Ronald Indlehart (LCSR NRU HSE; University of Michigan)

From Class Conflict to Cultural Issues—and Back Again?

Ronald Inglehart   is famous American political scientist. He was the President of World Value Survey Association in 1988 – 2013. He is also the winner of the 2011 Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science (together with Pippa Norris). Now he is  Amy and Alan Lowenstein Professor in Democracy, Democratization and Human Rights  at the University of Michigan and Professor at the Higher School of Economics, and also the Scientific Supervisor of the LCSR. 

Abstract:   Early capitalism exploited its workers  ruthlessly .  Often working 12-hour days, seven days a weeks, their wages were driven down toward the subsistence level .  Child labor laws being non-existent,  children were sometimes chained to their machines overnight to prevent them from running away.  Even in the relatively democratic U.S. and Great Britain, property qualifications prevented workers from voting for much of the 19^th century.   Labor unions were outlawed;  police and troops were used to break strikes. In the late 19^th century and early 20^th century, labor unions gained the right to organize for collective bargaining, giving them  countervailing power against relatively well-organized factory owners.   Leftist political parties mobilized the working class and social class voting gave them a significant voice in politics.  Governments were elected that implemented welfare state programs guaranteeing that workers would not starve if unemployed or retired. The mobilization of the working class was a significant factor in bringing diminishing income inequality throughout most of the 20^th century. But since about 1970, income inequality has been rising dramatically in most industrial societies.  In the U.S., income inequality today is even greater than it was in 1900. Emphasis on the classic economic redistribution issues became less salient and social class voting has declined sharply.  This reflects two factors:   (1) the very  success of the welfare state made economic redistribution issues  less salient; and (2) the rise of new  non-economic issues,  that cut across class lines.   Postmaterialist issues such as environmental protection anti-war movements and gender equality led younger, better-educated members of the middle class to move their support to Left parties seeking social change--  while a sizeable segment of the Working Class began to support conservative parties, in defense of traditional cultural values. The economic gains of the past few decades have gone almost entirely to the economic top ten percent but there are signs that publics are beginning to react to this situation.  During the past 25 years, the publics of most countries monitored in the WVS have begun to place stronger emphasis on the need for greater income equality.

Christian Welzel (Leuphana University; Higher School of Economics) 

The Great Diversion: How Civilization Turned into Human Empowerment

Christian Welzel is a leading professor of LCSR. He is also a Vice President of the World Values Survey Association, and the Professor of Political Culture Research, Institute of Political Science and Center for the Study of Democracy at the Leuphana University in Germany, as well as Adjunct Professor at Jacobs University in Bremen, Germany.

Abstract: For several thousand years of state history, civilization remained entrapped in cycles of despotic power erection and erosion—until it matured in areas with a cool and rainy climate, what we call the “cool water” (CW) condition. As this happened, which the first time was the case in Northwestern Europe, the evolution of civilization not only picked up speed; it also took a new direction. Indeed, the lead theme of the civilization process changed from deepening human exploitation towards advancing human empowerment—a process that enhances people’s abilities, motivations and rights to control their own lives and their societies’ agendas. During colonialism, human empowerment spread to all areas of the globe with a CW-climate and remained limited to these areas until recently. But since the era of globalization, human empowerment detaches itself from CW-climates, making progress in this process more a matter of choice than one of destiny. This book examines the deep causes of this Great Diversion, analyzing the role geography, genes, disease, agriculture, language, religion, statehood, colonialism, law traditions and other institutional factors, such as emerging democracy. Evidence from data spanning various centuries shows that among multiple possible paths leading to human empowerment today, only one is significant. When urban markets began to flourish under the CW-condition (1), this condition encouraged a transition in fertility behavior from “quantity breeding” towards “quality building” (2). The fertility transition opened a reservoir of available time at the grassroots of society that made state-sponsored initiatives for universal schooling successful (3). With rising mass-level education, an enlightenment process set in that mobilized the populations’ cognitive potentials and their aspirations for emancipatory rights—the ingredients of human empowerment (4). In the era of accelerating globalization, human empowerment escapes with increasing speed its initial limitation to CW-areas. After outlining these insights, this book also discusses policy implications for development aid.

Eduard Ponarin (Higher School of Economics)

Suicide in the United States

Eduard Ponarin is the director of the LCSR. He is also a Professor at the Department of Sociology of HSE branch in Saint-Petersburg. Professor Ponarin holds a PhD in Sociology from the University of Michigan, USA. The key topics of his research are nationalism, ethnicity and religiosity.

Abstract: This paper explores suicide rate across the US counties in connection with distribution of religious sects.  We show that small subpopulations can affect general statistics.  Furthermore, we show that there is a clear pattern linking the correlation  between percentage of denomination in the county and the suicide rate in the county on the one hand and the age of denomination in centuries on the other hand.  Thus, Durkheim's classic work on suicide seems to describe a special case of a more general phenomenon.  The results are interpreted in terms of Weber's idea of rationalization.  In particular, those sects whose adherents are more likely to believe in miracles and think that proselytism is important tend to be younger and more prone to suicide.  Rationalization is interpreted in an opposite sense compared to Weber: it is older denominations that tend to be more rational because they have passed the survival test.

Arye Rattner (University of Haifa)

Judicial Decision Making in a Multi-Cleavage Society

Arye Rattner is a professor of sociology and criminology at the University of Haifa. He is also Chair of the School of Criminology and Director of the Center for the Study of Crime, Law & Society.

Abstract: The effect of race, ethnicity, and nationality on decision-making in the criminal justice system has received considerable attention over the years. Most research focuses on the effect that the race or ethnic origin of the defendant has on decisions at various junctions in the justice system. Studies show that systematic disparities and inequities exist at almost every stage of the criminal justice process, from arrest to disposition. The presence of disparities in the Israeli criminal justice system, especially between Jews and Arabs is assumed by many and disputed by some. Empirical findings attest to disparities between Jews and Arabs in many spheres of life, but disparities in the legal system have not been thoroughly investigated. The traditional approach that has been examined empirically is to look at the socioeconomic, ethnicity, race and other indicators of the defendant and to understand how do they effect the outcomes of judicial and legal decision making. Studies both in the East and the West show clearly that defendants from lower stratum, defendants from minority groups receive harsher treatment than those from majority and upper socioeconomic groups. This however is only part of the picture. The legal arena is much more complex and several actors  besides the defendant play normally a role in the scene that is taking place in the hall of justice.  present study examines the effect of the defendants’, judges’, and victims’ nationality on sentencing in two regional courts in Israel.

Bogdan Voicu (Romanian Academy of Sciences; Lucian Blaga University)

Do divorce and separation deter social trust?

Bogdan Voicu is principal research fellow at the Research Institute for Quality of Life of the Romanian Academy of Sciences and Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology of Lucian Blaga University in Sibiu. He is also a member of the Romanian Group for the Study of Social Values

Abstract: Social trust, understood as trusting others is seen as either being a stable feature over one’s life (Uslaner, 2002), either as being exposed to contextual influences (Bekkers, 2011). Existing literature (Delhey & Newton, 2003; Hardin 1996) discusses the impact of negative life events on social trust. It is argued that, for instance, experiencing divorce, leads to a more negative view of society, which turns in lower levels of trusting others (Alessina & La Ferrara, 2002; Paxton, 2007; Rahn, Yoon and Loflin, 2003; Voicu, 2014). Divorce disrupts social networks and decreases bridging social capital (Donatti & Prandini, 2007) and, implicitly, social trust. The exact motives may remain insufficiently explored (Lindström, 2012), otherwise than defining it as a negative experience (Paxton, 2007), which in specific cases might not be the exact description of the situation. While several studies connect parental divorce to social trust during adulthood (Franklin et al, 1991; King, 2004), to my best knowledge none discusses in depth the role of divorce in determining social trust. This study fills the existing gap in two ways. First, I use the existing literature to sketch a more comprehensive framework to explain the effects of own divorce experience on social trust. Second, I test causality by using panel data, such as that provided by the Swiss Household Panel and the British Household Panel. Furthermore, I explore the differences between divorce and separation, and the effects of such repeated events.

Musa Shteiwi (Center for Strategic Studies, University of Jordan)

Levels and Determinants of Trust in Arab Countries

Dr. Musa Shteiwi  is a lecturer in the Sociology Department and Women Studies Program at the University of Jordan in Amman. He is the founder and Director of the Center for Strategic Studies.  His main fields of research are growth, poverty, social policies, social inequality, women’s studies, and civil society.

Abstract: The main purpose of this paper is to assess the level of trust in Arab countries. Using data from the world survey wave six that was conducted in ten Arab countries, I first use the interpersonal trust using the standard question ”Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you cannot be too careful in dealing with people” and then use more specific categories of people such as families, neighbors etc. Then the paper examines the factors that account for the variation within countries and between countries. Finally, the paper will discuss the theoretical implications of the findings and possibility of using the findings in understanding developments in the region.

Eric Uslaner (University of Maryland-College Park, USA)

Corruption, Inequality, and Trust in Transition

Eric Uslaner is Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland-College Park. In 2011 he was named one of the top 100 Thought Leaders in Trustworthy Business Behavior by Trust Across America. He is a member of the International Advisory Board of the Institute for Social Change at the University of Manchester (UK) and the "Social Trust in Sweden" research project (Ersta Sköndal University College, Stockholm).  He is also affiliated with the Transnational Research Institute on Corruption (TRIC) at the Australian National University. Among his research interests are American politics (especially, on Congress and Congressional elections), social capital, institutional design, generalized trust, inequality, segregation and social cohesion.

Abstract: In my 2008 book, Corruption, Inequality, and the Rule of Law, I presented an argument that high inequality and low trust lead to high levels of corruption.  I show that this pattern holds cross-nationally.  However, the transition countries are an exception in that they had low levels of inequality.  After transition, inequality rose sharply in almost all transition countries.  I showed that increases in inequality led to higher levels of corruption across transition countries–and that people in these countries strongly associated corruption with perceptions of inequality.  After two and a half decades since transition, how do these earlier analyses stand?  I argue that trust remains low in most transition countries, but inequality has slowed.  Students of transition countries disagree as to how well they have fared in more recent years. There is evidence for both sides of the argument: some transition countries have done very well (notably Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia).  Many others have not fared as well.  But the overall story is that economic or political reforms adopted in more recent years are not the most likely explanation for why some countries have succeeded. Instead, countries that had more liberal economic and political regimes early on are the ones that have succeeded most today.

Arne Kalleberg (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

The Impacts of Precarious Work on Individuals and Families: A Comparative Perspective

Arne Kalleberg is a Kenan Distinguished Professor of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (since 1994), and Adjunct Professor of Public Policy, (since 2009), Adjunct Professor of Global Studies (since 2007), Adjunct Professor of Management, Kenan-Flagler School of Business (since 1991). His areas of interest mostly concern sociology of work, social stratification and quantitative methods of analysis.

Abstract: There has been a growth in recent years of precarious work in all industrial societies.  By precarious work I mean work that is uncertain, unstableand insecureand in which employees bear the risks of work (as opposed to businesses or the government) and receive limited social benefits and statutory entitlements.  Precarious work has pervasive consequences not only for the nature of work, workplaces, and peoples’ work experiences, but also for gender roles and many non-work individual (e.g., mental stress, ill physical health, education) and social (e.g., family, community) outcomes as well as for political instability. This talk will focus on five major non-work outcomes of precarious work: (1) economic insecurity; (2) the transition to adulthood and family formation; (3) social exclusion and isolation; (4) individual well-being; and (5) political instability.  While precarious work is a global phenomenon, countries differ in the extent to which precarious work has greater or lesser effects on these outcomes, depending on their institutions and cultures. For example, institutional differences in the generosity and coverage of welfare benefits and social protections and in the extent of active labor market policies are likely to be associated with greater or lesser degrees of economic insecurity among countries.  Moreover, cultural variations in norms regarding family formation are apt to shape transitions to adulthood and perceptions of happiness.  My talk will highlight the influences of institutional and cultural factors that may enhance or alleviate the effects of precarious work in particular countries. 

Alejandro Moreno (Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México; Department of Public Opinion Research at Reforma newspaper)

Democratic citizenship: The development of democratic principles and norms, evidence from comparative survey research

Alejandro Moreno is a Professor of Political Science at ITAM (since 1996), and Head of the Department of Public Opinion Research at Reforma newspaper (since 1999). He studied at the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor, where he obtained his Ph.D. in Political Science in 1997. He is a member of Mexico’s National System of Researchers (SNI), and serves as Principal Investigator in Mexico for the World Values Survey and the Comparative National Elections Project, CNEP. He has also served as Managing Director of the Latinobarómetro poll since 2010, and he is currently the Vice President and President Elect of the World Association for Public Opinion Research, WAPOR. 

Abstract: As democracy develops, citizens learn more about the principles and practice of democratic politics. The last three decades of survey research in different regions of the world illustrate the extent to which citizen views of democracy have changed, how they have changed, and they assist us to elaborate possible explanations of why they have changed.  This research paper assembles different findings and theoretical perspectives from the democratization and public opinion literatures, and relies on public opinion data from the World Values Survey and Latinobarometro (a survey conducted in 18 Latin American countries since 1995) projects to develop some further analysis. First, I focus on the role of political socialization, reflected in the political learning of generational cohorts living under democratic and non-democratic rule during their formative years. Secondly, I analyze changes over time on patterns of support for democracy and on concepts of democratic government among mass publics in different regions and countries. And Finally, I analyze whether democratic views make a difference on day-to-day public views about politics and public policy. The goal is to have a broad assessment of democratic citizenship in the world and its implications in governance.