After a general introduction to the problems of regional imbalance, this paper proceeds to an analysis of the background and causes of regional economic inequalities in Yugoslavia. Demographic factors are outlined with reference to Yugoslav statistical sources, and the policies being adopted for those areas defined as being in need of special assistance are examined. The author concludes by indicating some lessons to be drawn from Yugoslavia's experience of migration and especially of its workers abroad.

No description available.

No description available.

<p>Economic inequality is increasing in Canada and throughout the world. In addition to the equity concerns of distributive justice, growing economic inequality negatively impacts poverty, social cohesion, and the stability of the economy. This master’s thesis undertakes a major literature review to explore the trends in economic inequality and the policies that influence it.</p> <p>The current increase in economic inequality has been dominated by an increase in the income and wealth of the 1% to which the Occupy movement has drawn significant attention. Policies to directly counter this rise in both before- and after-tax top incomes are critical to combatting economic inequality. In addition to highlighting policies that target the very rich, this thesis examines intersections between traditional social policy and broader public policy in the field of economic inequality. It also argues for increased consideration of economics in social work research and policy practice. Economic inequality should be a concern to social workers alongside poverty.</p> <p>Policies in four areas are considered: income taxes and transfers, public services, labour market institutions, and capital market interventions. Recommendations are made for the future. Addressing economic inequality through national policy is both possible and advantageous. A comprehensive policy package involving policies from the four areas explored has the potential to reduce economic inequality.</p> / Master of Social Work (MSW)

Many observers have noticed a sharp divergence of household incomes in the last few decades that seems unrelated to the traditional explanations of inequality like economic development. My dissertation examines the question of how the rise of neoliberalism—or the market über alles—impacts this inequality in countries around the world. High inequality is known to hinder economic growth, social mobility, democratic functioning, social capital, and to adversely affect health and education outcomes, as well as to exacerbate racial and residential inequality. Equality, meanwhile, is seen as desirable in its own right as a matter of social justice. Neoliberalism is a likely suspect because it emerged at the same time and in the same places that inequality began to rise after three postwar decades of decline. It is also a particularly competitive form of capitalism, and thus produces more winners and losers at both ends of the income distribution. With its focus on profits, it is much more beneficial to income derived from capital gains at the expense of wages, deepening the typical class divide under capitalism. Finally, neoliberalism is an elite consensus formed without any public participation, and these special interests shape the economy and society to the benefit of this privileged minority. I find four major shortcomings of existing research related to my research question. First, all but the most recent research has had to rely on sub-standard data for cross-national comparisons, which I address using Frederick Solt’s (2009) Standardized World Income Inequality Database (SWIID). Second, past analyses of cross-national data have improperly handled between-country variation, which I address using a dual fixed-effects modelling approach. Third, there are operationalization problems with neoliberalism, in which past research has failed to capture the phenomenon in its entirety. I address this by developing a new multi-dimensional measurement approach. Moreover, there is a determined failure by many to fully consider neoliberalism as a likely explanation because it contradicts the myth of liberal democracy and capitalist benevolence. Along these lines, the fourth shortcoming is that most popular explanations of rising inequality blame otherwise benign trends such as globalization and technological advancement. This obscures the political nature of neoliberalism, especially how the rich are able to dominate political economy at the expense of the masses. In doing so, it makes it appear that inequality is just a byproduct of progress, that we must accept it as inevitable, and that only palliatives are available. The reality, however, is that neoliberalism is neither inevitable nor progressive and requires systemic change to rectify. I address the research question with three research components. First, I develop a definition of neoliberalism in contrast to existing theoretical narratives, namely globalization, neo-Keynesianism, dependency theory, and economic freedom. I argue neoliberalism is a social and political project that emerged in the economic stagnation of the 1970s—a way for corporate elites to revitalize profits by whatever means necessary, regardless of the consequences. These means have included tax cuts, social spending cuts, deregulation, neoliberal monetary policy, corporate and industrial restructuring, free trade agreements and increased foreign investment, export-led growth, and the growing power of global economic institutions. I operationalize this definition using the Economic Freedom for the World Index (42 variables) and other World Bank data. Empirically, I show that many neoliberal variables correlate and thus may embody a wider phenomenon, but they also show moderate independence which supports the multi-dimensional approach rather than a single neoliberal metric. In the second part of the dissertation, I use the measurement developed in part one to analyze neoliberalism’s relationship with inequality. I find a relatively robust relationship in the expected direction, with some exceptions, and the dual-model approach underscores the importance of analyzing both between- and within-country variation. The latter is useful because it inherently controls for cross-country heterogeneity, but it comes at a substantial loss of variability. The former has regrettably been derogated, but it provides much explanatory power and complements within-country analysis well. In other words, between-country variation captures deep institutional and cultural differences across countries, while the other captures more superficial but flexible policy shifts and trends within countries at various points in time. I also explore the nonlinear effects of neoliberalism on inequality. Generally, the analysis showed that more developed countries had a stronger association between various neoliberal dimensions and greater inequality. I speculated this was because more developed countries historically have more institutional protection from the adverse effects of markets, and by weakening these, neoliberalism generates more inequality than in countries whose public intervention is already less robust, especially in unmeasurable ways. The analysis also generally showed that at low levels of neoliberalism the relationship sometimes reversed, creating a U-shaped curve that was typically centered left of the mean. I speculated this was due to the fact that very low scores of neoliberalism occur in underdeveloped countries usually suffering from serious state corruption, which translates into greater inequality. In such cases, moving away from a corrupt state and toward market institutions generates relatively less inequality. In the third part, I expand on the above model to establish competitive testing of alternative explanations of rising inequality using contingency effects. The alternatives include globalization, technological advancement, industrial restructuring, human capital/skills, and female employment. The test asks whether the effects of these alternatives are actually contingent on above average levels of neoliberalism, and thus not responsible for inequality per se. Instead neoliberalism makes globalization, technology, and the other trends more inegalitarian than they would have otherwise been. In general, the analysis showed that the alternatives are robustly contingent in the expected direction. Greater levels of neoliberalism drive many ordinarily benign trends and processes toward greater inequality. Remarkably, even basic education, long thought to be the great equalizer, can actually exacerbate inequality at high levels of neoliberalism. In fact, at average levels of neoliberalism, the alternatives mostly had weak relationships to inequality. And below the average, many alternatives actually appeared to generate less inequality—that is, inequality was lower where and when neoliberalism was less embedded. Overall, the findings demonstrate that neoliberalism is an important if not predominant explanation for rising income inequality that many countries have experienced in the last several decades. It suggests that superficial solutions like more education spending or job creation may be insufficient without addressing, at least to some extent, the deeper issue of neoliberal capitalism. I provide suggestions for this, but ultimately it means shifting our major institutions away from market logic toward public interests, control, and orientation. A future economic crisis more severe than the Great Recession could advance such systemic change, but popular protest will likely also be needed to ensure that addressing today’s challenges becomes more egalitarian. / Sociology

Using data from the China Housing Survey, that was conducted in 1993, the present study attempts to learn whether and how specific factors--human capital (including education and health), guanxi (social connections), housework, and employment in different sectors of the economy influence the income gap between men and women in urban China when traditional, socialist, and market mechanisms are all present. The data were collected from two large Chinese cities, Tianjin and Shanghai. The results of regression show that 1) Differences in education account for much of the gender differences in income. With the same amount of education, women still earn somewhat less than men. Health reduces the gender income gap between men and women in urban China. 2) Sector segregation accounts for much of the gender differences in income. The private sector pays much more than the public sector. Guanxi and housework do not help explain the difference in income between men and women. The present study reveals that the income inequality between men and women comes mainly from market forces. The market factors of education, health, and sector are the primary areas in which women suffer disadvantages that result in their lower income. / Master of Science

(Un-)gleichheit und Gerechtigkeit waren schon immer Kernbestandteil eines jeden politischen Konzeptes, welches das Wohl der Menschen in den Mittelpunkt rückte. Die Idee der Gleichheit ist so alt wie die der Demokratie selbst und neben instrumentellen Gründen, aus denen man (Un-)gleichheit schätzen oder ablehnen kann, ist die Existenz einer inhärenten Abneigung von Ungleichheit inzwischen ein allgemein akzeptiertes Faktum innerhalb der volkswirtschaftlichen Disziplin. Diese Dissertation trägt zur daraus folgenden Debatte um die Ursachen, Auswirkungen, und die Messung von Ungleichheit bei. Die Arbeit besteht aus drei Aufsätzen, welche empirische Untersuchungen in einem breit definierten Spektrum von wirtschaftlicher Ungleichheit – welches sowohl Löhne aus nicht-selbstständiger Arbeit, als auch breiter gefasste Einkommenskonzepte umfasst – enthalten. Was sind die Faktoren, welche zu einem Anstieg oder einer Verringerung von Ungleichheit innerhalb eines Landes führen und welche Auswirkungen hat diese höhere oder geringere Ungleichheit für dessen langfristige wirtschaftliche Entwicklung? Es wäre anmaßend zu behaupten, allgemeingültige Antworten auf diese wichtigen Fragen innerhalb der folgenden drei Aufsätze geben zu können. Diese Dissertation versucht vielmehr, Erklärungen für bestimmte Teilaspekte zu liefern. In Aufsatz 1 beschäftige ich mich mit dem Wirtschaftswachstum, eine der wohl wichtigsten Konsequenzen von Ungleichheit was die langfristige Wirkung auf das materielle Wohlbefinden eines Landes angeht. Im Zuge dessen befasse ich mich eingehend mit der noch immer ungelösten Kontroverse darüber, ob Ungleichheit zu mehr Wachstum beiträgt. Im Folgenden vertiefe ich dann die Diskussion über die Messung von Ungleichheit in Aufsatz 2 und führe damit eine Debatte fort, auf die bereits Essay 1 unvermeidlich stößt. Ich konzentriere mich dabei auf ein Maß für die Lohnverteilung in einer der Hauptsektoren der Wirtschaft, der verarbeitenden Industrie. Die Debatte über die richtige Messung von Ungleichheit ist nicht trivial: Weder die Ursachen, noch die Folgen von Ungleichheit können untersucht werden, ohne in die Details verschiedener zur Verfügung stehender Maße gehen zu müssen. Die Verfügbarkeit geeigneter Daten auf Länderebene und über die Zeit ist Voraussetzung für empirische Studien zu diesen Themen. Tatsächlich ist einer der Gründe dafür, dass es noch immer keinen Konsens darüber gibt, ob die Ungleichheit zwischen den Ländern in den letzten 50 Jahren gestiegen oder gefallen ist, die Vielfalt nicht nur der Maße, sondern auch der diesen zugrundeliegenden Konzepten, die in unterschiedlichen Studien verwendet werden. Die verschiedenen Maße reagieren ungleich stark auf bestimmte Bereiche der Einkommensverteilung und können daher zu unterschiedlichen Schlussfolgerungen darüber, in welchen Ländern es mehr und welche weniger Ungleichheit gibt, oder über Änderungen von Ungleichheit im Laufe der Zeit führen. Aus einem ähnlichen Grund ist die Literatur noch immer uneins über den Einfluss von Ungleichheit auf das Wirtschaftswachstum: Aufgrund der Nutzung unterschiedlicher Datenquellen sowie durch Mängel in den zugrundeliegenden Daten selbst ist die Vergleichbarkeit der verschiedenen Studien stark eingeschränkt. Unberührt davon, dass die Debatte um den Einfluss von Ungleichheit auf das Wirtschaftswachstum ungelöst bleibt, ist es wichtig zu wissen, welche Faktoren Ungleichheit verursachen oder verschlimmern (und welche dies nicht tun). Aufsatz 3 untersucht einen der in der öffentlichen Debatte häufiger zitierten Gründe für den Anstieg der Ungleichheit, den Handel. Ich untersuche empirisch die potentiellen Faktoren, die mit Handel einhergehen und zu steigender Ungleichheit führen können. Ich beschränke mich hierbei auf den Bestandteil von Ungleichheit, der laut Handelstheorien unmittelbar relevant für die Auswirkungen von Handel ist: die Verteilung der Löhne. Dabei verwende ich den in Aufsatz 2 behandelten Index der Lohnungleichheit in der verarbeitenden Industrie in einem der wenigen Kontexte, in denen dieser, wie ich in Aufsatz 2 argumentiere, angemessen ist.

This Bachelor thesis is an interpretive study, where the material has mainly been gathered through ethnographic methods, with thematically opened interviews and observations providing the primary data. A field study was conducted in Bolivia during the months of November and December of 2009; in La Paz in the Western highlands, including some interviews in the fast growing suburb El Alto, as well as in Santa Cruz de la Sierra in the Eastern lowlands. Bolivia is one of the poorest and most unequal countries in Latin America and the world, and the purpose of the study is to re-contextualise and re-interpret how inequality is created and maintained in the Bolivian society by doing a case study on gender inequality. In addition, an intersectional analysis is used that takes into account the diversity of the Bolivian society in terms of ethnicity and class. The study aims at exploring the mechanisms that create and maintain inequality in a Bolivian context as well as looking at the prospects for potential change in the unequal relations between groups of people within the new context of indigenous president Evo Morales and a new inclusive constitution. Using an abductive method, the empirical material has been re-interpreted with the help of American sociologist Charles Tilly’s framework of durable inequality. He identifies two mechanisms that create inequality, exploitation and opportunity hoarding, and two mechanisms that reinforce inequality; emulation and adaptation. Together with the concept of intersectionality, recognising women’s different experiences depending on, for instance, ethnic background or social class, these two frameworks are framing the study. Jointly they generate a new analytical tool that can deepen the understanding inequality mechanisms: the Intersecting Inequality Framework. The content of the interviews when analysed show that inequalities in Bolivia have long historical roots, and that the processes of exploitation, opportunity hoarding, emulation and adaptation that Tilly describes all take place in creating and maintaining an unequal position for Bolivian women. The Intersecting Inequality Framework reveals that the inequality mechanisms in the three dimensions of gender, ethnicity and class sometimes work autonomously and other times intersectionally. Changing durable inequality is a slow process; nevertheless there are signs of changed relations between categorical bounded groups in the Bolivian society. Although, in the context of Morales the main political focus at the time lays not on attaining gender equality, but rather to continue the empowerment of the indigenous populations.

Past research has been divergent about perceived income inequality among diversely positioned members of the Chinese population. Several scholars have suggested that persistent earnings disparity results in societal unrest while others claim that most Chinese citizens view existing disparities as relatively reasonable. In this dissertation I argue that individuals with different socioeconomic status possess different perceptions of income inequality which reflect differences in legitimating income inequality and wealth rearrangement preferences. Implementing the survey data from the China General Social Survey (CGSS), I developed a new measurement of perceived earnings disparity and a Structural Equation Model (SEM) to analyze perceived earnings disparity among the Chinese population. This analysis is integrated with psychological and cultural approaches in order to understand why it is that Chinese people seem relatively unresponsive to persistent income inequality. Results show that: (1) People with high socioeconomic status believe that income inequality is the normal result of competition in the market economy and those with low socioeconomic status tolerate income inequality for government’s good economic performance; (2) socioeconomic status differentials in perceived income inequality diverge as higher earnings disparity becomes evident in contemporary China; and (3) the people within the lowest economic strata are sensitive to the intensified income inequality, and have stronger demands for redistributive policies while those in the highest strata express attitudes that suggest indifference to this issue. The divergence in perceptions of income inequality and redistributive preferences between people from the elite and the bottom can be seen as a sign of social as well as economic polarization in Chinese society. The research partly supports the existing statement that the members in privileged group turn into oligarch while those in disadvantaged group are amenable to populist expressions. The policy implication is that the government should implement an institutional approach to solve the persistent income inequality.

Abstract Human trafficking is interesting from a developmental point of view. It is one of the worst social phenomenon of our time due to the countless victims that go undetected. This paper examines connections between human trafficking and gender inequality and between human trafficking and inequality overall. The research question is as follows: Is it the level of gender inequality or is it the level of inequality overall that correlates with human trafficking? Looking at previous research stating that human trafficking is related to other social injustices, and applying a vulnerability theory this essay hypothesizes that increased gender inequality and increased inequality overall will increase the level of human trafficking in a country. There is still no known way of estimating how many victims of human trafficking there are. Due to this, rather than looking at the number of people who fall victim to this crime, a scale looking at the perceived level of human trafficking was created by the author. A quantitative method is used to investigate the relationships between human trafficking and gender inequality and between human trafficking and inequality overall. The main finding of this thesis is that there is mainly a connection between human trafficking and gender inequality, but a connection between human trafficking and inequality overall could not be strengthened.