DOCSLIB.ORG

The London School of Economics and Political Science Individual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The London School of Economics and Political Science Individual The London School of Economics and Political Science Individual advantage, economic context, and stigmatising stereotypes about the poor and welfare recipients Daniel McArthur A thesis submitted to the Department of Sociology of the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, August 2019. 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 57,261 words, including tables and footnotes, but not including appendices and bibliography. 2 Abstract In this thesis I investigate how an individual’s economic position and the context they live in affects their sympathy for the poor. Poverty and welfare receipt are stigmatised across high income countries; such attitudes reduce support for redistribution and exacerbate the negative impact of poverty on wellbeing. Across three empirical chapters, I use attitudinal data from the UK and Europe to investigate the relationship between individual advantage, broader economic context, and the prevalence of stigmatising stereotypes about welfare recipients and the poor. I apply an innovative perspective combining qualitative research on the experiences of people in poverty and comparative political economy work on inequality and redistribution to address neglected topics in the study of deservingness perceptions. In the first empirical chapter I argue that those in more disadvantaged economic positions have more sympathetic attitudes towards welfare recipients. However, this relationship is counteracted by the role of social status and authoritarian attitudes, which can make the disadvantaged hold less sympathetic views. The second chapter uses survey data from twenty- seven European countries to show that individuals in more unequal nations are more likely to believe that laziness rather than injustice is the cause of poverty. I argue that a plausible explanation of this relationship is status anxiety among disadvantaged individuals. In the third chapter I conduct the first longitudinal analysis of the association between area level unemployment and attitudes towards the unemployed, finding little evidence of a meaningful effect of exposure on stigmatising stereotypes. Overall, this thesis argues that status anxiety plays a major role in shaping stigmatising stereotypes, explaining why people are less sympathetic towards the poor in high inequality contexts, and why disadvantaged individuals often hold especially negative attitudes. 3 Acknowledgements First I would like to thank my supervisors Mike Savage and Ursula Henz for their support, advice, and encouragement throughout this PhD. Without their pragmatic advice and careful reading my thesis would never have been started, let alone completed! It has been a pleasure to work with them. Many other people have improved this thesis by commenting on my work. My upgrade examiners Jonathan Hopkin and Aaron Reeves provided helpful direction as my empirical analyses were first taking shape. Aaron deserves particular credit because I have learnt so much from him about how to analyse and present quantitative data and navigate the peer review process over the course of several (ongoing) collaborations. I also received helpful feedback from Ben Geiger, the LSE Sociology Department Writing Group, Jonathan Mijs, and Kate Summers as well as conference participants at the European Sociological Association, British Sociological Association, and Social Policy Association conferences, and LSE Sociology Cumberland Lodge. Last but not least, I thank my examiners John Hills and Rob de Vries for their careful engagement with my work. Their perceptive questions and detailed feedback are greatly appreciated, and have pushed me to make important improvements to this thesis. Any errors or omissions remaining are my own. A number of organisations and people supported the writing of this dissertation. In particular, I would like to thank the Economic and Social Research Council for funding this PhD. The Leverhulme PhD Programme in the LSE International Inequalities Institute provided a fun and stimulating interdisciplinary environment in which I learnt a great deal about how to study inequalities, for which I particularly thank Nicola Lacey and David Soskice. The Social Policy and Social Work Team at KU Leuven gave me the chance to spend three months as a visiting scholar under the Jos Berghman Welfare Studies Stipend, and I am very grateful to Wim van Oorschot, Dimitri Gugushvili, Federica Rossetti, Tijs Laenen, and the rest of the team and administrative staff for making me very welcome. NatCen Social Research gave me permission to access British Social Attitudes data with linked neighbourhood identifiers (analysed in chapter 4), and Nick Bailey took the time to put the data into a usable form and share it with me. This PhD would not have been possible without the academic researchers, public bodies, and international organisations that funded, collected, and made publicly available the datasets used throughout this thesis. I first started working on the stigmatisation of poverty and welfare receipt when I wrote my MSc dissertation at LSE in 2013-14. I am very grateful to LSE for supporting me with a scholarship. 4 The ideas and encouragement of two people I talked to while writing that dissertation, Liza McKenzie (a fantastic dissertation supervisor) and Robert Walker, have continued to inform my thinking. Throughout my PhD I have been lucky to have a wonderful set of colleagues and friends in the LSE Sociology Department. It’s been a great privilege to get to know all of them, especially Tim Monteath, Christina Kolbe, Alejandro De Coss-Corzo, Nabila Munawar, and many others. I would also like to thank all my friends outside academia for providing a welcome respite from academia and not allowing me to take myself too seriously, especially Alex Jukes, Carys Evans, George Morley, and the past and present denizens of 8 Leydon Close. I thank all my family. I particularly thank my mum, Margaret McArthur for everything from last- minute proofreading to, well, everything else over the last 2+ decades… Jace Clarke took a great deal of interest in this project as well as my wellbeing, while Jim McArthur did his best to explain my project to other people. I would like to express solidarity with Jane McArthur – the family’s other PhD student! I don’t have the words to properly thank Rebecca Noble. Your love, intellectual engagement both incisively critical and far-reaching, and tolerance and sympathy for the tougher moments of the last four years have been of immeasurable value to me. I hope you are ok with not being the only PhD in our household… 5 Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 10 List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. 13 Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 15 1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 15 1.2 Why the stigmatisation of poverty and welfare receipt matters ................................... 16 1.3 This PhD investigates the role of individual advantage and economic context ............ 18 1.4 What are stigmatising stereotypes? ................................................................................ 19 1.5 Who are the poor and welfare recipients? ..................................................................... 20 1.6 Social status and status anxiety ....................................................................................... 22 1.7 Literature review .............................................................................................................. 23 1.7.1 Perceptions of deservingness of welfare recipients ................................................ 24 1.7.2 Comparative political economy research on inequality and redistribution ........... 26 1.7.3 Othering, identification, and moral deviance in cultural class analysis .................. 31 1.8 Methodology and case selection ..................................................................................... 37 1.9 Overview of empirical chapters and their contribution to the literature ...................... 40 1.9.1 Are economically advantaged individuals more likely to hold stigmatising stereotypes about welfare recipients and the poor? ....................................................... 40 1.9.2 Are higher levels of economic inequality associated with higher levels of stigmatising stereotypes? .................................................................................................. 41 1.9.3 Does living in poorer areas make people more or less sympathetic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Changing Political Cleavages in 21 Western Democracies, 1948-2020 Amory Gethin, Clara Martínez-Toledano, Thomas Piketty
    Brahmin Left versus Merchant Right: Changing Political Cleavages in 21 Western Democracies, 1948-2020 Amory Gethin, Clara Martínez-Toledano, Thomas Piketty To cite this version: Amory Gethin, Clara Martínez-Toledano, Thomas Piketty. Brahmin Left versus Merchant Right: Changing Political Cleavages in 21 Western Democracies, 1948-2020. 2021. halshs-03226118 HAL Id: halshs-03226118 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-03226118 Preprint submitted on 14 May 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. World Inequality Lab – Working Paper N° 2021/15 Brahmin Left versus Merchant Right: Changing Political Cleavages in 21 Western Democracies, 1948-2020 Amory Gethin Clara Martínez-Toledano Thomas Piketty May 2021 Brahmin Left versus Merchant Right: Changing Political Cleavages in 21 Western Democracies, 1948-2020 Amory Gethin Clara Martínez-Toledano Thomas Piketty May 5, 2021 Abstract This paper provides new evidence on the long-run evolution of political cleavages in 21 Western democracies by exploiting a new database on the vote by socioeconomic characteristic covering over 300 elections held between 1948 and 2020. In the 1950s-1960s, the vote for democratic, labor, social democratic, socialist, and affiliated parties was associated with lower-educated and low-income voters.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Income Inequality, 1820-2020: the Persistence and Mutation of Extreme Inequality Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty
    Global Income Inequality, 1820-2020: The Persistence and Mutation of Extreme Inequality Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty To cite this version: Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty. Global Income Inequality, 1820-2020: The Persistence and Mutation of Extreme Inequality. 2021. halshs-03321887 HAL Id: halshs-03321887 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-03321887 Preprint submitted on 18 Aug 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. World Inequality Lab – Working Paper N° 2021/19 Global Income Inequality, 1820-2020: The Persistence and Mutation of Extreme Inequality Lucas Chancel Thomas Piketty This version: July 2021 World Inequality Lab 1 Global Income Inequality, 1820-2020: The Persistence and Mutation of Extreme Inequality Lucas Chancel1,2, Thomas Piketty1,3 This version: July 2021 Abstract. In this paper, we mobilize newly available historical series from the World Inequality Database to construct world income distribution estimates from 1820 to 2020. We find that the level of global income inequality has always been very large, reflecting the persistence of a highly hierarchical world economic system. Global inequality increased between 1820 and 1910, in the context of the rise of Western dominance and colonial empires, and then stabilized at a very high level between 1910 and 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Highlights from the World Inequality Report 2018 Lucas Chancel
    Globalization, Growth, and Inequality: Highlights from the World Inequality Report 20181 Lucas Chancel 1 What is the aim of the World Inequality Report 2018? • The objective of the World Inequality Report 2018 is to contribute to a more informed global democratic debate on economic inequality by bringing the latest and most complete data to the public discussion. • Economic inequality is widespread and to some extent inevitable. It is our belief, however, that if rising inequality is not properly monitored and addressed, it can have catastrophic polit- ical, economic, and social consequences. We do not seek to bring everyone into agreement regarding inequality; this will never happen, for the simple reason that no single scientific truth exists about the ideal level of inequality, let alone the most socially desirable mix of pol- icies and institutions to achieve such a level. Ultimately, it is a matter for public deliberation, political institutions, and their processes to make these difficult decisions. • But this deliberative process requires more rigorous and transparent information on income and wealth that reconciles macroeconomic phenomena with microeconomic trends in inequal- ity, which can often contradict each other. Generating this information is not a straightforward exercise, however, given that many countries do not publicly release, or may not even pro- duce, detailed and consistent income and wealth inequality statistics. • To overcome these limitations, we combine all data sources at our disposal in a systematic and transparent manner: national income and wealth accounts (including, when possible, es- timates of offshore wealth); household income and wealth surveys; fiscal data coming from taxes on income; inheritance and wealth data (when they exist); and wealth rankings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inequality Virus Bringing Together a World Torn Apart by Coronavirus Through a Fair, Just and Sustainable Economy
    Adam Dicko is a Malian activist, fighting for social justice in the times of COVID-19 © Xavier Thera/Oxfam The Inequality Virus Bringing together a world torn apart by coronavirus through a fair, just and sustainable economy www.oxfam.org OXFAM BRIEFING PAPER – JANUARY 2021 The coronavirus pandemic has the potential to lead to an increase in inequality in almost every country at once, the first time this has happened since records began. The virus has exposed, fed off and increased existing inequalities of wealth, gender and race. Over two million people have died, and hundreds of millions of people are being forced into poverty while many of the richest – individuals and corporations – are thriving. Billionaire fortunes returned to their pre-pandemic highs in just nine months, while recovery for the world’s poorest people could take over a decade. The crisis has exposed our collective frailty and the inability of our deeply unequal economy to work for all. Yet it has also shown us the vital importance of government action to protect our health and livelihoods. Transformative policies that seemed unthinkable before the crisis have suddenly been shown to be possible. There can be no return to where we were before. Instead, citizens and governments must act on the urgency to create a more equal and sustainable world. 2 © Oxfam International January 2021 This paper was written by Esmé Berkhout, Nick Galasso, Max Lawson, Pablo Andrés Rivero Morales, Anjela Taneja, and Diego Alejo Vázquez Pimentel. Oxfam acknowledges the assistance of Jaime
    [Show full text]
  • Global and Country Perspectives on a New Agenda
    ONE Technology, Change, and a New Growth Agenda ZIA QURESHI lobal economic growth has been lackluster for more than a de cade Gnow. Growth slowed sharply after the global financial crisis of 2007–08, but the under lying growth trajectory had started to weaken in most major economies well before the crisis. Recovery from the shock of the crisis has been uneven and, in general, slow and weak. Growth appeared to pick up steam in a synchronized way across economies in 2017 and early 2018, but the acceleration proved short- lived and faded by late 2018.1 The per sis tent sluggish growth is happening at a time when the global economy has been exposed to impor tant forces of change. Foremost among these has been technology. There has been a boom in new technolo- gies, spearheaded by digital technologies. Technology- enabled innova- tion is a major spur to productivity growth, the key driver of long- term economic growth. Yet, paradoxically, productivity growth has slowed rather than accelerated in most economies. Among advanced economies 3 01-3775-9-ch01.indd 3 1/16/20 8:41 PM 4 ZIA QURESHI since approximately 2005, growth in productivity has averaged barely half of the pace of the previous fifteen years.2 There is much ongoing debate on this “productivity paradox”— why has productivity slowed amid a wave of technological advances?3 Firms at the technological frontier have reaped major productivity gains from these advances, but the impact on productivity more widely across firms and the economy at large has been weak. The new technologies have tended to produce “winner- takes- most” outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond GDP-Measuring What Matters
    ART ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH TEAM 19 May 2021 Issues paper BEYOND GDP: MEASURING WHAT MATTERS GDP has long been the standard way of measuring and comparing the economic performance of countries, but it cannot on its own give a complete picture of the well-being of a community. That requires the use of additional indicators that go beyond the purely economic. With the digital and green transitions set to shape our future, and as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, we have an opportunity to develop the phrase ‘beyond GDP’ from a well-intentioned slogan to a tool that can help inform a more structured debate on social and environmental issues. However, as this paper shows, this requires addressing at least two key issues. The first of these is the selection and endorsement of indicators. This is important since the value of this exercise will depend on the extent to which indicators win political acceptance both within and beyond the EU. The second issue is how such indicators are to be used - will they be used for communication purposes, or as input to the policy-making process, or both? Unless there is clarity on these issues, ‘beyond GDP’ risks remaining an empty shell. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s). In no case should they be considered or construed as representing an official position of the Council of the European Union or the European Council. © European Union, 2021 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Any question or comment should be addressed to [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Asian Development Review: Volume 38, Number 1
    Asian Development Review Volume 38 2021 Number 1 Seasonal Labor Mobility in the Pacifi c: Past Impacts, Future Prospects John Gibson and Rochelle-Lee Bailey Population Aging and the Three Demographic Dividends in Asia Naohiro Ogawa, Norma Mansor, Sang-Hyop Lee, Michael R.M. Abrigo, and Tahir Aris What’s Happened to Poverty and Inequality in Indonesia over Half a Century? Hal Hill Does Computer-Aided Instruction Improve Children’s Cognitive and Noncognitive Skills? Hirotake Ito, Keiko Kasai, Hiromu Nishiuchi, and Makiko Nakamuro Education–Occupation Mismatch and Its Wage Penalties in Informal Employment in Thailand Tanthaka Vivatsurakit and Jessica Vechbanyongratana International Comparisons of Poverty in South Asia TM Tonmoy Islam, David Newhouse, and Monica Yanez-Pagans Government Intervention, Institutional Quality, and Income Inequality: Evidence from Asia and the Pacifi c, 1988–2014 Bertrand Blancheton and Dina Chhorn Social Capital and Innovation in East Asia Seo-Young Cho AADEV3801-Cover.inddDEV3801-Cover.indd 1 22/24/21/24/21 99:30:30 AAMM EDITOR YASUYUKI SAWADA, Asian Development Bank TETSUSHI SONOBE, Asian Development Bank Institute MANAGING EDITOR JESUS FELIPE, Asian Development Bank EDITORIAL TEAM GEMMA ESTHER B. ESTRADA, Asian Development Bank MARIA SUSAN M. TORRES, Asian Development Bank MARY ANN M. MAGADIA, Asian Development Bank EDITORIAL BOARD KYM ANDERSON, University of Adelaide AHMED MUSHFIQ MOBARAK, Yale University PREMA-CHANDRA ATHUKORALA, NANCY QIAN, Northwestern University Australian National University KRISLERT SAMPHANTHARAK,
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Facts About Inequality in Advanced Economies
    WID.world WORKING PAPER N° 2019/15 Ten facts about inequality in advanced economies Lucas Chancel October 2019 Ten facts about inequality in advanced economies Lucas Chancel1,2 This version: October 16th, 2019 This paper presents 10 basic facts regarding inequality in advanced economies. Income and wealth inequality was very high a century ago, dropped in the 20th century, and has been rising at different speeds across countries since the 1980s. The financial crisis of 2008 does not appear to have inverted this trend. At the global level, while between-country inequality mattered more than within-country inequality in the 1980s, it is the opposite today. The rise of inequality has not been counterbalanced by an increase social mobility. The reduction of gender pay gaps has tempered the rise of inequality in recent decades, but gender inequality remains particularly high among top income and wealth groups. Racial inequalities remain large as well. Evidence suggests that trade and technology alone cannot explain large inequality variations across rich countries. Shifts in tax and wage setting policies, as well as differences in educational and health systems matter a lot. 1 World Inequality Lab, Paris School of Economics 2 Sciences Po Postal address: World Inequality Lab at the Paris School of Economics, 48 Bd Jourdan, 75014 Paris. Contact: [email protected]. The author would like to thank Tancrède Voituriez, Olivier Blanchard and Dani Rodrik, Thomas Blanchet as well as colleagues at the World Inequality Lab for comments. Thanks to Abhijit Tagade for excellent research assistance. Introduction Inequality in high-income countries has attracted significant attention in recent years among academics, international organizations, civil society and policymakers1.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Income Inequality, 1820-2020: the Persistence and Mutation of Extreme Inequality
    World Inequality Lab – Working Paper N° 2021/19 Global Income Inequality, 1820-2020: The Persistence and Mutation of Extreme Inequality Lucas Chancel Thomas Piketty This version: July 2021 World Inequality Lab 1 Global Income Inequality, 1820-2020: The Persistence and Mutation of Extreme Inequality Lucas Chancel1,2, Thomas Piketty1,3 This version: July 2021 Abstract. In this paper, we mobilize newly available historical series from the World Inequality Database to construct world income distribution estimates from 1820 to 2020. We find that the level of global income inequality has always been very large, reflecting the persistence of a highly hierarchical world economic system. Global inequality increased between 1820 and 1910, in the context of the rise of Western dominance and colonial empires, and then stabilized at a very high level between 1910 and 2020. Between 1820 and 1910, both between-country and within-country inequality were increasing. In contrast, these two components of global inequality have moved separately between 1910 and 2020: within-country inequality dropped in 1910- 1980 (while between-country inequality kept increasing) but rose in 1980-2020 (while between-country inequality started to decline). As a consequence of these contradictory and compensating evolutions, early 21st century neo-colonial capitalism involves similar levels of inequality as early 20th century colonial capitalism, though it is based upon a different set of rules and institutions. We also discuss how alternative rules such as fiscal revenue sharing could lead to a significant drop in global inequality. JEL Codes: D31, N30, O15 www.wid.world/longrun 1 World Inequality Lab, Paris School of Economics 2 Sciences Po 3 Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales [email protected] and [email protected] 2 Section 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bay Area-Silicon Valley and India Convergence and Alignment in the Innovation Age Project Lead Sponsors
    June 2019 The Bay Area-Silicon Valley and India Convergence and Alignment in the Innovation Age Project Lead Sponsors Project Supporting Sponsors ABOUT THE BAY AREA COUNCIL ECONOMIC INSTITUTE Since 1990, the Bay Area Council Economic Institute and the state, including infrastructure, globalization, has been the leading think tank focused on the science and technology, and health policy. It is guided economic and policy issues facing the San Francisco by a Board of Advisors drawn from influential leaders in Bay Area-Silicon Valley, one of the most dynamic regions the corporate, academic, non-profit, and government in the United States and the world’s leading center sectors. The Institute is housed at and supported by for technology and innovation. A valued forum for the Bay Area Council, a public policy organization that stakeholder engagement and a respected source of includes hundreds of the region’s largest employers information and fact-based analysis, the Institute is a and is committed to keeping the Bay Area the trusted partner and adviser to both business leaders world’s most competitive economy and best place and government officials. Through its economic and to live. The Institute also supports and manages the policy research and its many partnerships, the Institute Bay Area Science and Innovation Consortium (BASIC), addresses major factors impacting the competitiveness, a partnership of Northern California’s leading scientific economic development and quality of life of the region research laboratories and thinkers. Contents Executive Summary ...................................................4 CHAPTER 6 Information Technology: Upward Mobility .............51 Introduction ...............................................................7 Government Initiatives ............................................. 54 CHAPTER 1 Trends ...................................................................... 55 India’s Economy: Poised for Takeoff .........................9 The Bay Area-IT Connection Shifts ........................
    [Show full text]
  • How Large Are African Inequalities? Towards Distributional National Accounts in Africa, 1990-2017
    WID.world WORKING PAPER N° 2019/13 How Large Are African Inequalities? Towards Distributional National Accounts in Africa, 1990-2017 Lucas Chancel Denis Cogneau Amory Gethin Alix Myczkowski October 2019 How large are African inequalities? Towards Distributional National Accounts in Africa, 1990-2017∗ Lucas Chancel Denis Cogneau Amory Gethin Alix Myczkowski This version: Tuesday 1st October, 2019 Abstract This paper makes a first attempt to estimate the evolution of income inequality in Africa from 1990 to 2017 by combining surveys, tax data and national accounts in a systematic manner. The low quality of the raw data calls for a lot of caution. Results suggest that income inequality in Africa is very high, and stands at par with Latin America or India in that respect. Southern and Central Africa are particularly unequal. The bulk of continent-wide income inequality comes from the within country component, and the between country component was even slightly reduced in the two last decades, due to higher growth in poorer countries. Inequality was rather stable over the period, with the exception of Southern Africa. Dualism between agriculture and other sectors and mining rents seem to be important determinants of inequality. ∗We thank Thomas Blanchet, Leo´ Czajka, Ignacio Flores and Thanasak Jenmana for their useful advices and helpful comments. 1 Introduction Despite strong economic growth in many African countries, human development and poverty indicators have not progressed as expected. This phenomenon has fueled a renewed interest for the study of inequality in Africa: it was seen as one of the main causes of the weak poverty-alleviation elasticity of growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon and Inequality: from Kyoto to Paris Trends in the Global Inequality of Carbon Emissions (1998-2013) & Prospects for an Equitable Adaptation Fund
    WID.world WORKING PAPER SERIES N° 2015/7 Carbon and inequality: From Kyoto to Paris Trends in the global inequality of carbon emissions (1998-2013) & prospects for an equitable adaptation fund Lucas Chancel Thomas Piketty November 2015 World Inequality Lab PSE | November 2015 Carbon and inequality: from Kyoto to Paris Abstract. This study presents evolutions in in proportion to their emissions in excess of this the global distribution of CO2e emissions (CO2 and threshold. North Americans would then contrib- other Green House Gases) between world individ- ute to 46% of the fund, vs. 16% for Europeans, 12% uals from 1998 and 2013 and examines diferent for China. In strategy 3, the efort is shared by all strategies to fnance a global climate adaptation top 1% emitters in the world (i.e. all individuals fund based on eforts shared among high world emitting more than 9.1 times world average emis- emitters rather than high-income countries. To sions). North Americans would then contribute to this end, we combine data on historical trends in 57% of the tax, vs. 15% for Europeans, 6% for Chi- per capita country-level CO2e emissions, consump- na. In these strategies, European contributions to tion-based CO2e emissions data, within-country adaptation fnance would decrease in proportion income inequality and a simple income-CO2e compared to today, but substantially increase in elasticity model. We show that global CO2e emis- absolute terms. In these strategies, European con- sions inequalities between individuals decreased tributions to adaptation fnance would decrease in from Kyoto to Paris, due to the rise of top and mid proportion compared to today, but largely increase income groups in developing countries and the in absolute terms.
    [Show full text]