IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dia/wpaper/dt200517.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Perception de l’inégalité des chances et mobilités objective et subjective:une analyse à partir d’entretiens qualitatifs auprès de Liméniens

Author

Listed:
  • Laure Pasquier-Doumer

    (DIAL, IEP-Paris)

Abstract

(English) The object of this paper is to understand how the perception by Limenians of inequalities of opportunity is formed in Peru, based on qualitative interviews realized by the author. The paper aims to contribute to the normative debate on social justice; as according to several authors, the perception of inequality of opportunity strongly determines the demand for redistribution. A special focus is put to the analysis of the role played by individual mobility in the formation of this perception, by measuring this mobility from both objective and subjective indicators. The first part is dedicated to a survey of literature. The second part analyses the gap between objective and subjective mobility (the interviewees have explained the criteria they use to assess their situation compared to the one of their parents). The majority of interviewees assess their mobility using a monetary criterion. In the third part, the perception of inequality of opportunity is defined from the interviewees’ answers to an open question on the factors they consider the most important to success in their life. The answers underline the difficulty to breakdown effort and circumstances. _________________________________ (français) L’objet de cet article est de comprendre comment se forme la perception des Liméniens de l’inégalité des chances au Pérou, à partir d’entretiens qualitatifs que j’ai réalisés. Il s’agit d’apporter une contribution au débat normatif sur la justice sociale, puisque selon plusieurs auteurs, la perception de l’inégalité des chances détermine fortement la demande de redistribution. J’analyse en particulier le rôle joué par la mobilité individuelle dans la formation de cette perception, en mesurant la mobilité à partir d’indicateurs objectifs mais également subjectif. Après une première partie de ce travail consacrée à une revue de littérature, la deuxième partie analyse les écarts entre les mobilités objective et subjective (les personnes interviewées ont explicité les critères à partir desquels elles évaluent leur situation en comparaison de celle de leurs parents). La majorité des interviewés évaluent leur mobilité à partir d’un critère monétaire. Dans la troisième partie, la perception de l’inégalité des chances est définie à partir des réponses des interviewés à une question ouverte sur les facteurs qui leur semblent être les plus importants pour réussir dans la vie. Les réponses mettent en évidence la difficulté à séparer les notions d’effort et de circonstances.

Suggested Citation

  • Laure Pasquier-Doumer, 2005. "Perception de l’inégalité des chances et mobilités objective et subjective:une analyse à partir d’entretiens qualitatifs auprès de Liméniens," Working Papers DT/2005/17, DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation).
  • Handle: RePEc:dia:wpaper:dt200517
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dial.ird.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2005-17.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2005
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    2. Corneo, Giacomo & Gruner, Hans Peter, 2002. "Individual preferences for political redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 83-107, January.
    3. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 699-746.
    4. Claudia Senik, 2005. "Income distribution and well‐being: what can we learn from subjective data?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 43-63, February.
    5. Bruno S. Frey, 2018. "Economics of Happiness," SpringerBriefs in Economics, Springer, number 978-3-319-75807-7, September.
    6. Alesina, Alberto & Di Tella, Rafael & MacCulloch, Robert, 2004. "Inequality and happiness: are Europeans and Americans different?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(9-10), pages 2009-2042, August.
    7. Gary Solon, 2002. "Cross-Country Differences in Intergenerational Earnings Mobility," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(3), pages 59-66, Summer.
    8. repec:cai:popine:popu_p2001_56n6_0958 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Alesina, Alberto & La Ferrara, Eliana, 2005. "Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 897-931, June.
    10. Thomas Piketty, 1995. "Social Mobility and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 551-584.
    11. Meltzer, Allan H & Richard, Scott F, 1981. "A Rational Theory of the Size of Government," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 914-927, October.
    12. van Praag, B. M. S. & Frijters, P. & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., 2003. "The anatomy of subjective well-being," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 29-49, May.
    13. John E. Roemer & Alain Trannoy, 2013. "Equality of Opportunity," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1921, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    14. Frey, Bruno S & Stutzer, Alois, 2000. "Happiness, Economy and Institutions," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(466), pages 918-938, October.
    15. Ganzeboom, H.B.G. & de Graaf, P.M. & Treiman, D.J. & de Leeuw, J., 1992. "A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status," WORC Paper 92.01.001/1, Tilburg University, Work and Organization Research Centre.
    16. P. Clifford & A. F. Heath, 1993. "The Political Consequences of Social Mobility," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 156(1), pages 51-61, January.
    17. Claudia Senik, 2005. "Income distribution and well-being: what can we learn from subjective data?," Post-Print halshs-00754101, HAL.
    18. Nopo, Hugo R. & Saavedra, Jaime & Torero, Maximo, 2004. "Ethnicity and Earnings in Urban Peru," IZA Discussion Papers 980, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Zimmerman, David J, 1992. "Regression toward Mediocrity in Economic Stature," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 409-429, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:dau:papers:123456789/11239 is not listed on IDEAS

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4382 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Kuhn, Andreas, 2009. "In the Eye of the Beholder: Subjective Inequality Measures and the Demand for Redistribution," IZA Discussion Papers 4360, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Andreas Kuhn, 2009. "In the eye of the beholder: subjective inequality measures and the demand for redistribution," IEW - Working Papers 425, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    4. Kuhn, Andreas, 2009. "Demand for Redistribution, Support for the Welfare State, and Party Identification in Austria," IZA Discussion Papers 4449, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Kerr, William R., 2014. "Income inequality and social preferences for redistribution and compensation differentials," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 62-78.
    6. Cojocaru, Alexandru, 2014. "Prospects of upward mobility and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from the Life in Transition Survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 300-314.
    7. Andreas Kuhn, 2009. "In the Eye of the Beholder: Subjective Inequality Measures and the Demand for Redistribution," NRN working papers 2009-14, The Austrian Center for Labor Economics and the Analysis of the Welfare State, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    8. Molnár, György & Kapitány, Zsuzsa, 2006. "Mobilitás, bizonytalanság és szubjektív jóllét Magyarországon [Mobility, uncertainty and subjective welfare in Hungary]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(10), pages 845-872.
    9. Thomas Siedler & Bettina Sonnenberg, 2012. "Intergenerational Earnings Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 510, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    10. Krawczyk, Michal, 2010. "A glimpse through the veil of ignorance: Equality of opportunity and support for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1-2), pages 131-141, February.
    11. Stichnoth, Holger & van der Straeten, Karine, 2009. "Ethnic diversity and attitudes towards redistribution: a review of the literature," ZEW Discussion Papers 09-036, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    12. Andreas Kuhn, 2009. "Demand for Redistribution, Support for the Welfare State, and Party Identification in Austria," IEW - Working Papers 440, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. Benjamin Schalembier, 2019. "An Evaluation of Common Explanations for the Impact of Income Inequality on Life Satisfaction," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 777-794, March.
    14. Andreas Kuhn, 2009. "Demand for Redistribution, Support for the Welfare State, and Party Identification in Austria," NRN working papers 2009-17, The Austrian Center for Labor Economics and the Analysis of the Welfare State, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    15. Kuhn, Andreas, 2011. "In the eye of the beholder: Subjective inequality measures and individuals' assessment of market justice," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 625-641.
    16. Laméris, Maite D. & Garretsen, Harry & Jong-A-Pin, Richard, 2020. "Political ideology and the intragenerational prospect of upward mobility," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    17. Alberto Alesina & George-Marios Angeletos, 2005. "Fairness and Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 960-980, September.
    18. Roland Iwan Luttens & Marie-Anne Valfort, 2012. "Voting for Redistribution under Desert-Sensitive Altruism," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 114(3), pages 881-907, September.
    19. Samir Lleshi & Xhenet Syka, 2016. "Application of Quality Management System in Tourism Sector in Kosovo," European Journal of Economics and Business Studies Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 2, ejes_v2_i.
    20. Di Tella, Rafael & MacCulloch, Robert, 2008. "Gross national happiness as an answer to the Easterlin Paradox?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 22-42, April.
    21. Andreas Georgiadis & Alan Manning, 2012. "Spend it like Beckham? Inequality and redistribution in the UK, 1983–2004," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 537-563, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    : Inequality of opportunity; mobility; efforts; circumstances; Peru; Inégalité des chances; mobilité; efforts; circonstances; Perou.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification
    • J62 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers - - - Job, Occupational and Intergenerational Mobility; Promotion
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dia:wpaper:dt200517. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Loic Le Pezennec (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diallfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.