 1950s and 1960s drew on sociological analyses of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and a partial reading of Max Weber, and were strongly influenced by the writings of Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons. Modernization theory was a dominant paradigm in the social sciences in the 1950s and 1960s, then went into a deep eclipse. It made a comeback after 1991, when Francis Fukuyama wrote about the end of the Cold War as confirmation on modernization theory and more generally of universal history. But the theory remains a controversial model.

Modernization refers to a model of a progressive transition from a "pre-modern" or "traditional" to a "modern" society. Modernization theory suggests that traditional societies will develop as they adopt more modern practices. Proponents of modernization theory claim that modern states are wealthier and more powerful and that their citizens are freer to enjoy a higher standard of living. Developments such as new data technology and the need to update traditional methods in transport, communication and production make modernization necessary or at least preferable to the status quo. That view makes critique difficult since it implies that such developments control the limits of human interaction, not vice versa. And yet, seemingly paradoxically, it also implies that human agency controls the speed and severity of modernization. Supposedly, instead of being dominated by tradition, societies undergoing the process of modernization typically arrive at forms of governance dictated by abstract principles. Traditional religious beliefs and cultural traits, according to the theory, usually become less important as modernization takes hold.

The theory looks at the internal factors of a country while assuming that with assistance, "traditional" countries can be brought to development in the same manner more developed countries have been. Modernization theory both attempts to identify the social variables that contribute to social progress and development of societies and seeks to explain the process of social evolution. Authors such as Daniel Lerner explicitly equated modernization with Westernization.

Today, the concept of modernization is understood in three different meanings: 1) as the internal development of Western Europe and North America relating to the European New Era; 2) as a process by which countries that do not belong to the first group of countries, aim to catch up with them; 3) as processes of evolutionary development of the most modernized societies (Western Europe and North America), i.e. modernization as a permanent process, carried out through reform and innovation, which today means a transition to a postindustrial society. Historians link modernization to the processes of urbanization and industrialization and the spread of education. As Kendall (2007) notes, "Urbanization accompanied modernization and the rapid process of industrialization." In sociological critical theory, modernization is linked to an overarching process of rationalisation. When modernization increases within a society, the individual becomes increasingly important, eventually replacing the family or community as the fundamental unit of society. It is also a subject taught in traditional Advanced Placement World History classes.

Modernization theory is subject to criticism originating among socialist and free-market ideologies, world-systems theorists, globalization theorists and dependency theorists among others. Modernization theory stresses not only the process of change but also the responses to that change. It also looks at internal dynamics while referring to social and cultural structures and the adaptation of new technologies.

The rise and fall of modernization theory

The modernization theory of the 1950s and 1960 drew on classical evolutionary theory and a Parsonian reading of Weber's ideas about a transition from traditional to modern society. Parsons had translated Weber's works into English in the 1930s and provided his own interpretation.

After 1945 the Parsonian version became widely used in sociology and other social sciences. Some of the thinkers associated with modernization theory are Marion J. Levy Jr., Gabriel Almond, Seymour Martin Lipset, Walt Rostow, Daniel Lerner, Lucian Pye, David Apter, Alex Inkeles, Cyril Edwin Black, Bert F. Hoselitz, Myron Weiner, and Karl Deutsch.

By the late 1960s opposition to modernization theory developed because the theory was too general and did not fit all societies in quite the same way. Yet, with the end of the Cold War, a few attempts to revive modernization theory were carried out. Francis Fukuyama argued for the use of modernization theory as universal history. A more academic effort to revise modernization theory was that of Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel in Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy (2005). Inglehart and Welzel amended the 1960s version of modernization theory in significant ways. Counter to Lipset, who associated industrial growth with democratization, Inglehart and Welzel did not see an association between industrialization and democratization. Rather, they held that only at a later stage in the process of economic modernization, which various authors have chanracterized as post-industrial, did values conducive to democratization - which Inglehart and Welzel call “self-expression values” - emerge.

Nonetheless, these efforts to revive modernization theory were critized by many (see the section on "Criticisms and alternatives" below), and the theory remained a controversial one.

Modernization and democracy

The relationship between modernization and democracy or democratization is one of the most researched studies in comparative politics. There are many studies show that modernization has contributed to democracy in some countries. For example, Seymour Martin Lipset argued that modernization can turn into democracy." There is academic debate over the drivers of democracy because there are theories that support economic growth as both a cause and effect of the institution of democracy. “Lipset’s observation that democracy is related to economic development, first advanced in 1959, has generated the largest body of research on any topic in comparative politics,”

Larry Diamond and Juan Linz, who worked with Lipset in the book, Democracy in Developing Countries: Latin America, argue that economic performance affects the development of democracy in at least three ways. First, they argue that economic growth is more important for democracy than given levels of socioeconomic development. Second, socioeconomic development generates social changes that can potentially facilitate democratization. Third, socioeconomic development promotes other changes, like organization of the middle class, which is conducive to democracy.

As Seymour Martin Lipset put it, "All the various aspects of economic development—industrialization, urbanization, wealth and education—are so closely interrelated as to form one major factor which has the political correlate of democracy". The argument also appears in Walt W. Rostow, Politics and the Stages of Growth (1971); A. F. K. Organski, The Stages of Political Development (1965); and David Apter, The Politics of Modernization (1965). In the 1960s, some critics argued that the link between modernization and democracy was based too much on the example of European history and neglected the Third World.

One historical problem with that argument has always been Germany whose economic modernization in the 19th century came long before the democratization after 1918. Berman, however, concludes that a process of democratization was underway in Imperial Germany, for "during these years Germans developed many of the habits and mores that are now thought by political scientists to augur healthy political development".

One contemporary problem for modernization theory is that it is highly contentious that modernization implies more human rights, with China in the 21st century being a major test case.

Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel contend that the realization of democracy is not based solely on an expressed desire for that form of government, but democracies are born as a result of the admixture of certain social and cultural factors. They argue the ideal social and cultural conditions for the foundation of a democracy are born of significant modernization and economic development that result in mass political participation.

Randall Peerenboom explores the relationships among democracy, the rule of law and their relationship to wealth by pointing to examples of Asian countries, such as Taiwan and South Korea, which have successfully democratized only after economic growth reached relatively high levels and to examples of countries such as the Philippines, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia and India, which sought to democratize at lower levels of wealth but have not done as well.

Adam Przeworski and others have challenged Lipset's argument. They say political regimes do not transition to democracy as per capita incomes rise. Rather, democratic transitions occur randomly, but once there, countries with higher levels of gross domestic product per capita remain democratic. Epstein et al. (2006) retest the modernization hypothesis using new data, new techniques, and a three-way, rather than dichotomous, classification of regimes. Contrary to Przeworski, this study finds that the modernization hypothesis stands up well. Partial democracies emerge as among the most important and least understood regime types.

Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, in their article "Income and Democracy" (2008) further weaken the case for Lipset's argument by showing that even though there is a strong cross-country correlation between income and democracy, once one controls for country fixed effects and removes the association between income per capita and various measures of democracy, there is "no causal effect of income on democracy." In "Non-Modernization" (2022), they further argue that modernization theory cannot account for various paths of political development "because it posits a link between economics and politics that is not conditional on institutions and culture and that presumes a definite endpoint—for example, an 'end of history'."

Sirianne Dahlum and Carl Henrik Knutsen offer a test of the Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel revised version of modernization theory, which focuses on cultural traits triggered by economic development that are presummed to be conducive to democratization. They find "no empirical support" for the Inglehart and Welzel thesis and conclude that "self-expression values do not enhance democracy levels or democratization chances, and neither do they stabilize existing democracies."

A meta-analysis by Gerardo L. Munck of research on Lipset's argument shows that a majority of studies do not support the thesis that higher levels of economic development leads to more democracy.

Modernization and economic development

Development, like modernization, has become the orienting principle of modern times. Countries that are seen as modern are also seen as developed, which means that they are generally more respected by institutions such as the United Nations and even as possible trade partners for other countries. The extent to which a country has modernized or developed dictates its power and importance on the international level.

Modernization of the health sector of developing nations recognizes that transitioning from "traditional" to "modern" is not merely the advancement in technology and the introduction of Western practices; implementing modern healthcare requires the reorganization of political agenda and, in turn, an increase in funding by feeders and resources towards public health. Additionally, a strong advocate of the DE-emphasis of medical institutions was Halfdan T. Mahler, the WHO General Director from 1973 to 1988. Related ideas have been proposed at international conferences such as Alma-Ats and the "Health and Population in Development" conference, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation in Italy in 1979, and selective primary healthcare and GOBI were discussed (although they have both been strongly criticized by supporters of comprehensive healthcare). Overall, however, this is not to say that the nations of the Global South can function independently from Western states; significant funding is received from well-intention programs, foundations, and charities that target epidemics such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis that have substantially improved the lives of millions of people and impeded future development.

Modernization theorists often saw traditions as obstacles to economic development. According to Seymour Martin Lipset, economic conditions are heavily determined by the cultural, social values present in that given society. Furthermore, while modernization might deliver violent, radical change for traditional societies, it was thought worth the price. Critics insist that traditional societies were often destroyed without ever gaining the promised advantages if, among other things, the economic gap between advanced societies and such societies actually increased. The net effect of modernization for some societies was therefore the replacement of traditional poverty by a more modern form of misery, according to these critics. Others point to improvements in living standards, physical infrastructure, education and economic opportunity to refute such criticisms.

Modernization theorists such as Samuel P. Huntington held in the 1960s and 1970s that authoritarian regimes yielded greater economic growth than democracies. However, this view had been challenged. In Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990 (2000), Adam Przeworski argued that "democracies perform as well economically as do authoritarian regimes." A study by Daron Acemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson shows that "democracy has a positive effect on GDP per capita."

Modernization and globalization

Globalization can be defined as the integration of economic, political and social cultures. It is argued that globalization is related to the spreading of modernization across borders.

Global trade has grown continuously since the European discovery of new continents in the Early modern period; it increased particularly as a result of the Industrial Revolution and the mid-20th century adoption of the shipping container.

Annual trans-border tourist arrivals rose to 456 million by 1990 and almost tripled since, reaching a total of over 1.2 billion in 2016. Communication is another major area that has grown due to modernization. Communication industries have enabled capitalism to spread throughout the world. Telephony, television broadcasts, news services and online service providers have played a crucial part in globalization. Former U.S president Lyndon B. Johnson was a supporter of the modernization theory and believed that television had potential to provide educational tools in development.

With the many apparent positive attributes to globalization there are also negative consequences. The dominant, neoliberal model of globalization often increases disparities between a society's rich and its poor. In major cities of developing countries there exist pockets where technologies of the modernised world, computers, cell phones and satellite television, exist alongside stark poverty. Globalists are globalization modernization theorists and argue that globalization is positive for everyone, as its benefits must eventually extend to all members of society, including vulnerable groups such as women and children.

Technology

New technology is a major source of social change. (Social change refers to any significant alteration over time in behaviour patterns and cultural values and norms.) Since modernization entails the social transformation from agrarian societies to industrial ones, it is important to look at the technological viewpoint; however, new technologies do not change societies by itself. Rather, it is the response to technology that causes change. Frequently, technology is recognized but not put to use for a very long time such as the ability to extract metal from rock Archived 2020-03-28 at the Wayback Machine Although that initially went unused, it later had profound implications for the developmental course of societies. Technology makes it possible for a more innovative society and broad social change. That dramatic change through the centuries that has evolved socially, industrially, and economically, can be summed up by the term modernization. Cell phones, for example, have changed the lives of millions throughout the world. That is especially true in Africa and other parts of the Middle East, where there is a low-cost communication infrastructure. With cell phone technology, widely dispersed populations are connected, which facilitates business-to-business communication and provides internet access to remoter areas, with a consequential rise in literacy.

Applications

United States foreign aid in the 1960s

President John F. Kennedy (1961–63) relied on economists W.W. Rostow on his staff and outsider John Kenneth Galbraith for ideas on how to promote rapid economic development in the "Third World", as it was called at the time. They promoted modernization models in order to reorient American aid to Asia, Africa and Latin America. In the Rostow version in his The Stages of Economic Growth (1960) progress must pass through five stages, and for underdeveloped world the critical stages were the second one, the transition, the third stage, the takeoff into self-sustaining growth. Rostow argued that American intervention could propel a country from the second to the third stage he expected that once it reached maturity, it would have a large energized middle class that would establish democracy and civil liberties and institutionalize human rights. The result was a comprehensive theory that could be used to challenge Marxist ideologies, and thereby repel communist advances. The model provided the foundation for the Alliance for Progress in Latin America, the Peace Corps, Food for Peace, and the Agency for International Development (AID). Kennedy proclaimed the 1960s the "Development Decade" and substantially increased the budget for foreign assistance. Modernization theory supplied the design, rationale, and justification for these programs. The goals proved much too ambitious, and the economists in a few years abandoned the European-based modernization model as inappropriate to the cultures they were trying to impact.

Kennedy and his top advisers were working from implicit ideological assumptions regarding modernization. They firmly believed modernity was not only good for the target populations, but was essential to avoid communism on the one hand or extreme control of traditional rural society by the very rich landowners on the other. They believed America had a duty, as the most modern country in the world, to promulgate this ideal to the poor nations of the Third World. They wanted programs that were altruistic, and benevolent—and also tough, energetic, and determined. It was benevolence with a foreign policy purpose. Michael Latham has identified how this ideology worked out in three major programs the Alliance for Progress, the Peace Corps, and the strategic hamlet program in South Vietnam. However, Latham argues that the ideology was a non-coercive version of the modernization goals of the imperialistic of Britain, France and other European countries in the 19th century .

Criticisms and alternatives

From the 1970s, modernization theory has been criticized by numerous scholars, including Andre Gunder Frank (1929–2005) and Immanuel Wallerstein (1930-2019). In this model, the modernization of a society required the destruction of the indigenous culture and its replacement by a more Westernized one. By one definition, modern simply refers to the present, and any society still in existence is therefore modern. Proponents of modernization typically view only Western society as being truly modern and argue that others are primitive or unevolved by comparison. That view sees unmodernized societies as inferior even if they have the same standard of living as western societies. Opponents argue that modernity is independent of culture and can be adapted to any society. Japan is cited as an example by both sides. Some see it as proof that a thoroughly modern way of life can exist in a non western society. Others argue that Japan has become distinctly more western as a result of its modernization.

As Tipps has argued, by conflating modernization with other processes, with which theorists use interchangeably (democratization, liberalization, development), the term becomes imprecise and therefore difficult to disprove.

The theory has also been criticised empirically, as modernization theorists ignore external sources of change in societies. The binary between traditional and modern is unhelpful, as the two are linked and often interdependent, and "modernization" does not come as a whole.

Modernization theory has also been accused of being Eurocentric, as modernization began in Europe, with the Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution and the Revolutions of 1848 and has long been regarded as reaching its most advanced stage in Europe. Anthropologists typically make their criticism one step further and say that the view is ethnocentric and is specific to Western culture.

Dependency theory

One alternative model is dependency theory. It emerged in the 1950s and argues that the underdevelopment of poor nations in the Third World derived from systematic imperial and neo-colonial exploitation of raw materials. Its proponents argue that resources typically flow from a "periphery" of poor and underdeveloped states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. It is a central contention of dependency theorists such as Andre Gunder Frank that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the "world system".

Dependency models arose from a growing association of southern hemisphere nationalists (from Latin America and Africa) and Marxists. It was their reaction against modernization theory, which held that all societies progress through similar stages of development, that today's underdeveloped areas are thus in a similar situation to that of today's developed areas at some time in the past, and that, therefore, the task of helping the underdeveloped areas out of poverty is to accelerate them along this supposed common path of development, by various means such as investment, technology transfers, and closer integration into the world market. Dependency theory rejected this view, arguing that underdeveloped countries are not merely primitive versions of developed countries, but have unique features and structures of their own; and, importantly, are in the situation of being the weaker members in a world market economy.

Barrington Moore and comparative historical analysis

Another line of critique of modernization theory was due to sociologist Barrington Moore Jr., in his Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966). In this classic book, Moore argues there were at least "three routes to the modern world" - the liberal democratic, the fascist, and the communist - each deriving from the timing of industrialization and the social structure at the time of transition. Counter to modernization theory, Moore held that there was not one path to the modern world and that economic development did not always bring about democracy.

Guillermo O'Donnell and bureaucratic authoritarianism

Political scientist Guillermo O'Donnell, in his Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism (1973) challenged the thesis, advanced most notably by Seymour Martin Lipset, that industrialization produced democracy. In South America, O’Donnell argued, industrialization generated not democracy, but bureaucratic authoritarianism.

Acemoglu and Robinson and institutional economics

Ecoonomists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, in "Non-Modernization" (2022), argue that modernization theory cannot account for various paths of political development "because it posits a link between economics and politics that is not conditional on institutions and culture and that presumes a definite endpoint—for example, an 'end of history'."

Social change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_change 

 

A set of social changes proposed for climate change mitigation

Social change is the alteration of the social order of a society which may include changes in social institutions, social behaviours or social relations.

Definition

Social change may not refer to the notion of social progress or sociocultural evolution, the philosophical idea that society moves forward by evolutionary means. It may refer to a paradigmatic change in the socio-economic structure, for instance the transition from feudalism to capitalism, or hypothetical future transition to some form of post-capitalism.

Social development refers to how people develop social and emotional skills across the lifespan, with particular attention to childhood and adolescence. Healthy social development allows us to form positive relationships with family, friends, teachers, and other people in our lives.

Accordingly, it may also refer to social revolution, such as the Socialist revolution presented in Marxism, or to other social movements, such as women's suffrage or the civil rights movement. Social change may be driven through cultural, religious, economic, environmental, scientific or technological forces.

Prominent theories

Change comes from two sources. One source is unique factors such as climate, weather, or the presence of specific groups of people. Another source is systematic factors. For example, successful development generally has the same requirements, such as a stable and flexible government, enough free and available resources, and a diverse social organization of society. On the whole, social change is usually a combination of systematic factors along with some random or unique factors.

Many theories attempt to explain social change. One view suggests that a theory of change should include elements such as structural aspects of change (like population shifts), processes and mechanisms of social change, and directions of change.

• Christian: In Christianity & Judaism social change is seen in terms of God's blessings on faithfulness or curses on disobedience. See Deuteronomy chapter 28.
• Hegelian: The classic Hegelian dialectic model of change is based on the interaction of opposing forces. Starting from a point of momentary stasis, Thesis countered by Antithesis first yields conflict, then it subsequently results in a new Synthesis.
• Marxist: Marxism presents a dialectical and materialist concept of history, seeing humankind's history as a fundamental "struggle between social classes".
• Kuhnian: The philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn argues in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions with respect to the Copernican Revolution that people are likely to continue utilizing an apparently unworkable paradigm until a better paradigm is commonly accepted. A Kuhnian approach to the study of societies is provided by the critical juncture approach to social order and change.
• Heraclitan: The Greek philosopher Heraclitus used the metaphor of a river to speak of change thus: "On those stepping into rivers staying the same other and other waters flow" (DK22B12). What Heraclitus seems to be suggesting here, later interpretations notwithstanding, is that, in order for the river to remain the river, change must constantly be taking place. Thus one may think of the Heraclitan model as parallel to that of a living organism, which, in order to remain alive, must constantly change. A contemporary application of this approach is shown in the social-change theory SEED-SCALE which builds off of the complexity theory subfield of emergence.
• Daoist: The Chinese philosophical work Dao De Jing, I.8 and II.78 uses the metaphor of water as the ideal agent of change. Water, although soft and yielding, will eventually wear away stone. Change, in this model, is to be natural, harmonious and steady, albeit imperceptible.
• Four Levels of Action: Will Grant of the Pachamama Alliance describes "Four Levels of Action" for change:

1. individual
2. friends and family
3. community and institutions
4. economy and policy

Grant suggests that individuals can have the largest personal impact by focusing on levels 2 and 3.

Types of change

Social changes can vary according to speed and scope and impetus. Some research on the various types of social change focuses on social organizations such as corporations.

Different manifestations of change include:

• Fabian change – gradual and reformist incremental amelioration after the manner of the Fabian Society
• radical change – improvements root and branch in the style of political radicalism
• revolutionary change – abrupt, radical and drastic change, with implications of violence and of starting afresh (perhaps most popular as a political bogeyman)
• transformational change – a New-age version of radical change, and thus difficult to define
• continuous change, open-ended change – change (allegedly) for the sake of change
• top-down change – reliance on leadership
• bottom-up change – reliance on the huddled masses

Current examples

Global demographic shifts

Main article: Demographics of the world

One of the most obvious changes currently occurring is the change in the relative global population distribution between countries. In recent decades, developing countries have become a larger proportion of the world population, increasing from 68% in 1950 to 82% in 2010, and the population of the developed countries has declined from 32% of the total world population in 1950 to 18% in 2010. China and India continue to be the largest countries, followed by the US as a distant third. However, population growth throughout the world is slowing. Population growth among developed countries has been slowing since the 1950s and is now at 0.3% annual growth. Population growth among the less developed countries excluding the least developed ones has also been slowing since 1960 and is now at 1.3% annually. Population growth among the least developed countries has slowed relatively little and is the highest at 2.7% annual growth.

Gendered patterns of work and care

In much of the developed world, changes from distinct men's work and women's work to more gender equal patterns have been economically important since the mid-20th century. Both men and women are considered to be great contributors to social change worldwide.