IPC IG Seminar- SAE : "Middle class values"
1 like570 views
This paper examines the relationship between class, values, and political orientations in Latin America, emphasizing the role of middle class values in social cohesion and growth. Findings indicate that while permanent income is strongly associated with values, there is little evidence of distinct 'middle class particularism'; instead, values are shown to gradually shift with income. The study utilizes ecosocial surveys from six Latin American countries, highlighting issues in existing literature regarding the middle class and the empirics of values surveys.
![Literature: Postulates
• The middle class is the source of economic values that
emphasize savings and accumulation of human capital
– Weber (1905); Murphy et al. (1989); Matsuyama (1992 and 2002);
Birdsall (2000); Doepke and Zilibotti (2007)
• The middle class has also been associated with political
stability and social cohesion
– Aristoteles [Politics]: It is possible for those states to be well governed
that are of the kind in which the middle-class is numerous […] for by
throwing in its weights it sways the balance and prevents the opposite
extremes from coming into existence”
– Lipset (1959); Benhabib and Rustichini (1996); Barro (1999); Benhabib
and Przeworski (2006)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/middleclassvalues-120419153439-phpapp01/85/IPC-IG-Seminar-SAE-Middle-class-values-4-320.jpg)
IPC IG Seminar- SAE : "Middle class values"
- 1. Is there such thing as middle class values? Class differences, values and political orientations in Latin America Luis-Felipe Lopez-Calva Jamele Rigolini Florencia Torche The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.
- 2. Context • Middle class values have long been perceived as drivers of social cohesion and growth • There is, however, very little solid evidence • In this paper we investigate the relation between class, values, and political orientations – We use Ecosocial surveys – We measure class using households’ permanent income – We do check robustness with occupation
- 3. Main Findings • Permanent income is robustly associated with values – It remains so when correcting for individual characteristics • Overall, we do not find strong evidence of any “middle class particularism” – values appear to gradually shift with income – If any, the only peculiarity of middle class values is moderation • Changes in values across countries are much larger than the ones dictated by income – individual values vary primarily within bounds dictated by each society
- 4. Literature: Postulates • The middle class is the source of economic values that emphasize savings and accumulation of human capital – Weber (1905); Murphy et al. (1989); Matsuyama (1992 and 2002); Birdsall (2000); Doepke and Zilibotti (2007) • The middle class has also been associated with political stability and social cohesion – Aristoteles [Politics]: It is possible for those states to be well governed that are of the kind in which the middle-class is numerous […] for by throwing in its weights it sways the balance and prevents the opposite extremes from coming into existence” – Lipset (1959); Benhabib and Rustichini (1996); Barro (1999); Benhabib and Przeworski (2006)
- 5. Literature: Empirics • The empirical literature on middle class values remains however scant – Lack of accurate income data and sampling issues in values surveys – Lack of consensus about middle class definition – Reverse causality and omitted variable biases • Self reported middle class status: – Amoranto, Chun and Deolalikar (2010 – WVS); OECD (2001 – Latinobarometro) – Status is scattered across income and relates poorly to it • Status based on income: – Pew Research Center (2011 – mostly summary statistics); Cárdenas, Kharas and Henao (2011 – large income brackets for Peru) • Our analysis also relates to literature on status and redistributive preferences – Tóth and Keller (2011), Reed-Arthurs and Sherin (2010)
- 6. Values Survey • We use the 2007 Ecosocial surveys for six Latin American countries – Representative or urban areas – We only include people aged 25+ – We exclude Argentina because of no matching measure of permanent income – Total of 12,297 observations
- 7. Income Measure • We use information of households’ assets to construct a measure of households’ permanent income – We match assets & HH characteristics in Ecosocial with the ones of an “external” survey – An additional challenge consists in identifying respondent in Ecosocial to match household head characteristics – We run an income regression using an external household survey and retrieve the “Betas” – We impute permanent income in Ecosocial using the retrieved “Betas”
- 8. Class Measures 1. Log income 2. Absolute measure – 0-4 $/day (per capita PPP); 4-10$/day; 10-20 $/day; 20+ $/day 3. Relative measure – Based on EGR polarization criterion that minimizes within group and maximizes across group inequality 4. We also test robustness with respect to occupation
- 9. Values Indexes • We select first a series of survey questions capturing orientations that are plausibly related with each other • We then extract the weights of each variable in the first principal component and impute it to each observation – We discard variables presenting a high uniqueness – With PC, the idiosyncratic determinants of each individual item (and misunderstanding of a particular survey question) are ruled out • Example: “trust in institutions” is based on trust in the national government, congress, political parties, the mayor, and the police
- 10. Values Indexes • Trust in institutions – Index based on how much individuals trust (a) the government, (b) congress, (c) political parties, (d) the mayor and (e) the police • Political alienation – Index based on respondents’ agreement with the following statements: (a) people who are in charge do not care about people like me, (b) the authorities would not do anything if there was a serious problem in my neighborhood, and (c) most people in power only try to take advantage of people like me • Perception of mobility and opportunity: – Index based on the following indicators: (a) How likely is for average youth to graduate high school? (b) How likely is for a poor person to overcome poverty? (c) How likely is for a person to start their own business? (d) How likely is that a smart youth without economic resources to enter college? (e) How likely is that a woman attains a good job? (f) How likely is that any worker becomes a homeowner in a reasonable time? (g) In this country, anyone who works hard can get ahead…
- 11. Values Indexes • Support for individual rights – Indicator based on the survey question “Which one of these statements do you agree with the most: Individual rights should be respected under any circumstances (coded 1), or criminals should not have the same rights as honest people (coded 0)” • Legitimization of political violence – Index based on the following items: Do you think the use violence is justified in the following cases? (a) When indigenous minorities claim their ancestral land, (b) When revolutionary social change is attempted, (c) When the environment is being protected, (d) When the poor claim better living conditions, (e) When people oppose a dictatorship • Voting – Index based on the survey question: Do you vote in presidential elections, recoded so that 1=always vote, 0=sometimes or never vote
- 12. Values Indexes • Social tolerance – Index based on the following indicators: How uncomfortable would you be in the following situations? (a) If your child married someone of a class lower than yours, (b) If your neighbor was a different race, (c) If your child had a homosexual friend, (d) If your neighbor was an immigrant worker, (e) If your neighbor was of a class lower than yours, (f) If your child married an atheist • Nationalism – Index based on the following indicators: (a) Considering the good and the bad, I am proud of being (nationality), (b) (Country) should defend our national interests, even if that creates conflicts with other countries, (c) (Country) should limit imports of foreign product to protect the national economy, (d) TV in (country) should favor national shows and films. • Political ideology – Indicator based on the survey question “Using a scale in which 1 means a left-wing position and 10 means a right-wing position, where would you place yourself?”
- 13. Values Indexes • Interpersonal trust – Indicator based on the survey question “Speaking in general, do you think most people can be trusted (coded 1) or you can never be too careful (coded 0)?” • Interpersonal alienation – Index based on the following indicators: (a) In general, what I think does not count very much, (b) I am always left out of things going on around me, (c) People around me would not do much if something happened to me, (d) Most people try to take advantage of me
- 14. Descriptive Statistics Variable Mean sd min max N Male 0.47 0.50 0 1 12297 Age 44.33 14.01 25 97 12285 Race/ethnicity: 3.01 1.34 1 4 12104 White 28.7% Black 3.2% Indigenous 6.4% Mixed 61.8% Mother’s education 2.99 2.41 1 10 10611 Father’s education 3.40 2.78 1 10 9979 R’s education 5.01 2.88 1 10 12289
- 15. Social Class Distribution Absolute Relative Poor (0-4 $ a day) 13.6% 45.8% Vulnerable (4-10 $ a day) 43.9% Lower-middle Class (10-20 $ a day) 27.3% 35.1% Upper-middle class (20+ $ a day) 15.2% 19.1% Total 100% 100%
- 16. Relative MC: Thresholds by Country • Strong overlap of Relative and Absolute middle class measures Lower threshold Upper threshold ($ a day) ($ a day) Brazil 9.0 17.5 Chile 11.9 22.3 Colombia 7.5 16.8 Guatemala 7.0 17.6 Mexico 7.4 15.8 Peru 6.2 12.6
- 17. Correlations • No presence of multicollinearity – Indexes capture well different aspects of values Trustinst Polalien Peroppor Suppright Legitviol Vote Tolerance Nation Polideol Trustind Iterpalien Trust institutions 1 Political alienation -0.45* 1 Perceived opportunity 0.18* -0.19* 1 Support rights 0.07* -0.02 0.07* 1 Legitim. Violence -0.08* 0.12* 0.04* 0.04* 1 Vote 0.10* -0.04* 0.01 -0.00 -0.07* 1 Social tolerance -0.13* 0.14* 0.01 0.03* 0.03* 0.01 1 Nationalism 0.03* 0.07* 0.14* -0.00 0.24* -0.00 0.13* 1 Pol. Ideology 0.08* -0.03* 0.04* -0.01 -0.03* 0.02 -0.11* 0.00 1 Trust individuals 0.14* -0.10* 0.08* 0.06* -0.03* -0.02 0.00 -0.05* 0.04* 1 Interpers. Alienation -0.20* 0.27* -0.03* 0.00 0.15* -0.09* -0.02 0.16* -0.03* -0.15* 1
- 18. Trust in institutions Political alienation Perception of opportunity M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Male 0.055 0.033 -0.013 -0.013 -0.012 0.001 0.010 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.012 0.020 0.005 0.002 0.005 (0.041) (0.041) (0.042) (0.042) (0.042) (0.028) (0.028) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.037) (0.037) (0.038) (0.038) (0.038) Age 0.015 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.012 -0.014** -0.012* -0.011* -0.011 -0.010 -0.040*** -0.039*** -0.037*** -0.037*** -0.037*** (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.006) (0.006) (0.007) (0.007) (0.007) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) Age2 -0.000 0.000 -0.000 -0.000 -0.000 0.000* 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Father's ed. 0.014 -0.008 -0.008 -0.007 -0.008 -0.018** -0.009 -0.011 -0.011 -0.010 -0.004 0.004 0.012 0.013 0.013 (0.012) (0.013) (0.013) (0.013) (0.013) (0.008) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.011) (0.011) (0.012) (0.012) (0.012) Mother' ed 0.079*** 0.060*** 0.062*** 0.059*** 0.061*** -0.026*** -0.019* -0.014 -0.011 -0.012 0.006 0.013 0.005 0.005 0.005 (0.014) (0.014) (0.015) (0.015) (0.015) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.013) (0.013) (0.014) (0.014) (0.014) White (omitted) Black -0.132 -0.119 -0.093 -0.091 -0.094 0.127 0.123 0.110 0.106 0.105 -0.002 -0.006 -0.016 -0.012 -0.015 (0.140) (0.140) (0.141) (0.142) (0.142) (0.097) (0.097) (0.098) (0.098) (0.098) (0.126) (0.126) (0.128) (0.128) (0.128) Indigenous -0.101 -0.051 -0.008 -0.019 -0.024 0.057 0.038 0.021 0.028 0.023 -0.075 -0.093 -0.067 -0.060 -0.075 (0.089) (0.089) (0.090) (0.090) (0.090) (0.061) (0.061) (0.062) (0.062) (0.062) (0.080) (0.080) (0.081) (0.081) (0.081) Mixed -0.132*** -0.131*** -0.103** -0.103** -0.107** 0.028 0.029 0.027 0.021 0.024 -0.092** -0.093** -0.083* -0.084* -0.086* (0.051) (0.051) (0.052) (0.052) (0.052) (0.035) (0.035) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036) (0.045) (0.045) (0.047) (0.047) (0.047) R's education 0.066*** 0.041*** 0.044*** 0.046*** -0.026*** -0.012 -0.010 -0.007 -0.024*** -0.032*** -0.032*** -0.030*** (0.009) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.006) (0.007) (0.008) (0.008) (0.008) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) Ln(income) 0.144*** -0.067*** 0.088*** (0.034) (0.023) (0.031) Lower class abs. (omitted) Lower-middle class 0.023 0.068 0.209*** (0.069) (0.047) (0.062) Middle class 0.067 0.067 0.259*** (0.080) (0.054) (0.072) Upper-middle class 0.297*** -0.185*** 0.304*** (0.097) (0.067) (0.088) Lower class rel. (omitted) Middle class rel. 0.077 -0.040 0.137*** (0.050) (0.034) (0.045) Upper class rel. 0.219*** -0.208*** 0.131** (0.070) (0.048) (0.063) Guatemala (omitted) Brazil 0.421*** 0.354*** 0.368*** 0.390*** 0.386*** -0.047 -0.020 -0.039 -0.068 -0.062 -0.925*** -0.902*** -0.910*** -0.913*** -0.902*** (0.087) (0.087) (0.087) (0.088) (0.088) (0.060) (0.060) (0.060) (0.061) (0.061) (0.078) (0.078) (0.079) (0.079) (0.079) Chile 0.712*** 0.611*** 0.606*** 0.632*** 0.662*** -0.105** -0.064 -0.083 -0.113** -0.132** -0.339*** -0.303*** -0.335*** -0.343*** -0.301*** (0.074) (0.075) (0.076) (0.076) (0.077) (0.051) (0.052) (0.052) (0.052) (0.053) (0.067) (0.068) (0.068) (0.069) (0.070) Colombia 0.568*** 0.470*** 0.441*** 0.453*** 0.445*** -0.217*** -0.179*** -0.163*** -0.185*** -0.176*** -0.678*** -0.643*** -0.572*** -0.577*** -0.575*** (0.075) (0.076) (0.080) (0.080) (0.080) (0.051) (0.052) (0.054) (0.054) (0.054) (0.067) (0.068) (0.072) (0.072) (0.072) Mexico 0.376*** 0.325*** 0.323*** 0.338*** 0.325*** -0.138*** -0.119** -0.144*** -0.165*** -0.151*** 0.191*** 0.209*** 0.198*** 0.195*** 0.199*** (0.070) (0.070) (0.070) (0.071) (0.071) (0.048) (0.049) (0.049) (0.049) (0.049) (0.063) (0.063) (0.064) (0.064) (0.064) Peru -0.081 -0.202*** -0.119 -0.116 -0.152* 0.173*** 0.218*** 0.149*** 0.121** 0.142*** -0.455*** -0.410*** -0.394*** -0.397*** -0.415*** (0.076) (0.078) (0.080) (0.081) (0.080) (0.051) (0.052) (0.054) (0.055) (0.054) (0.068) (0.070) (0.073) (0.073) (0.072) Constant -1.043*** -1.133*** -1.357*** -1.137*** -1.139*** 0.484*** 0.524*** 0.595*** 0.413** 0.461*** 1.308*** 1.340*** 1.159*** 1.145*** 1.258*** (0.231) (0.231) (0.238) (0.240) (0.236) (0.157) (0.157) (0.162) (0.163) (0.161) (0.208) (0.208) (0.215) (0.216) (0.213) R2 0.044 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.049 0.014 0.016 0.014 0.016 0.015 0.046 0.047 0.045 0.045 0.045 Observations 8,524 8,520 8,178 8,178 8,178 9,459 9,455 9,084 9,084 9,084 8,524 8,520 8,178 8,178 8,178
- 19. Trust in institutions Political alienation 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.152 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.065 0.10 0.049 0.049 0.034 0.05 0.012 0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 -0.021 -0.10 -0.10 -0.15 -0.15 -0.134 -0.20 -0.20 -0.25 -0.25 -0.30 -0.30 Education Vulnerable Lower-middle Upper-middle Education Vulnerable Lower-middle Upper-middle (0-4 $ a day) class class (0-4 $ a day) class class (10-20 $ a day) (20+ $ a day) (10-20 $ a day) (20+ $ a day) Support of individual rights under any Perception of opportunity 0.30 circumstances 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.176 0.150 0.15 0.15 0.121 0.10 0.053 0.10 0.053 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 -0.10 -0.065 -0.10 -0.15 -0.15 -0.120 -0.120 -0.20 -0.20 -0.25 -0.25 -0.30 -0.30 Education Vulnerable Lower-middle Upper-middle Education Vulnerable Lower-middle Upper-middle (0-4 $ a day) class class (0-4 $ a day) class class (10-20 $ a day) (20+ $ a day) (10-20 $ a day) (20+ $ a day)
- 20. Legitimization of political violence Voted 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.223 0.20 0.20 0.175 0.150 0.15 0.15 0.098 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 -0.032 -0.10 -0.072 -0.10 -0.15 -0.103 -0.15 -0.132 -0.20 -0.20 -0.25 -0.25 -0.30 -0.30 Education Vulnerable Lower-middle Upper-middle Education Vulnerable Lower-middle Upper-middle (0-4 $ a day) class class (0-4 $ a day) class class (10-20 $ a day) (20+ $ a day) (10-20 $ a day) (20+ $ a day) Social tolerance Nationalism 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.099 0.15 0.10 0.067 0.10 0.036 0.05 0.006 0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 -0.003 -0.10 -0.050 -0.10 -0.043 -0.15 -0.15 -0.096 -0.20 -0.20 -0.25 -0.25 -0.30 -0.30 Education Vulnerable Lower-middle Upper-middle Education Vulnerable Lower-middle Upper-middle (0-4 $ a day) class class (0-4 $ a day) class class (10-20 $ a day) (20+ $ a day) (10-20 $ a day) (20+ $ a day)
- 21. Left-right political ideology (1=left, 10=right) Interpersonal trust 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.141 0.15 0.15 0.081 0.10 0.059 0.10 0.05 0.010 0.05 0.009 0.00 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 -0.006 -0.028 -0.10 -0.047 -0.10 -0.15 -0.15 -0.20 -0.20 -0.25 -0.25 -0.30 -0.30 Education Vulnerable Lower-middle Upper-middle Education Vulnerable Lower-middle Upper-middle (0-4 $ a day) class class (0-4 $ a day) class class (10-20 $ a day) (20+ $ a day) (10-20 $ a day) (20+ $ a day) Interpersonal alienation 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05 -0.10 -0.054 -0.15 -0.20 -0.163 -0.170 -0.25 -0.30 -0.272 Education Vulnerable Lower-middle Upper-middle (0-4 $ a day) class class (10-20 $ a day) (20+ $ a day)
- 22. Trust in Institutions Perceptions of opportunity 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.311 0.40 0.189 0.226 0.166 0.20 0.20 0.114 0.059 0.040 0.00 0.00 -0.20 -0.061 -0.20 -0.194 -0.228 -0.40 -0.40 -0.331 -0.60 -0.60 -0.526 -0.80 -0.80 Ln(income) Brazil Chile Colombia Mexico Peru Ln(income) Brazil Chile Colombia Mexico Peru Social tolerance Legitimization of political violence 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.288 0.40 0.259 0.20 0.108 0.20 0.078 0.015 0.00 0.00 -0.015 -0.046 -0.20 -0.20 -0.263 -0.232 -0.40 -0.40 -0.60 -0.60 -0.472 -0.526 -0.80 -0.80 Ln(income) Brazil Chile Colombia Mexico Peru Ln(income) -0.774 Brazil Chile Colombia Mexico Peru
- 23. Conclusions • Log income is robustly associated with values – Often (but not always) in line with education, though effect is in addition to education – Much more robustly so than occupations (not shown) • We do not find however strong evidence of special “middle class values” – If any, middle class values show moderation and lay between the ones of the poor and the rich • Income (and occupation) explain much less than other variables (country effects) – Overall R squared remains very low