PL EN


Journal
2010 | 36 | 2 | 54-69
Article title

Postawy pro-merytokratyczne a postulaty redukcji nierówności dochodów: polska na tle innych krajów (2002-2008)

Title variants
EN
For Reducing Income Inequality: Poland vs. Other Countries, 2002-2008
Languages of publication
PL
Abstracts
EN
Theoretical arguments and empirical results presented in the article are aimed at triggering a discussion on socially accepted rules of the division of goods. The model of education meritocracy, based on the assumption that, in the hordes entering the job market, the relation between the level of education and awards for playing professional roles (expressed through wages and prestige) is as close as allowed by distributions of analyzed variables. Do the Poles support such a kind of meritocracy? Do they think that the level of wages should be strongly dependent on the level of education, the scope of responsibies and the quality of work instead of needs related to family (including children) support? What determines pro-meritocratic attitudes? The author attempts to answer these questions in the context of inter-state comparisons. It is important whether (and to what extent) Poland differs from other countries, especially Western and post-communist states, as far as pro-meritocratic and egalitarian attitudes as well as their determinants are concerned. In conclusion, implications for the analytical trend in political philosophy are presented.
Journal
Year
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
54-69
Physical description
Document type
ARTICLE
Contributors
  • Uniwersytet Zielonogórski
  • Slomczynski Kazimierz M., Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Plac Defilad 1, 00-901 Warszawa Poland and Instytut Socjologii, Uniwersytet Zielonogorski, ul. Licealna 9, 65-417 Zielona Gora, Poland
References
  • Alves W., Rossi P. (1978), Who Should Get What? Fairness Judgments on the Distribution of Earnings, „American Journal of Sociology”, 84, s. 541-64.
  • Alwin D. F. (1987), Distributive Justice and Satisfaction with Material Well-Being, „American Sociological Review”, 52, s. 83-95.
  • Arrow K., Bowles S., Durlauf S., (red.) (2002), Meritocracy and Econo-mic Inequality, Princeton Univerity Press, Princeton, NJ.
  • Bell D. (1973), The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, Basic Books, New York.
  • Berger J., Fisek M. H., Norman R., Wagner D. (1983), The Formation of Reward Expectations in Status Situations, s. 127-68, [w:] Equity The-ory: Psychological and Sociological Perspectives, red. D. Messick, K. Cook, Preager, New York.
  • Berger J., Zelditch M., Anderson B., Cohen B. (1972), Structural Aspects of Distributive Justice: A Status Value Formulation, s. 119-46, [w:] Sociolo-gical Theories in Progress, Vol. 2., red. J. Berger, M. Zelditch, B. Anderson, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
  • Boudon R. (1973), Education, Opportunity and Social Inequality. Wiley.
  • Burgoyne C., Marshall G., Swift A. (1993), Inconsistency in Beliefs About Distributive Justice: A Cautionary Note, [w:] „Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour”, 23, nr 4.
  • Cichomski B., Kozek W., Morawski P., Morawski W. (2001), Sprawiedliwość Społeczna: Polska Lat Dziewięćdziesiątych, Wydawnictwo Naukowe „Scholar”, Warszawa.
  • Cohen R. L., (red.) (1986), Justice: Views from the Social Sciences, Plenum, New York.
  • Della Fave R. L. (1980), The Meek Shall Not Inherit the Earth: Self-Evaluation and the Legitimacy of Social Stratification, „American Sociological Review”, 45, s. 955-71.
  • Dworkin R. (1981), What is Equality? Part I: Equality of Welfare, „Philosophy and Public Affairs”, 10, s. 185-246.
  • Dworkin R. (1981), What is Equality? Part II: Equality of Resources, „Philosophy and Public Affairs” 10, s. 283-345.
  • Elster J. (1995), The Empirical Study of Justice, s. 81-98, [w:] Pluralism, Ju-stice and Equality, red. D. Miller and M. Walzer, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Esping-Andersen G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
  • European Social Survey (2003), www.europeansocialsurvey.org
  • Evans M. D. R., Kelley J., Kolosi T. (1992), Images of Class, Public Percep-tions in Hungary and Australia, „American Sociological Review”, 57, s. 461-482.
  • Goldthorpe J. H. (1996), Problems of ‘Meritoctacy’, s. 125-139, [w:] Can Edu-cation Be Equalized?, red. R. Erikson, J. A. Jonsson, Westview, Boulder.
  • Halsey A. H. (1967), The Sociology of Education, s. 381-434, [w:] Sociology: An Introduction, red. N. J. Smelser, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  • Hochschild J. (1981), What is Fair? American Beliefs about Distributive Ju-stice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Huber J., Form W. (1978), Income and Ideology, Free Press, New York.
  • Husen T. (1974), Talent, Equality, and Meritocracy, Martinus Nijhoff, New York.
  • International Social Survey Program: Social Inequality Module (1992), Zentralarchiv fuer Empirische Sozialforschung, Koeln.
  • Janicka K. (1993), Factors of Structurazation of Polish Society in the So-cial Consciousness at the End of the Eighties, „Polish Sociological Review”, 3 (103), s. 217-231.
  • Jasso G. (1980), On the Justice of Earnings: A New Specification of the Justice Evaluation Function, „American Journal of Sociology”, 83, s. 1398-1419.
  • Jasso G. (1980), A New Theory of Distributive Justice, „American Sociological Review”, 45(1), s. 3-32.
  • Jasso G. (1978), On the Justice of Earnings: A New Specification of the Justice Evaluation Function, „American Journal of Sociology”, 83(6), s. 1398-1419.
  • Jasso G., Rossi P. H. (1977), Distributive Justice and Earned Income, „American Sociological Review”, 42(4), s. 639-51.
  • Jonsson J. O. (1989), Towards the Merit Selective Society? Unpublished Paper.
  • Locklear S. (1998), Meritocratic Image of Success and Its Determinants: A Comparison of Poland and Hungary, 1987-88 and 1992, „International Journal of Sociology”, 28(2), s. 65-90.
  • Kelley J., Evans M. D. R. (1993), The Legitimation of Inequality: Occu-pational Earnings in Nine Nations, „American Journal of Sociology”, 99, s. 75-125.
  • Kluegel J. R., Smith E. R. (1986), Beliefs About Inequality: American Views of What Is and Ought to Be, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
  • Kluegel J. R., Mason D., Wegener B., (red.) (1995), Social Justice and Political Change: Public Opinion in Capitalist and Post-Communist States. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
  • Krauze T., Słomczyński K. M. (1985), How Far to Meritocracy? Empirical Tests of a Controversial Thesis, „Social Forces”, 63(3), s. 623-42.
  • Kunovich S., Słomczyński K. M. (2007), Systems of Distribution and a Sen-se of Equity: A Multilevel Analysis of Meritocratic Attitudes, „European Sociological Review”, 23(5), s. 649-663.
  • Mateju P., Rehakova B. (1992), From Unjust Equality to Just Inequality and Social Justice in Contemporary Czechoslovakia, „Sociologicky Casopis”, 28, s. 293-318.
  • Mateju P., Tucek M. (1992), Declared Occupational Mobility and Change in the Role of Achievement Principles in Four Nations of East-Central Europe, „Sociologicky Casopis”, 28, s. 123-28.
  • Messe L., Watts B. (1983), Complex Nature of the Sense of Fairness: Internal Standards and Social Comparison as bases for Reward Evaluations, „Journal of Personality and Social Psychology”, 45, s. 84-93.
  • Miller D. (1991), Review Article: Recent Theories of Social Justice, „British Journal of Political Science”, 21, s. 371-391.
  • Nowak S. (1966), Psychologiczne aspekty zmian struktury społecznej i ruchliwości społecznej, „Studia Socjologiczne”, 21(2), s. 75-107.
  • Rawls J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  • Ritzman R. L., Tomaskovic-Devey D. (1992), Life Chances and Support for Equality and Equity as Normative and Counternormative Distribution Rules, „Social Forces”, 70, s. 745-763.
  • Robinson R., Wendell B. (1978), Equality, Success and Social Justice in En-gland and the United States, „American Sociological Review”, 34, s. 125-143.
  • Roemer J. E. (1996), Theories of Distributive Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
  • Sarapata A. (1963), Iustum Pretium, „Polish Sociological Bulletin”, 7, s. 21-37.
  • Saunders P. (1995), Might Britain Be a Meritocracy, „Sociology”, 29, s. 23-41.
  • Shepelak N. S., Alvin D. F. (1986), Beliefs about Inequality and Perceptions of Distributive Justice, „American Sociological Review”, 51, s. 30-46.
  • Scherer K. R., (red.) (1992), Justice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Sen A. (1992), Inequality Reexamined, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
  • Shepelak N. J. (1989), Ideological Stratification: American beliefs about Eco-nomic Justice, „Social Justice Research”, 3, s. 219-33.
  • Shepelak N.J., Alwin D. F. (1986), Beliefs About Inequality and Perceptions of Distributive Justice, „American Sociological Review”, 51(1), S. 30-46.
  • Slote J. (1983), Legitimation of Structural Inequality, „American Sociological Review”, 48, s. 331-342.
  • Słomczyński K. M., Wesołowski W. (1978), Reduction of Social Inequalities and Status Inconsistency, s. 103-121, [w:] Social Structure-Polish Sociology 1977, red. Polish Sociological Association, Ossolineum, Wrocław.
  • Slomczyński K. M., Wesołowski W. (2001), Distributive Justice and Status (In)consistency: A Theoretical Debate and Empirical Evidence, „Polish Sociological Review”, 3(135), s. 299-312.
  • Swift A. (1995), The Sociology of Complex Equality, s. 253-280, [w:] Pluralism, Justice and Equality, red. D. Miller, M. Walzer, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Walzer M. (1983), Spheres of Justice, Basic Books, New York.
  • Wesołowski W. (1981), Stratification and Meritocratic Justice, „Research in Social Stratification and Mobility”, 1, s. 249-65.
  • Wesołowski W., Tadeusz K. (1981), Socialist society and the meritocratic Principle of Remuneration, s. 211-224, [w:] Social Inequality in Comparative Perspective, edited by G. Berreman, Academic Press, New York.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
CEJSH db identifier
11PLAAAA09883
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.9b4c2a48-4c7c-3c1d-a709-31ed3bcf3942
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.