We are looking for a new post-doctoral scholar for the grant, “Political Voice and Economic Inequality across Nations and Time,” funded by the National Science Centre, Poland. The position is for five months. The location is the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences.
by Nika Palaguta, Graduate School for Social Research, Polish Academy of Sciences
This research was funded by the Preludium grant of the National Science Centre, Poland [Narodowe Centrum Nauki]. Project number: 2017/25/N/HS6/01174. Project Name: Influence of party ideology and characteristics of parliamentarians on legislative actions on war, corruption and inequality in Ukraine [Wpływ ideologii partii i charakterystyk parlamentarzystów na działania ustawodawcze w sprawie wojny, korupcji i nierówności na Ukrainie].
The most widely known definition of corruption is “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain” (Holmes 2015). Transparency International suggests three types of corruption: grand, petty and political. Grand corruption is a type of corruption happening on the highest levels of power and disrupting the functioning of state institutions; petty corruption is a small scale corruption that occurs among lower level state officials; political corruption, in contrast, is a manipulation of policies and rules for personal gain (Transparency International).
Corruption has been endemic in Ukraine since the country gained independence in 1991. Due to lack of government control on the initial stage of independence, corruption in Ukraine has become ubiquitous (Kalman 2004, Spector et al. 2006). After Euromaidan 2013/2014, when the country faced large-scale protests against attempts of implementation of authoritarian political practices by the dominant ruling party, the government officials should have started to implement some new anti-corruption legislation complying with the international norms (Fluri and Badrak 2016).
Ideological positions expressed in electoral manifestos of political parties should be an indicator of the subsequent actions of the parliamentarians. Yet, when faced with countries with a weak party system, such as Ukraine (Kononchuk and Yiarosh 2010), the questions about the relevance of ideological positions for legislative action need to be revisited. Considering the last 25 years of electoral politics in Ukraine, the question arises as to the extent to which ideologies guide parties or the idea of “power for power’s sake” guides them. While there are more than 200 political parties in Ukraine, scholars suggest that major parties and blocs, and their parliamentarians, are more interested in the representation of business interests than that of the citizenry (Prymush 2014, Shveda 2012, Goniukova 2014, Kuzio 2014).
by Nika Palaguta, Graduate School for Social Research, Polish Academy of Sciences
This research was funded by the Preludium grant of the National Science Centre, Poland [Narodowe Centrum Nauki]. Project number: 2017/25/N/HS6/01174. Project Name: Influence of party ideology and characteristics of parliamentarians on legislative actions on war, corruption and inequality in Ukraine [Wpływ ideologii partii i charakterystyk parlamentarzystów na działania ustawodawcze w sprawie wojny, korupcji i nierówności na Ukrainie]. Principle Investigator: Nika Palaguta. Project website: Ukraine: War, Corruption, and Inequality
Women have a long-standing high level of political inequality in national legislatures in Ukraine. Despite that gender equality principles in national legislation should guarantee equal rights and opportunities in economic and political life to both men and women, some national policies may enhance gender stereotypes and hamper advancement of women’s rights. The former Soviet Union had ambiguous approach to gender equality, which despite encouraging women’s participation in some areas of economic life, kept their political influence very limited. According to data from the Inter Parliamentary Union, from 1991 to 2018, the share of women in the Ukrainian parliament never exceeded 12 per cent.
I argue that one of the reasons for enduring political inequality of women in Ukraine stems from the conservative views shared by political parties and parliamentarians. I have found that Ukrainian political parties and blocs have paid little or no attention to promotion of gender equality and women’s rights in their manifestos without talking against women.
The basics of modern life — job, education, and income — can shape our interest in politics, our desire to discuss politics with others, and our decision to vote. In the parlance of social science, occupation and socioeconomic status may impact “political engagement.”
We politically engage, or not, during an age of rising economic inequality.
Economic inequality matters. It chastens social mobility: the rich stay rich and the poor have extreme difficulty, especially in hard times, to climb up the social ladder.
Economic inequality is something you can see. You can see somebody driving down the street in a car that you can’t afford. You can walk the city and gape at the rich neighborhoods. The economic “gap” can stimulate or irritate; it is something you feel.
Frederick Solt, now an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Iowa, thought that the economic inequality all around us influences our socioeconomic situation which, in turn, influences our political engagement.
This is a story of two of Fred Solt’s research articles on how political voice fares in an age of rising economic inequality.
The Theories of Engagement
If economic inequality touches so many areas of modern life, then, he reasoned, it must also play a role in whether people care about politics and show up to the voting booth. But how can inequality – that there are rich and poor and that there is a large gap between them – influence political engagement?
Solt consulted the literature on politics and inequality and sorted through the explanations, old and new. He read Moore, Dahl, Brady, Schlozman, and Verba. He read de Tocqueville, Schattschneider, Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens, Lijphart, and Lukes.
He built on their work and devised three main theories.
We announce the workshop, “Women’s Political Inequality in Poland and Ukraine: Theory Statements and Empirical Research,” on April 23, 2019 at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences (IFiS PAN), Warsaw, Poland (Pałac Staszica, Nowy Świat 72, Warsaw, Room 154).
This one-day workshop brings together scholars of Poland and Ukraine on women’s political inequality. Scholars will present and discuss studies on women’s political participation and the representation of women in government, including women’s presence in parliament and the representation of their interests.
The workshop will focus on (a) theory, methods, and results of original research on women’s political inequality in Poland and Ukraine; (b) challenges of conducting empirical research on the subject; and (c) networking and discussing possibilities of international co-operation. Presentations will be in English.
This workshop is funded by the National Science Centre, Poland (2017/25/N/HS6/01174), “Impact of Party Ideology and Parliamentarian Biography on Legislative Action on War, Corruption and Inequality in Ukraine.” The Principle Investigator of the grant and the workshop organizer is Nika Palaguta, PhD candidate at the Graduate School for Social Research, IFiS PAN.
Renira C. Angeles, who recently received her PhD in Political Science from Central European University (CEU), Hungary, has presented a paper co-authored with Achim Kemmerling, University of Erfurt, Germany, “How Redistributive Institutions Affect Pay Inequality and Heterogeneity among Top Managers,” at the Politics and Inequality conference held December 2018 in Warsaw, Poland.
Dr. Angeles applies quantitative research methods to understand the political causes and consequences of income inequality, especially at the high-end of the income ladder, as well as the consequences of parties’ economic policies. Renira C. Angeles recently published the article, “The Politics of Top Executive Compensation in Advanced Democracies,” in Sociology Compass. In 2018, Dr. Angeles led a project on technology, inequality and education in the Norwegian Board of Technology, providing policy advice to the Norwegian Parliament.
We asked Dr. Angeles for an extended abstract of their Politics and Inequality conference paper and, via email, some questions about their research.
The incredible rise of executive pay has received a lot of scholarly interest. Since the 1970s, generous bonus rewards for top executives have appeared more frequently. This trend has been more widespread in some democracies more than others. This paper asks, Why do some advanced democracies experience growth average CEO pay levels more so than others? We argue that a crucial problem in moderating these increases is the heterogeneity among top managers. In particular, inequality among top managers’ pay makes redistributive institutions, more so than other institutions, better suited to deal with rising pay. To empirically test our argument, we use a novel data set on executive pay across 17 OECD countries. We compare the effect of different institutional factors: corporate and personal income taxation, the unions’ bargaining power, and regulative attempts. We find that redistributive institutions of personal income tax and unions’ bargaining power is effective in moderating high labour wages, especially for very large firms as measured by their stock market value.
The research you presented at the Politics and Inequality conference was a co-authored paper (with Achim Kemmerling) on cross-national variation in the pay of top managers. How did you get interested in this topic? And how is this topic connected to other research that you are doing?
I’m interested in the multidimensionality of inequality and the different implications it has for democracies. I got interested in assessing CEO pay and inequality during my MA studies where I examined the politics of CEO pay in the largest Norwegian state-owned companies. Looking into CEO pay does not tell us the whole story on the politics of inequality, but it can tell us a good deal about the economic fortunes of the working poor. Although we have firm research in redistributive politics, and theories of institutions and income inequality, we need specific theories that can tell us why average CEO pay differs across industrialized economies.
Further, I was interested in looking across Europe where redistributive institutions and policies in general exist to a greater extent than, say, the US. This paper assesses the political causes of CEO pay, but that is just half of the story. My interest into this topic also evolved from the thought of the possible policy feedback that generous bonus schemes can generate.
In this paper, you use an original dataset. Please briefly describe these data and why they are well-suited for your research.
The data is collected from annual reports of firms. There are executive characteristics as well as industry and firm characteristics. It is well suited to my mission to assess redistributive institutions and policies because it is a record of the economic fortunes of top managers who – because money is a political resource – can also be significant political actors.
Catherine Bolzendahl, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology of the University of California-Irvine, recently delivered the keynote speech, “Women’s Political Empowerment: A Path toward Progress in Uncertain Times,” at the Politics and Inequality conference held December 2018 in Warsaw, Poland.
Catherine Bolzendahl’s interests are in political change cross-nationally and over time, as well as gender and politics. Her research has appeared in Social Forces, European Sociological Review, and British Journal of Sociology, among others. Her recent book is the co-edited volume, Measuring Women’s Political Empowerment Across the Globe: Strategies, Challenges and Future Research (2017, Palgrave).
We asked Professor Bolzendahl, via email, some questions about her research.
At the Politics and Inequality conference, you presented your long-running and varied research on gender and politics in comparative perspective, and what comes next for your research. Looking back, what are some of your most important findings and discoveries?
This is an interesting question because I feel like it is only lately that I’m starting to identify the broader contributions of my current body of work. I’ve always been fundamentally interested in how and why women and men engage with politics and how politics shapes people’s lives as men and women. Of course, this is strongly centered on concerns regarding inequality. My work has led me to a few findings that have been exciting and compelled me to keep digging. First, nations where women have more equality to men politically and economically invest more in social policy generosity. In particular, this contributes to the growing conclusion that women’s political representation changes the policy output in a nation for the better. Second, that we often define politics too narrowly, and in ways that exclude and undervalue women’s contributions as political citizens. This undermines both gender equality and an accurate understanding of women’s political contributions. Third, there is pervasive gender inequality within legislatures, and many are structured to segregate women’s and men’s participation and thus reify patterns of inequality that limit potential for larger change.
What challenges have you faced in conducting or presenting your research on gender?
There are many! As a sociologist, much of my work depends on the larger body of work on gender and politics that exists within the field of political science. Political sociology and political science have long been intertwined and successfully pushed our knowledge forward. However, in sociology, by studying gender, the field does not always know what to do with my work. Political sociology tends to view my work as belonging more to gender and gender scholars see my work as belonging more to political sociology. This makes it difficult to navigate publication outlets, and I often find myself publishing in political science journals. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that issues of gender and politics are of central concern to sociology and work to publish and advocate for such work in the field. Unfortunately, political scientists often do not cite sociology, which may lower my profile in this larger sub-field. By networking across both sociology and political science, I work to counter this, but it is more challenging. Nevertheless, working at the intersections is also, I think, more exciting.