Inequality and its consequences
Is it inevitable that white men are on top?
Image: female hunter who may have lived in the Andes 9,000 years ago. (Credit: Matthew Verdolivo/UC Davis); futurity.org
From the mid-1980s to the end of the 90s New Zealand went through a radical restructuring. Overall the economy improved – for example, GDP bumped up to an (unsustained) 6.4% in 1996. But the costs and the benefits of this tectonic change were not evenly shared. In their lively book on the health of New Zealanders Alistair Woodward and Tony Blakely (The Healthy Country? 2014) point out that what had been a steadily improving life expectancy for Māori reversed in this era, while the life expectancy of non-Māori continued to improve. The gap between Māori and non-Māori life expectancy, which had been narrowing, widened. This is an illustration of how economic inequality (Māori for example had much higher unemployment during this era; between 25% and 26% in 1991-1992, while for all workers it was high, but not as high – at 11%) – is not an economic abstraction. It has life and death consequences.
It is now more than a decade since Wilkinson and Picket in The Spirit Level (2009) demonstrated the social outcomes of higher income inequality – including higher levels of violence (such as higher homicide), lower average health and social outcomes (such as life expectancy and happiness).
If inequality is not a good thing, why is it universal in contemporary cultures? The research into small mobile bands of hunter-gatherers gives us clues to our early social evolution. Existing groups are notable for a reasonable level of equality. Individuals are recognised for particular talents. People are seen as being outstanding at hunting, gathering, or knowing where to find water in a drought. A distinction can be made between this, prestige-based leadership based on such specific expertise, and dominance-based leadership, based, as the name suggests on who can monster who. In the small band with an emphasis on recognising specific expertise, there is evidence that there was equality between men and women.
An intriguing study led by Mark Dyble, published in Science, looked at group formation in contemporary hunter-gatherers. Modelling of these social arrangements indicates that bands form based on loose ties rather than on shared kinship. This reflects both men and women contributing to the decision of who to hang with. In contrast, as they settle more permanently, males tend to make and maintain kin-based alliances. Settlements reflect these male alliances – which form the basis of dominance hierarchies.
The other aspect of settling is that people can store food, acquire material goods, and predictably, some do better than others. A hierarchy emerges, from dominant males at the top down to slaves. In this emergent social arrangement, women exist in a shadow hierarchy, subordinated and becoming tradeable goods. Dominance assumes greater significance.
Does this have relevance to contemporary society? Is it possible that as more resources can be controlled by fewer, often through elite alliances, we see more (and more male) dominance-based leadership emerging?
The evidence is fragmented, but the pieces fit together. Males form coalitions which become hereditary elites at the top of a hierarchy. Socialisation ensures that non-elite people see the social structure as the natural order. All are keen to avoid sliding down the hierarchy and do the best they can to prevail in the existing structure – so contributing to its maintenance. As the hierarchy steepens there are increasing pressures on those lower down – and so more violence, less health and wellbeing.
Ronald Fischer from Victoria University of Wellington (along with colleagues), looked across 27 countries to explore the extent people become socialised to support a dominant hierarchy. In democratic, mainly Western countries they found that the more unequal the society, the more their citizens lined up for a more hierarchical social world (measured by their agreement with items such as ‘some people are just more worthy than others).
A 2017 paper by economist Nicole Fortin and colleagues looked at gender pay differences in highly (and increasingly) unequal societies (Canada, Sweden and the UK). Focusing on the top earners they found that education did not explain the difference in women’s incomes. Industry and occupation did add 16% to the explanation. Mainly, the higher the income, the greater the gender income difference. The authors use the metaphor of women ‘swimming upstream’ – the higher they go, the harder it gets to reach income parity.
A startling 2018 study by Khandis Blake and colleagues in PNAS compared women’s posting of ‘sexy-selfies’ across 5,567 cities and 1,622 counties in America, and also across 113 countries. According to Darwinian theory, women compete to attract males by advertising their attractiveness, while males promote their status. The prediction is, that as inequality increases, more women will promote their attractiveness in a higher-stakes competition for fewer high-status males. More sexy-selfies were on display in areas with higher economic inequality. The results supported the Darwinian sexual selection theory. Correspondingly, the researchers found that greater expenditure on ‘attractiveness’ – sales at beauty salons and clothing stores – was higher in more unequal social settings.
Increases in inequality ramp up the steepness of the social hierarchy, with more people competing to get up, and avoid falling. More economic inequality results in a tougher life not only for those at the bottom of the hierarchy but for all of those struggling to get to the top. We have seen oligarchs completing to have the bigger superyacht. Also, three very rich men competing to fly their spacecraft higher. This is amusing, but, closer to home we see the better off investing in homes and baches because that has been an economically safe bet and a very visible way of staking out social status. Entrepreneurial scientist Paul Callaghan was not unique in suggesting we change the economic signals so that more investment goes into innovative business than real estate.
The typical approach to dealing with high levels of inequality, and the poor life outcomes for those at the bottom is investing in ameliorating poverty and poor health and wellbeing. There is less attention on reducing the wealth of those at the top. Both John Key and Jacinda Ardern promised not to make any changes to capital gains tax. The recent suggestion to learn more about the income and wealth of seriously rich New Zealanders has prompted a flurry of concern about more taxes. Is it inevitable that we continue with an economic model that reinforces inequality and the ills that result?
Stewart Forsyth is an organisational psychologist and executive coach and also the author of 21 Remarkable People – available from Amazon or Apple or other eBook sources.