Chinese People ’ s Beliefs about the Relationship between Economic Development and Social Inequality
Yu Xie,Guangzhou Wang,P. O. Box,Sasha Achen,Miranda Brown,Cindy Glovinsky,Katherine King,Yang Jiang,Arland Thornton,Linda Young-DeMarco
2008-01-01
Abstract:A causal relationship between economic development and social inequality has long been hypothesized in both economics and sociology. Given the rapid economic growth in contemporary China, how do ordinary Chinese view this relationship? We hypothesize that because the Chinese have recently experienced rapid increases in both economic growth and social inequality, they tend to view economic development as a driving force of social inequality. As a result, individual Chinese, with this causal model in mind, will simply project high levels of inequality onto countries they view as more developed and low levels of inequality onto countries they see as less developed. Using data from a 2006 survey conducted in six Chinese provinces (n = 4,898), we found that a large fraction of Chinese people rated inequality in a country in correspondence to their rating of economic development in the same country. However, while their ratings of economic development resemble those published by the United Nations based on social science data, their ratings of inequality do not match those of the United Nations. Development and Perceived Inequality, Page 3 Chinese People’s Beliefs about the Relationship between Economic Development and Social Inequality By all indicators, the Chinese economy has been growing rapidly in the last thirty years. Between 1978 and 2006, for example, China’s GDP increased at an average rate of 9.8% per year after adjusting for inflation (calculated from State Statistical Bureau 2006, Table 3.3). This is a very high level of economic development for a sustained period of time. Factoring in the huge population size of China (currently at 1.3 billion), the scale and the pace of economic development still underway in China is staggering. Accompanying the rapid economic growth in China since 1978 has been a sharp rise in economic inequality (Hauser and Xie 2005; Khan and Riskin 1998). It has been estimated that the Gini index, a standard measure of income inequality, jumped steadily from 0.310 in 1985 to 0.415 in 2001 in China (Wu and Perloff 2005). Much of the existing literature in sociology on temporary China has focused on social inequality in the past fifteen years (for a review, see Bian 2002), attempting to address the distributional question of “who wins and who loses” during the transition (Wu and Xie 2003, p.427). More recently, research effort has been made to understand Chinese attitudes toward inequality (Whyte 2005). Earlier work suggests that while ordinary Chinese are alarmed by the rising levels of inequality, they are concerned more with the perceived unfairness of inequality than with the high levels of inequality (Whyte 2005; Xie and Hannum 1996; Xie and Wu forthcoming; Zeng and Yue 2006; Zhao 1994). In this paper, we are interested in whether Chinese people’s attitudes towards social inequality are shaped by China’s recent history of experiencing rapid increases in both economic development and social inequality. A working hypothesis is that many Chinese people may consider social inequality as an inevitable byproduct of economic development based on China’s Development and Perceived Inequality, Page 4 recent history. To address this research question, we measure and examine how ordinary Chinese view the relationship between economic development and social inequality through a 2006 social survey asking respondents to rate economic development and inequality levels in five countries. Theoretical Issues Social Inequality and Economic Development Social scientists have long been interested in the causal relationship between economic development and social inequality. In both sociological and economics literature, the prevailing view is that in the long term as a society undergoes economic development, we expect to observe an inverted-U trajectory in social inequality: inequality first increases with economic development but will eventually level off and even decline as the society is sufficiently developed. This prediction was essentially the same as Karl Marx’s grand view of human history, with equality under communism at its end. Lenski’s (1984) widely used text on social stratification reached the same conclusion, as it hypothesized that advanced societies can afford to pay for the welfare of all citizens through redistribution. Economics literature on development has reached the same prediction but for different reasons. One dominant view is Kuznets's (1955) thesis that inequality follows an inverted-U shape: inequality initially rises in the early and intermediate stages of development and then eventually declines with continued development. Kuznets conjectures that the development of an industrial sector with higher wages than the rural sector draws workers away from the agricultural sector. Initially, workers in the industrial sector are scarce and enjoy a large wage premium, increasing income inequality. As increasing numbers of workers switch from the agricultural to the industrial sector, the industrial wage falls, while the agricultural wage increases as agricultural workers become increasingly scarce. As a result, income inequality falls. Besides the development of an Development and Perceived Inequality, Page 5 industrial sector (and accompanying urbanization), there are two other major economic reasons why economic development (especially rapid economic development) can initially lead to high levels of inequality. First, educated members of the labor force are always in short supply in times of economic development, because it takes time and societal investment to educate the next generation of workers. Second, “Individuals who are more efficient resource allocators (in other words, educated individuals) will be better able to take advantage of the changed opportunity sets” (Chiswick 1971, p.28). For these two reasons, returns to education increase during times of rapid economic development, and these increases in turn raise the overall level of inequality. For example, earlier work on Brazil, which has one of the highest levels of inequality in the world (shown later in Table 1), reveals that most of the very high level of inequality there is attributable to very high returns to education (Fishlow 1972; Lam and Levison 1992). An increase in returns to human capital has also been tied to rising income inequality during the British Industrial Revolution (Williamson 1991). In fact, it has been suggested that empirical evidence for the Kuznets curve is more often due to inter-occupational wage differences resulting from increases in the returns to education or skills, than to the inter-sectoral wage differences originally described by Kuznets. The skill premium gradually diminishes as the labor force becomes more skilled, resulting in a reduction of income inequality (Barro 2000). It is unclear whether empirical data support the conjecture that economic development in developing countries always leads to an increase in inequality. While this conjecture is consistent with the experiences of some countries such as Brazil (Fishlow 1972), Taiwan's recent history has clearly proven the opposite: Gini coefficients dropped gradually from 0.321 to 0.277 between 1964 and 1980, a period of rapid economic development in Taiwan, and it then climbed steadily to 0.312 in 1990 (Executive Yuan 1990, p.15). More generally, there has been a debate within the Development and Perceived Inequality, Page 6 economics of development literature as to the validity of the Kuznets curve as a model to explain within-country temporal differences in growth rates, rather than differences between countries at a given time. Studies that use longitudinal datasets to test Kuznets’s hypothesis have not consistently found evidence to support it. Even when the Kuznets inverted-U is observed, it explains little of the variation in income inequality across countries or over time (Deininger and Squire 1998; Barro 2000). However generalizable the inverted-U conjecture may or may not be, it does fit the recent trends in contemporary China. While China has experienced very rapid economic growth since 1978, ample evidence also suggests that social inequality has increased significantly in China (see Hauser and Xie 2005). One study estimates that the Gini Inequality index in China jumped steadily from 0.310 in 1985 to 0.415 in 2001 (Wu and Perloff 2005). Indeed, social inequality has become one of the most frequently discussed topics that concern the public in China in recent years (Whyte 2005; Wong and Lee 2000). Chinese media, particularly print and internet media, are also fond of discussions on social inequality, although the public concern is much more with perceived unfairness and its institutional mechanisms, such as corruption, rather than with high levels of inequality (Sun 2008; Zeng and Yue 2006; Zhao 1994). We hypothesize that because of recent rapid increases in both economic growth and social inequality in China, individual Chinese will tend to experience these two factors as causally linked, with economic development driving inequality. It is conjectured that individual Chinese, with this causal model in mind, will simply project high levels of inequality onto countries they view as more developed and project low levels of inequality onto countries perceived as less developed. If this is true, their ratings on inequality would correspond to ratings on development. Development and Perceived Inequality, Page 7 Developmental Idealism In essence, we are interested in the extent to which Chinese people’s perception of a country’s level of social inequality corresponds to their perceived level of the country’s economic development. An underlying assumption is that Chinese people understand economic development as an essential feature of a society and its social consequences and are knowledgeable about the levels of development in many countries in the world. This assumption is rooted in an ideology, or intellectual par