Summary of Solidarity and social justice in contemporary societies by Yerkes and Bal - 1st edition

Chapter 0: What is this book about?

The book Solidarity and Social Justice in Contemporary Societies was published in 2022. Mara Yerkes is Associate Professor at the Department of Interdisciplinary Social Science at Utrecht University. She is trained in social policy and sociology. Michèlle Bal is Assistant Professor in Interdisciplinary Social Science at Utrecht University as well, and she researches perceptions of justice and injustice.

This book is divided into five sections: The first section describes an introduction into the topics of solidarity and social justice (chapter 1). Then, in section 2 different theoretical perspectives on solidarity and social justice are discussed (chapter 2-6). The third section of the book describes an empirical overview of social inequalities across societal fault lines (chapter 7-16). Then, the fourth section dives into the global challenges to solidarity and social justice (chapter 17-19). Lastly, section 5 summarizes the most important conclusions (chapter 20).

Chapter 1: Why do the topics of solidarity and social justice still matter today?

What is the role of the topics of solidarity and social justice in society? 

Solidarity and social justice are necessary but contested elements in social policies aimed at combatting social inequalities in contemporary societies. Moreover, they often play a central role in public debates on these issues. This book will compare patterns of social inequality, as well as welfare state responses to and diverging public opinions on social inequality. Taking a sociological, psychological and political philosophical approach to these topics, this books offers an interdisciplinary approach to understanding solidarity and social justice in response to social inequalities in contemporary societies. 

What are the key concepts in this book?

Given their contested nature, concepts such as social justice, solidarity and social inequality are notoriously difficult to define.

• In the current book, social inequality refers to the uneven allocation of burdens and valued resources across members of society based on their group membership, in combination with the undervaluation of these members of society based on this same group membership.
• Solidarity refers to a common identity, suggesting a mutual attachment between individuals in society, both practically and normatively. 
• Social justice refers to considerations of who is deserving of what and how this is to be achieved. Usually a distinction is made between distributive and procedural justice, but more forms can be distinguished, such as the scope of justice and justice as recognition. These concepts will be discussed in later chapters. 

What is a welfare state?

Welfare states traditionally provide government-protected minimum standards of income, nutrition, health, housing and education. Social policies refer to the services, facilities and broader support of social groups through which welfare states attempt to identify and address social inequalities as well as social risks.

What are social dilemmas?

Social dilemmas refer to situations in which short-term self-interests conflict with longer-term societal interests in such a way the individuals are better off if they do not act cooperatively, but everybody is better off if everyone cooperates compared to the situation in which no one cooperates. If no one cooperates, everyone will be worse off in the end.

Self-transcending motives are motives that extend beyond the self, such as justice values and feelings of solidarity. Self-transcending motives can be contrasted with self-enhancing or egoistic motives. We distinguish is few different famous social dilemmas: resource dilemmas, public goods dilemma and the prisoner's dilemma.

• Resource dilemmas are also referred to as take-some dilemmas. It is a social dilemma in which a course of action that offers positive outcomes for the self leads to negative outcomes for the collective.
• Public goods dilemma are also referred to as give-some dilemmas. It is a social dilemma in which an action that results in negative consequences for the self would, if performed by enough people, lead to positive consequences for the collective.
• The Prisoner's dilemma is a social dilemma in which two players simultaneously face a choice between cooperating with each other or defecting, where the best outcome for Player A is the one where they defect and the other cooperates, while the worst outcome is where they cooperate and the other defects.

Chapter 2: What is the social identity theory about?

What is an important obstacle to social change?

A key task in achieving social change is inspiring people to champion the interests of disadvantages groups to which they do not belong. However, this challenge is often met with indifference, resistance and even overt hostility toward these groups. People do not only see themselves and others as individuals, but also as members of social groups. Conceiving of solidarity in intergroup terms better enables us to understand when and why people are more inclined to co-operate with and help others, or to engage in indifferent or even discriminatory behaviors. 

What is the Social Identity Theory?

The Social Identity Theory (SIT) explains how social identities influence people's orientations toward certain groups, focusing gin particular on when and why these identities facilitate intergroup animosity versus intergroup solidarity. Henri Tajfel and John Turner formulated SIT to conceptualize the influence of social identities and group membership on intergroup relations. At its core, the framework proposes that a person's self-concept ranges from being purely interpersonal to purely intergroup. 

What is social identity?

Social identity refers to the aspect of a person's identity that is defined by the social categories to which they belong and the emotional and evaluative consequences of this group membership. The salience of social identities influences how people interact with others. When group memberships are very salient, people are more likely to define themselves in terms of these social identities and make evaluative distinctions between their in-group and other outgroups. This phenomenon is referred to as social identity salience. 

Ingroup favouritism refers to the representation of the in-group as more favorable than an out-group. Outgroup derogation serves to bolster the in-group's status or image by devaluing or discriminating against relevant outgroups. This occurs when the out-group is perceived as a threat to the in-group.

How can social identities encourage intergroup animosity and resistance to social change?

Because people are emotive dot maintain a positive self-concept, the status and perceptions of the groups to which they belong are central to achieving this goal. However, when the value or image of a salient social identity is threatened, people are motivated to restore their positive identity. Although the nature and origin of these threats vary, they initiate and legitimate the expression of hostility and prejudice with the goal to protect a personally meaningful group identity. 

What types of social identity threat do we distinguish?

Distinct types of social identity threat have been proposed: distinctiveness threat and group-value threat.

• Distinctiveness threat is a specific type of social identity threat that occurs when group members perceive that their in-group identity is being eroded or subsumed by other superordinate identities. People are motivated to differentiate their in-group form other groups in order to maintain or enhance their group's distinct, positive and cohesive identity. Thus, when group members perceive that the group's identity is being eroded or subsumed by other superordinate identities, they are more inclined to react aggressively to out-groups whom they perceived as the source of this threat the the group's existence. Threat also prompts greater competition and an intensification of (sub)group identification.
• People can maintain positive feelings about their own group tot the extent that a positive comparison with another group can be achieved. However, exposure to a negative social comparison between the in-group and a relevant out-group which compromises the perceived value of the in-group can evoke in-group favouritism and/or out-group derogation as a means of defining that identity. Group-value threat is a specific type of social identity threat that occurs when a negative social comparison between the in-group and a relevant out-group compromises the perceived value and/or status of the in-group. An out-group can, for example, elicit threat directly by discriminating against the in-group or expressing hostility, leading group members to derogate the source of the threat as a means of protection.

What role does the socio-structural context play in group members' experience of threat?

The Social Identity Theory proposes that group members' experience of threat, and subsequent expression of intergroup prejudice, is determined by the socio-structural context in which groups are embedded. In particular, the experience of threat is influence day the extent to which status differences are stable and/or permeable. When there are potential or actual changes to the status quo which may erode a group's higher status, group members may endorse discriminatory attitudes and behaviors as a means of protecting their dominant position. Social change efforts which attempt to change status differences between advantaged and disadvantaged groups are therefore often met with resistance.

However, the extent to which status differences are legitimate can elicit both pro- and anti-social responses from group members. On the one hand, advantages groups can experience threat when the legitimacy of their higher status and privilege is questioned. On the other hand, highlighting illegitimate in-group advantage has also been shown to induce feelings of collective guilt among high-status group members, leading to more positive out-group attitudes and behaviors. 

How do group norms become internalized?

Social identities provide group members with norms and exceptions for behavior. When strongly identifying as a member of a social group, individuals are more likely to assimilate the norms that are prototypical of their in-group, regardless of whether they relate to prosocial or antisocial behaviors, and apply them to their own sense of self. People are more likely to engage in a particular behaviour if it is in accordance with the norms of a relevant and salient group identity. Norms play an important role in intergroup relations, such that discriminatory intergroup norms often develop which legitimate hostility and discrimination toward relevant out-groups. 

A number of group processes and identity-related motivations explain how and why discriminatory intergroup norms develop and are autonomously adopted by in-group members.

• First, group members may come to internalize and enact discriminatory norms because they are instrumentally beneficial to the in-group.
• Then, intergroup animosity and discrimination may become normative because it serves to celebrate and affirm a positively distinct social identity. The denial of out-group humanity likely emanates from the belief in the in-group's inherent superiority and 'uniquely human' identity, rather than a reactive response to threat. This suggests that discriminatory intergroup attitudes can also serve as a form of identity expression rather than a group-protection response. 

What does the Common In-group Identity Model state?

The Common In-group Identity Model (CIIM) proposed that different group representations and (re)categorizations mediate intergroup attitudes and orientations. This framework proposed that a key means to improving intergroup relations is inducing members of different groups to conceive of themselves as members of a single more inclusive and superordinate identity. Collective action refers to any action that promotes the interests of one's group or is conducted in political solidarity.

How can social identities facilitate intergroup solidarity and social change?

Particular types of social identities best facilitate intergroup solidarity. According tot the Dual Identity Model, dual identities allow group members to preserve their original subgroup identity while encouraging the simultaneous adoption of a superordinate identity shared with out-group members. Making both subgroup and superordinate identities salient decreases distinctiveness threat and promotes more positive intergroup attitudes.

In contrast, encouraging identification with a single superordinate identity can elicit distinctiveness threat and reduce action intentions among members of disadvantages groups. Politicized identification refers to identification with a social movement or opinion-based group. It is a much stronger predictor of solidarity with a disadvantaged group and of collective action that identification with category group memberships. Politicized identities are also potentially able to unite advantages and disadvantaged groups to fight for a common cause and potentially to reduce advantaged groups identifications with their advantaged identity, which prevents engagement in system-challenging forms of collective action. The Social Identity Model of Collective Action proposes that identity is both a direct and indirect predictor of collective action.

Chapter 3: What are triggers and barriers for in- and out-group solidarity?

What is solidarity?

Solidarity is essentially about common identity and sameness. This collective identity forms the foundation for intra-groep relations. Some people express solidarity with 'the other', referred to as inclusionary out-group solidarity. Some people express solidarity with 'the same', referred to as exclusionary in-group solidarity. 

What different forms of solidarity do we distinguish?

Bayertz distinguishes human solidarity, social solidarity, political solidarity, and civic solidarity.

• Human solidarity focuses on the ties between human beings, and which originally had a naturalistic group in the form of family ties and blood relations. 
• Social solidarity focuses on solidarity as the 'cement' for the cohesion of society. It relates to a shared history or a shared culture between groups of people.
• Political solidarity refers to solidarity between a group of individuals standing up for their common interests. It has a more activist connotation compared to other forms of solidarity.
• Lastly, civic solidarity refers to solidarity in the form of measures that are taken by welfare states to redistribute wealth. it forms the basic legitimation of the welfare state.

However, Bayertz does not distinguish between the subjects and the objects of solidarity. A second critique concerns the assumption of the exclusiveness underlying each of these forms of solidarity. However, solidarity is not always exclusive; inclusionary out-group solidarity also occurs.

What does social justice entail?

Social justice concerns the distribution and allocation of resources for fulfilling needs of people who deserve support, and as such it is subject of contentious, and often political debate. In general, resources could be distributed according to rights, demands, claims or wants. Expectations about who should fulfill those needs and for whom differ across forms of solidarity. 

What are the CARIN criteria?

The CARIN criteria define the conditionality of deservingness: control, need, identity, attitude and reciprocity. Van Oorschot's research shows that of these five criteria, control appears to be the most important one, follows by needs and identity. He also showed that older people, lower-educated and lower socio-economic status (SES) people appear to be stricter about the deservingness criteria that higher-educated, younger and higher SES people.

• The less control people have over their neediness, the more deserving they are of solidary actions.
• When needs are high, people are more deserving.
• The closer to 'us' people are, the more deserving they are.
• The more docile, grateful or compliant, the more deserving people are.
• Having earned support in earlier times, the more deserving people are of solidary support.

What are some sociological ideas about social justice and solidarity?

From a sociological perspective, there are several triggers and barriers to solidarity and processes of boundary drawing which affect social justice principles. Civic solidarity, or what is also more commonly referred to as collective solidarity, is situated at the macro level. Politicians and policymakers decide upon and implement social justice by measures relating to the redistribution of resources via a variety of institutions. Post-welfare states aimed to be inclusive by guaranteeing citizenship rights; related to citizens' rights to have basic needs fulfilled as a right of citizenship rather than charity. 

In general, solidarity becomes problematic when questions arise about the 'we' in solidarity, such as when new identities suddenly become prominent. These contestations lead to boundary drawing, which involves processes of inclusion and exclusion regarding the scope of justice. This occurs across civic, social and familial solidarity.

What criteria summarizes boundary drawing between citizens and non-citizens?

At the level of civic solidarity, Knijn distinguishes three criteria that simultaneously represent arguments for boundary drawing between citizen and non-citizens; territorial affectedness, sedentariness, and national belonging.

• Territorial affectedness assumes a political community whose members are equally affected by the community's decisions and therefore, have the claim to participate in making these decisions.
• Sedentariness points to the idea that citizens have long-term ties to a specific territory.
• Finally, national belonging presupposes some form of ethnic belonging to the imagined community as the pre-condition for granting citizenship. 

In what way does solidarity imply a transformative capacity?

Solidarity has a fundamentally active character, and implies a transformative capacity. Expanding solidarity to marginalized groups assumes the formation of a "politicized collective identity", which is the commitment of a group of people to address authority and majority norms in order to explain solidarity to marginalized groups. Tilly introduces the concept of opportunity hoarding, which is controlling access to resources by privileged groups, which is not so much motivated by out-group antipathy to outsiders but mainly by in-group favouritism expressed in protecting the vested interests of those already 'in' the group.

What does the Social Dominance Theory entail?

The Social Dominance Theory (SDT) explains the way in which both social discourse and individual and institutional behavior contribute to and are affected by a group-based social hierarchy, reflecting differences in power. This theory relates this to the 'profit' some groups have regarding their social and economic value.

On the micro-level, what are some psychological ideas on solidarity?

It is also possible to distinguish several triggers and barriers to solidarity and processes of boundary drawing regarding solidarity that affect social justice from a micro perspective. Solidarity is not only characterized by a political-economic structure, but also by a social-psychological structure. Triggers for social justice and solidarity ask for conscious commitment and are usually based on a shared interest or a shared trait. Boundary drawing based on identification may be a choice. Whether or not a particular social identity becomes salient, depends upon both person-variables and social context-variables. 

Identification processes matter and they vary whether it related to defining oneself and defining one's group membership. It could be argued that the difference between exclusionary in-group and inclusionary out-group solidarity is related to which 'factor' is triggered: Exclusionary in-group solidarity is triggered through opportunity hoarding and in-group favouritism. Inclusionary out-group solidarity is triggered through a broader social justice scope, leaving room for defining a cause or a need as 'unjust'.

How do individuals come to alignment of norms?

Individuals come to alignment of norms by deducing identity and norms through various information sources. Thomas claims that empowerment is the outcome for the alignment processes. Efficacy is related to the expected efficacy of the form of help that is offered. Emotion also plays a central role in motivating people for action. We distinguish between defensive anger, emotion on behalf of the self, and moral anger, emotion on behave of a (political collective).

Chapter 4: How does social justice relate to the justification of social inequalities?

In what ways is justice experienced as a great virtue?

People's reactions to injustice vary. Justice is seen as a great virtue for individuals as well as for societies.

• At the individual level, people want to be treated in a just manner and to receive just outcomes, but they also care deeply about justice don to others, especially those with whom they strongly identify.
• At the societal level, people want to live in a just society where members adhere to rules and regulations that do justice to everyone. 

What is a philosophical perspective on justice?

Philosophical questions can focus on what constitutes a just society or on how people can live in a moral and virtuous way. Both philosophical and legal perspectives on justice are mostly normative, that is, focusing on questions of what a just society or individual ought to be and do. The social sciences, on the other hand, are more concerned with descriptive questions pertaining to justice, focusing not on what ought to be, but on what is. 

What different types of justice do we distinguish?

We distinguish three different types of justice: distributive justice, procedural justice, and justice as recognition.

• Distributive justice refers to the just allocation of burdens and benefits, inputs and outcomes.
• Procedural justice refers to the fairness of the processes and treatment leading up to outcome decisions.
• Justice as recognition is a countermovement against the focus on mainly distributive justice in classical research and theorizing, in which the focus is on the degree to which individuals and groups are recognized and respected and on addressing unfair status differences between societal groups.

What does the equity theory entail?

The basic premise of equity theory is the proportionality principle, which postulates that people are assumed to judge an outcome as just or fair when their own outcome-to-input ratio equals a referent outcome-to-input ratio. People generally prefer equal outcomes for equal inputs in comparison to others. 

What does relative deprivation entail?

Relative deprivation refers to the feeling of angry resentment invoked by the judgment that a person or a group of persons are unfairly disadvantaged compared to a relevant other individual or group. Relative deprivation consist of four elements: It is (1) a combination of a comparison process, (2) of which the outcome is unfavourable, (3) which results in a label of unfairness as well (4) as negative emotions of angry resentment. Feelings of relative deprivation, and especially feelings of relative group deprivation, have been found to play an important role in people's willingness to engage in protest behaviors against social inequalities. 

In answering the question what a just distribution of burdens and benefits is, equity theory focuses on proportionality as a distributive justice principle. In later theorizing, two additional distribute justice principles were distinguished: equality and need. In situations in which people want to foster personal development, or situations primarily concerned with another person's welfare, people are willing to sacrifice some of their own benefits or resources on the others' behalf and will be most concerned with providing for those who are in need. 

How can we create just decision-making process?

A fair process is essential when people must deal with outcomes that are disadvantageous for the self. This positive effect of procedural justice on outcome judgments is called the fair process effect. But what aspects of a decision-making process are vital for procedural justice? An important determinant of procedural justice judgments is whether people have a voice in the process and whether their opinions were also considered in the decisions being made. Also consistency, impartiality, decision quality, correct ability and ethicality are also important factors. The due consideration effect refers to the positive effect of procedural aspects of the presence of these factors on people's procedural justice judgments.

What does the just-world theory entail?

Justice is very much in the eye of the beholder, meaning that similar situations can be viewed as just by one person, but considered to be a grave injustice by someone else. This subjective element in justice judgments opens avenues for these judgments to be influenced by personal motives. A victim of injustice threatens the belief in a just world (BJF), and to deal with this threat, people blame the victim, especially when more benign options to deal with the threat are difficult or costly. Studies have shown that some characteristics of the situation determine how much victims were blamed for the event. When situations posed a higher BJW threat to the observer, the victim was blamed more. People are also known to vary in the degree to which they endorse the BJW.

What does the system justification theory entail?

In the System Justification Theory, stereotypes can provide reasons for the disadvantaged position of certain groups and the advantaged position of others. As such, system justification theory provided a motivated reasoning for the use of stereotypes. 

More recently, the idea of complementary stereotypes was introduced. Complementary stereotypes are stereotypes in which positive and negative characteristics are balanced out within and between groups. These stereotypes can justify existing social inequalities, while at the same time leaving people's perception of the system and the self as fair and just intact, and the system produces balanced end-results in which no group has it all. 

Chapter 5: How is solidarity integrated in the modern welfare state?

Why is solidarity important in the modern welfare state?

Advanced welfare states provide universal access to health care and education, and institutionalize social security in case of unemployment and sickness. In normative terms, the modern welfare state is based on the image of a social contract; which is a political agreement among citizens on the terms of social cooperation, rights and obligations, involving claims on equality, equity, inclusion and inter- en intragenerational solidarity. 

The incipient shift in the normative foundations of the welfare state runs parallel to the incremental spread of social investment reform across Europe over the past two decades. The social investment perspective tilts the welfare balance towards social risk prevention, alongside compensation, in times of economic or personal hardship. The key objective of social investment is to break the intergenerational transmission of poverty.

How does Marshall describe social citizenship?

Marshall describes social citizenship rights as the 'whole range from the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society. Marshall saw the introduction of social rights as a final stage in a long evolutionary and mutually reinforcing process of emancipatory democratization. 

The universal right of protection against economic risks is known as decommodification. It is the degree to which individuals, or families, can uphold a socially acceptable standard of living independently of market participation. 

How does Rawls perceive justice?

Rawls proposed the thought experiment of the original position in which individuals are formally free and equal to deliberate and make decisions behind a veil of ignorance that deprives them of all knowledge of their personal traits, abilities and social circumstances. According to Rawls, individuals would agree on two lexically ordered principles. The principle of equal basic liberties would establish that each person is to have an equal rights to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. The second principle is divided into two sub-principles:

• The principle of fair equality of opportunities entails that social and economic inequalities must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
• The difference principle states that social and economic inequalities must be attached to the greatest benefits of the least advantaged.

What do these principles mean?

These principles are aimed at determining how social cooperation should be arranged among free and equal citizens.

• While the principle of equal basic liberties protects civil and political rights, thus delimiting a sphere of individual autonomy that cannot be violated for the sake of social goals.
• The principle of fair equality of opportunity simply stipulates that citizens with the same talents and willingness to use them should have the same social and economic opportunities regardless of their specific social circumstances.
• The difference principle goes beyond this meritocratic view of social justice, allowing for unequal remunerations only insofar they benefit all citizens and particularly those who are worst-off.

Rawls' rather stringent understanding of social solidarity is premised on the thesis that the distribution of natural endowments and talents is essentially undeserved and that, therefore, they should be regarded as common societal assets. His theory is in tune with the normative foundations of the mixed-economy. 

How does Sen perceive 'the good life'?

According to Sen, Rawls' theory is too preoccupied with the distribution of resources. He believes Rawls overlooks the fact that people face different conversion factors; personal, socio-political and environmental conditions that determine the capacity of a person to transform resources into functioning's understood as various states of doings and beings that are valuable to them. 

Sen's capability approach shifts the focus from resource constraints to capabilities; understood as a person's freedom to achieve certain functioning in light of the different personal and environmental factors. Sen's theory reflects both the flexibility and multi-purpose nature of the capability approach as well as a worrisome lack of a systematic conception of justice as the one envisaged by Rawls. 

What does the Secure Functionings Approach entail?

The Secure Functionings Approach proposes to focus on 'genuine opportunities' for 'secure functioning's' based on the following reasoning:

• When we think about capabilities, we usually do so in terms of the opportunities people potentially have.
• However, in doing so, we easily overlook that capabilities are not passive entitlements, as they require agency to strive and actually transform capabilities into functionings.
• Such choices involve obvious opportunity costs that spill-over into other valuable functionings.
• Therefore, the emphasis on genuine opportunity for secure functionings serves to highlight that real opportunities are only present when the action aimed to achieve desired functioning do not require excessive costs of additional risks that can put other important functionings into jeopardy.

How does Barr view solidarity?

Barr distinguishes between two principles of solidarity upholding the modern welfare states: Robin Hood and Piggy Bank solidarity.

• Robin Hood solidarity refers to poverty relief based on redistributing income and wealth from the rich to the poor, so as to reduce social exclusion. 
• Second, Piggy Bank solidarity alludes to social insurance over the life course, based on contribution and earnings.  

Alongside the overall integration of Robin Hood and Piggy Bank solidarity, there have been deliberate attempts to rebuild welfare programmes and to accommodate welfare policy repertoires to the new economic and social realities of twenty-first century societies.

What is social investment?

In the process, the concept of social investment gained traction. The social investment approach proposes to equip individuals, families and societies with the skills and resilience needed to navigate rapid change and uncertainty. The aim of these policies is mainly to break up patterns of self-reinforcing inequality and marginalization, while enhancing employment and productivity in the knowledge economy. 

Chapter 6: What are the important insights from welfare deservingness theory?

Who deserves what from the welfare state?

Who is considered deserving of social welfare in the public's view? Welfare deservingness can be defined as the degree to which specific social policy target groups are considered worthy of social benefits and services by the general public. We treat perceived deservingness as a continuum rather than a dichotomy. 

What does the Welfare Deservingness Model state about deservingness?

The Welfare Deservingness Model states that individual and contextual characteristics influence deservingness perception, which in turn influences the support for the social rights or obligations for this group or individual.

What individual and contextual characteristics are important when we look at deservingness?

The CARIN criteria define the conditionality of deservingness: control, need, identity, attitude and reciprocity. Van Oorschot's research shows that of these five criteria, control appears to be the most important one, follows by needs and identity. He also showed that older people, lower-educated and lower socio-economic status (SES) people appear to be stricter about the deservingness criteria that higher-educated, younger and higher SES people.

• The less control people have over their neediness, the more deserving they are of solidary actions.
• When needs are high, people are more deserving.
• The closer to 'us' people are, the more deserving they are.
• The more docile, grateful or compliant, the more deserving people are.
• Having earned support in earlier times, the more deserving people are of solidary support.

According to the deservingness framework, a target group's overall perceived deservingness depends, in first instance, on how it is evaluated on these CARIN criteria.

What do deservingness valuations entail?

The relative importance of the CARIN criteria is stretched between two extreme positions. At one end, there is the idea of a law-like hierarchy of deservingness criteria that is the same for everyone, always and everywhere. In this view, some of the criteria are simply more important than others. At the other end of the debate, there is the view that a universal, fixed rank order of deservingness criteria does not exist, because their relative important is target-specific, person-speicifc, and context-specific.

• First of all, the important of the different CARIN criteria is likely to vary across policy target groups. 
• Second, like individual and contextual factors influence deservingness perceptions, they also influence deservingness valuations. People's emphasis on deservingness and its underlying criteria is likely to be influenced by individual characteristics and preferences and depends on the broader context in which they live.

How does deservingness perception influence support?

The final step in the deservingness model embodies the idea that the overall perceived deservingness of a target group shapes the extent to which people support government involvement in granting social rights to, and imposing  social obligations on, that particular group. It is important to draw a conceptual distinction between the deservingness component and the support component of the welfare deservingness model. At first sight, it might seem that these component are basically the same thing. However, equating support with deservingness risks ignoring the fact that the support component is also driven by factors other than deservingness. 

What individual and contextual level differences exist in deservingness opinions?

For both perceptions and valuations, individual and/or contextual characteristics can either exert influence on deservingness in general, or alternatively, on specific deservingness criteria. Taken together, this leads to four potential theoretical mechanisms through which individual and contextual characteristics may shape deservingness opinions:

• Individual and contextual characteristics influence how people evaluate a target group in general, across all deservingness criteria. 
• Individual and contextual characteristics influence how people evaluate a target group on specific deservingness criteria.
• Individual and contextual characteristics may influence the importance people attach to deservingness in general, across all deservingness criteria.
• Individual and contextual characteristics influence the importance people attach to specific deservingness criteria. 

What individual level differences exist in deservingness opinions?

At the individual level, two main types of factors have been widely recognized in the literature: a structural factor, related to a person's sociodemographic position within society, and a cultural factor, relating to his or her ideological orientations towards that society. 

What contextual level differences exist in deservingness opinions?

We distinguish three general and interrelated types of context: the social-structural context, the cultural-political context, and the institutional-policy context. While the first mainly relates to economic and demographic characteristics, the second type of context refers to a broad and diverse set of cultural and political factors. The third type of context encompasses different public policies and institutions. 

According to the policy feedback literature, existing welfare policies are an important driving force of people's welfare attitudes, including their deservingness opinions. Highly selective welfare schemes may foster the stereotypical image that welfare claimants are characterized by a deeply rooted unwillingness to contribute meaningfully to society. Policy designs may also determine the importance people attach to deservingness in general.

Chapter 7: What are gender stereotypes and how do they relate to social inequality?

What are gender stereotypes?

An important dividing line in society is gender. We continuously classify people into male and female, and these categories are filled with ideas about what it means to be a man or a woman. Such ideas constitute gender stereotypes. Generally, there is a stereotype that men are and should be more competent than women, and that women are and should be warmer than men.

Where do gender stereotypes come from?

Social role theory explains how we came to think of men and women in stereotypical terms. According to this theory, gender roles have historical origins in some physical differences between men and women. These differences led men in early societies to take up more roles requiring physical work and women to take up more caring roles. Over time, this early gender segregation into separate social roles reinforced itself beyond biological differences because societies organized themselves to prepare men and women for these gendered social roles through a socialization of corresponding skills and behaviors.

How are gender stereotypes maintained?

Gender stereotypes are reinforced and maintained through processes of socialization, rewards and backlash.

• People learn these gender stereotypes early in life. Gender roles are also learned and internalized through socialization processes such as gender-specific play.
• Stereotypes are reinforced because people generally adhere to gender roles; as they want to fit in with their gender group. Adhering to roles provides them a sense of identity and belonging, which is important for health and well-being.
• Conversely, deviating from gender stereotypes results in backlash, meaning that there are social and economic sanctions for counter-stereotypical behavior. 

How do gender stereotypes relate to social inequality?

Gender stereotypes foster social inequality because they have consequences for the ways men and women are treated and for the choices they have in life. Gender stereotypes relate to social inequalities in two major life domains: paid work and care roles. Gender stereotypes restrict women's opportunities in paid work and men's uptake of care roles, because they entail negative expectations about women's competence and men's warmth. Also, positive stereotypes about women's warmth and men's competence may also feed into gender inequalities.

How do gender stereotypes relate to women in paid work?

Gender stereotypes indicating women are not as competent as men restrict women's opportunities in paid work.

• Women encounter biased job evaluations as people expect them to perform worse than men, be less ambitious, or less qualified as a leader.
• Stereotypes also undermine women's actual performance. Negative stereotypes may trigger anxiety, self-doubt and distraction, resulting in decreased performance.
• Women who are successful at work may face backlash for violating gender stereotypes and face more incivility from colleagues.

How do gender stereotypes relate to men in care roles?

Men face disadvantages and how lower participation in care roles such as parenting or care taking of other family members. The prevalent stereotype about men is that they are less warm and less capable caretakers for a baby. Men may face backlash and their masculinity may be questioned when they engage in stereotypically feminine roles, which may prevent them from pursuing care roles.

How do gender stereotypes relate to women in care roles?

Given dominant gender stereotypes, women are unlikely to be frowned upon for taking care roles. A societal discourse of intensive mothering holds women to standards of perfect parenting, ensuring children's every need is met. This ideal that women should prioritize motherhood before all other roles has several negative effects. Pressure to be a perfect mother induces guilt, stress and self-doubt, and puts mothers at risk of depression and parental burnout. Intensive mothering norms also restrict women's career investments. Beyond parenting, emphasis on women's warmth can maintain gender inequalities, evidenced by research on benevolent sexism,which emphasizes and celebrates women's warmth in a patronizing manner. 

How do gender stereotypes relate to men in paid work?

Similar to women in care roles, men taking up work roles will not commonly face devaluation. Still, positive stereotypes about men's high competence may also create very high standard to live up to. Work devotion norms prescribe the ideal worker to work full-time for their entire career, with work as the central focus of their life. 

How can gender equality be promoted?

Given the inequalities resulting from gender stereotypes, the question arises: what can be done to reduce such inequalities. In relation to negative stereotypes, initiatives can focus on the individual facing these stereotypes, aiming to improve their skills, confidence or interest in the gender-a-stereotypical domain. Also, social support from one's own and/or the other gender group in an important form or solidarity. These means help people better cope with negative stereotypes rather than changing these stereotypes.

Actions can also be taken to increase gender inequality in the face of positive stereotypes. Interventions can help people recognize overly high standards and their impact on their (partners') decisions and teach ways to cope with these standards.Also, solidarity form others can help people cope with high expectations. Of course, more effective than stimulating men and women to manage overly high expectations would be to alter these expectations.  

How can we change gender stereotypes in future generations?

Changing contemporary gender roles will also influence the aspirations and choices of future generations. Young children can also be socialized in less gender-stereotypical ways, allowing them to explore different interests. 

Chapter 8: How do perceptions of fairness and justice relate to gender inequality?

What is gender inequality?

Significant gender inequality, i.e. inequality in the treatment of individuals based on their gender and the under-appreciation of these tasks, exists in modern societies, particularly in relation to paid work, household work and care. This inequality is persistent and slow to change.

How does gender inequality relate to housework, care work and paid employment?

Gender inequality is a persistent social problem across multiple domains. Gender inequality in pair work is particularly persistent. This inequality becomes acutely evident around the birth of a child. Following the birth of a child, many women enter into flexibility arrangements that often have negative long-term effects on their careers. 

What is a social justice framework for understanding gender inequality?

Social justice frameworks have played a key role in explaining gender inequalities. Moreover, the ways in which workers perceive justice is gendered and may differ for women compared to men. Thompson proposes that questions about gender inequality in the division of care and household work are inherently about distributive justice. She critiqued previous work for paying insufficient attention to women's perceptions of fairness. Thompson shifts thinking about gender inequalities towards why women view their situation as fair, even when the situation is unequal.

What are gendered understandings of outcome values, comparison referents and justifications?

Thompson shows that when we judge whether outcomes are fair or unfair, there first needs to be agreement on what outcomes are being compared. She found that mothers place greater value on outcomes such as interpersonal relationships than on the actual amount of time fathers spend on care tasks. Applying Thompson's framework to paid work, we investigate the extent to which women value flexibility upon return to work as an outcome more than gender equal outcomes related to career progression.

The sense of fairness we experience also differs depending upon our comparison referents. Outcome values define what people desire, comparison referents define what people deserve. Empirical research suggests that women more often make within-gender comparisons than between-gender comparisons. Differences in men and women's work situation may explain variation in comparison referents. The work of Thompson and other scholars applying a justice framework suggests men and women differ in the justifications they give for unequal distributions of housework, care and paid work. 

What are justifications from a justice perspective?

Mothers' justifications for accepting flexibility arrangements that disadvantaged them in their career varies dependent upon education level and occupation. Highly educated mothers in occupations with clear career trajectories are generally aware of the one-term consequences of working flexibly, and feel these consequences are a fair exchange.  

When it comes to procedural justice principles, thinking about formal procedures and due processes, most women suggest that these principles are generally evident in their workplaces, and breaches of procedural justice in negotiating flexible arrangements are infrequent among mothers. Interactional justice, however, is a crucial aspect of return-to-work negotiations by mothers. 

What are the most important conclusions about perceptions of fairness and justice?

Outcome values differ between men and women, What people value is embedded in gendered notions of what we expect form mothers and fathers around the birth of a child. Also, our sense of fairness varies by the gendered ways in which we use comparison referents. Within-gender comparisons in highly feminized occupations can lead to a sense of fairness, whereas between-gender comparisons or an absence of comparison referents in male-dominated occupations can lead to a sense of unfairness or uncertainty about fairness. Then, while distributive justice frameworks may be useful for explaining the persistence of inequality in care and household tasks, we find that interactional justice principles, alongside distributive justice principles, are crucial for explaining the persistence of inequality in paid work.

Chapter 9: What does modern day ageism look like?

What is ageism?

Agesism refers to the belief that individual in certain periods of life systematically vary and therefore warrant differential treatment on the basis of their age. Age-based stereotyping is the cognitive process of forming beliefs and making attributions about an individual's characteristics purely on the basis of their age or perceived age. Ageism and age-based stereotyping are far from benign. They insert and normalize patterns of bias, discrimination and prejudice that pervade our daily lives, culture and institutions. 

What is generationalism?

Generationalism is the belief that all members of a given generation possess characteristics specific to that generation, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another generation. Generationalism is a form of modern ageism.

What are some age-related stereotypes?

There are a wealth of different stereotypes held about younger and older adults, many of which are structured in mutual opposition, such that where one end of the age spectrum flourishes, the other is found lacking. Generations are a long-used tool for categorizing and stereotyping individuals of different ages. The current use of generations largely owes its legacy to work by Mannheim. Generations were originally used to explain how change occurs as a function of shared exposure to influential events among individuals in similar life stages.

Members of younger generations are stereotypically categorized as lazy, narcissistic, entitled, rash, flighty, and impatient. These stereotypes are quite prevalent. Members of older generations are contrasted here as being slow and burdensome, concerned with maintaining tradition and the status quo and unwilling to adapt to new processes and technologies. Age-based stereotypes fundamentally operate upon an ageist zero-sum assumption, which means that both social resources and personal capacities are limited by population age diversity and individual ageing, respectively. Such assumptions underlie the maintenance of age-based stereotypes and modern ageism. 

What are the origins of stereotypes?

The mechanisms integral to age-based stereotype creation and continuation are interrelated, forming a network of supports and connections that reify age-based stereotypes as a common and welcome part of our social vocabulary. The first set of mechanisms, historical precedent and familiarity, refers tot the repetitive nature of age stereotypic characteristics. There is impressive consistency over time in the emergence and nature of age-based stereotype. Age-based stereotyping is not only accessible and conventional; ageism is also socially sanctioned. The construal of age-based stereotypes as humorous truths likely stems from a combination of bodily and socio-political narratives about ageing, including dialogue around growth and change as well as societal contributions and autonomy. Though younger adults believe they are autonomous, they are viewed as impetuous, threatening the stability of social structures, systems and traditions. Older adults, on the other hand, are viewed as burdens on social services, as they no longer meaningfully contribute to society and must instead rely on civic resources and others to care for them. 

In addition to being based on purportedly objective narratives, age-based stereotypes also reinforce other convenient social observations and myths. These myths give us comfortable, categorical fictions about the discreteness and sources of change. Age-based stereotypes and the ageism and generationalism that they promote, allow us to avoid the ideas that ageing and development exist on a continuum, and that there are multidirectional and unpredictable forces underlying societal change and challenges. By periodizing society and life, we make our world seem more structured and knowable. 

What is a theoretical framework behind age-based stereotyping?

One useful theoretical framework for the mechanisms behind age-based stereotyping is Social Identity Theory (SIT). According to SIT, individuals tend to categorize themselves into groups on the basis of various social categories such as age, gender and other types of affiliations. Through these categorizations, perceptions of in-groups and out-groups are formed and ingrained. Depending on the nature of individual's perceptions about these categorizations, younger people may be more motivated to identify strongly with their age-based in-group, pushing away from older people in an attempt to promote their own self-esteem, personal identity and a sense of belonging. 

Why may age-based stereotyping be more prevalent in the workplace?

The categorization of individuals based on age may be particularly prevalent in specific contexts, where age-related differences may be more salient. A context such as an organization may provide a particularly ripe environment for age-based in- and out-group categorizations to emerge. Existing stereotypes about specific groups may provide the basis for social categorization. On the other hand, existing stereotypes about a particular group may serve to reinforce some already established social categorization, further solidifying the separation between groups. In the latter case, individuals may feel further validated by perceived membership of a particular group. 

How does the stereotype content model view age-based stereotyping?

The Stereotype Content Model (SCM) proposes that people universally differentiate others on the dimensions of warmth and competence. Older people are stereotypically viewed as being high on warmth but low on competence. Younger people are, on the other hand, stereotypically viewed as low on warmth but high on competence. Thus, when individuals categorize themselves on the basis of age, one prevalent stereotypical way to distinguish themselves may be along these dimensions. Furthermore, seeing older adults as less competent may lead to actualized judgements or discriminatory behaviors in contexts where competence is critical. 

What are the consequences of age-based stereotypes?

Stereotypes are not only deeply embedded in our society; they also have profound effects on individuals and the groups to which they belong. Research has linked ageism to poorer health outcomes and higher healthcare costs, in addition to isolation, fewer labor and training or educational opportunities, and less health-conducive lifestyle habits. Considering one age-salient life domain in particular, the workplace, a number of adverse outcomes results from modern ageism and generationalism. Employment contexts are ripe with age-based discrimination toward both younger and older adults. These can manifest in areas as diverse as hiring practices, permanence appraisal criteria and ratings, training and development, mentoring and leadership, and experienced exclusion or perceived stereotyping from co-workers and others in the workplace. 

By relying on and perpetuating age-based stereotypes, we not only further age-based discrimination, but we set out and ignore many layers of complexity, individuality and agency. People belonging to certain age groups vary greatly in their interests, preferences and attributes. 

How can modern ageism be countered?

Age-based stereotypes clearly have a long-lasting legacy. To counter modern ageism, some specific shifts in the academic and applied communities are proposed:

• First, a shift must take place toward a lifespan perspective on age within and across life contexts, which better accounts for individuality, nuance and multiple sources of influence in the ageing and development process. Concretely, we should end our use of generational labels and tropes in research, practice and popular culture.
• Second, we need to adopt more inclusive definitions of "successful ageing" and inclusive, evidence-based practices and policies to accompany them. 
• Intentional awareness-building around the origins of age-based and generational stereotypes will help us move into the right direction. Overall, attention to the scope and impact of modern ageism, to the purposes and people age-based stereotypes save and harm, will aid in a more socially just society. 

How should we deal with generationalism?

The theoretical perspectives on stereotypes provide insight into how ageism and generationalism might be death with.  

• Attempts can be made to eliminate the presence or existence of ageist beliefs or stereotypes in the first place.
• Also, focus could instead be placed on mitigating the potential negative impacts of these beliefs and stereotypes. By ensuring that individuals are equally exposed to a variety of different-aged co-workers, individuals may feel more similar to one another than different. 

In terms of mitigating the negative impacts of ageism, the Stereotype Content Model provides some insight as well. Given the prevalence of the stereotype that older adults are less competent, efforts could be made to provide younger and older adults with opportunities to recognize their own competencies. Similar efforts could also be made with respect to other age-based stereotypes.

Chapter 10: Is the intergenerational social contract under pressure?

What does intergenerational solidarity entail?

Intergenerational solidarity refers to solidarity between generations, concerning the degree to which people from different generations support each other's well-being.

Why is intergenerational solidarity a concern in Europe nowadays?

Whether intergenerational solidarity from the young to the old is under pressure is a concern of many European governments. This concern is mainly inspired by increasing welfare expenses due to population ageing, which are carried disproportionately by a decreasing active share of the population. Such inequity could eventually lead to a break of the social contract that spans generations. This concern is further exacerbated by the belief that modernization has eroded general feelings of solidarity, especially between age groups. 

To evaluate tensions in the intergenerational social contract, a strand of studies addresses the issue on the basis of public opinion surveys that ask about people's attitudes towards welfare provision for the elderly. The idea is that large age gaps in such preferences, where older people would be much more supportive and younger people much less, would signal problematic intergenerational solidarity. The possibility for an intergenerational solidarity conflict between both sides of the age spectrum, or the possibility of an 'age war', would be stronger if one would not only find that younger people support welfare for the elderly substantially less that older people, but also, if the elderly in turn would show lower support for provisions for younger generations. 

Is there an age war in Europe?

Since the early 1980s, a vivi debate about the costs of population ageing has taken place in the United States. Proponents of the 'grey peril' idea sketch a future in which a growing older population increasingly composed of middle class and politically active retirees voting in their self-interest could fuel conflict between age groups. This idea of a growing political force questioning the allocation of welfare to younger cohorts is not absent in Europe either. Yet, European political agendas are particularly concerned about the expected increase in pension and health care costs and the related strain on intergenerational solidarity and equity.

In spite of these political concerns, scientific studies on a possible age war are limited and are mainly concerned with opinions on welfare provision for the elderly. It was suggested that younger people will be reluctant to engage in a war over welfare with the elderly. strong ideological barriers, too, would refute the idea of an age war, in the sense that among the young, elderly are also seen as highly deserving of welfare provisions. Based on empirical studies, one might not expect large age cleavages in support of provisions for the elderly. 

What study was conducted to study the mechanisms underlying age conflicts in welfare attitudes?

A study was conducted to study the effect of welfare attitudes on age conflicts. The starting point is two sets of variables that were found tot affect opinions in the general welfare attitudes literature: variables that indicate people's interest position towards welfare provision and ideological variable which indicate people's ideological stance towards welfare position. In relation to people's interest position, people in weaker socio-economic positions are generally found to be more pro-welfare. In relation to ideology, it has been shown repeatedly that political left-right stance is important, in the sense that leftist people are generally more supportive of welfare, as are people who perceive vulnerable groups as larger and thus believe there are greater social needs in society.

To control for the degree to which the attitudes that were measured regarding provisions for elderly and younger people were confounded by a general positive or negative attitude to welfare redistribution by the state, 'general support for welfare redistribution' was included as a mediating variable. It was assumed that elderly people, compared to younger people, are generally more in support of welfare redistribution. 

What were the results of this study?

The relationship between age and support for elderly welfare provisions was small, and a bit curvilinear. With regard to the mediators, while socioeconomic status is generally regarded to be a determinant of welfare attitudes, in the case of this study it was observed that the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics were inconsistently related to support for age-specific welfare programs:

• Education was negatively related to support for the elderly, implying that the lower educated particularly favour more welfare intervention for the old.
• A small negative effect of reported income on support for elderly welfare services was observed. By contrast, a positive effect of reported income on support for childcare provisions exists: People with higher incomes were slightly more supportive of such welfare provision.
• Being dependent on welfare is related to having stronger supportive attitudes towards welfare intervention for both the elderly and childcare provisions.
• Finally, while having children at home doe snot affect one's attitude towards elderly welfare provisions, it is positively related to support for childcare provisions.

What were the most important conclusions of this study?

The regression analysis confirmed that age gaps do exist, but they are very small. The main conclusion is that there is little to no evidence of an 'age war' in Europe. Age-related motivations are a little bit stronger regarding attitudes towards welfare state responsibility for elderly provisions than in childcare provisions. One possible interpretation is that all else being equal, support for elderly welfare provision is more closely tied to particular phases across the lifespan than support for childcare service. 

Chapter 11: How do we study socioeconomic inequalities in health?

What is a socioeconomic position?

Socioeconomic position (SEP) refers to the position members of social groups hold in the societal hierarchy. As such, SEP has an important impact on life chances. It determines people's access to resources within society, such as money, power, or prestige, and their exposure to advantaged and disadvantaged conditions, which leads to social inequality. In general, people with a higher SEP have a more favourable life in terms of physical, social, cultural and financial circumstances.

What are the consequences of the limited social interaction between people of different social classes?

The limited interaction with and exposure to people belonging to different social classes has been shown to diminish tolerance and sympathy for those in other social classes, which influences perceptions about fairness and social justice. This distance also leads to substantially different political preferences and cultural tastes between higher and lower socioeconomic groups. Limited interaction between social classes negatively influences beliefs about the deservingness of those who are worse off. This created challenges for solidarity and social justice, and further strengthens class segregation with potentially severe consequences for those with a lower SEP.

How does the socioeconomic position of people influence their health?

An important life domain that is highly influenced by SEP is health. Those in higher socioeconomic groups generally experience better health, live fewer years with diseases and disabilities, and die at older ages than those in lower socioeconomic groups. These health differences between lower and higher socioeconomic groups are not simply referred to as differences but as inequalities. The term socioeconomic inequalities in health indicates that these health differences are unfair, unjust, unnecessary and avoidable and should be reduced. Socioeconomic inequalities in health are persistent and observed world-wide. 

How can we define and measure socioeconomic position?

Hierarchy and inequality are inevitable in any society. Welfare schemes, which generally rely on underlying solidarity with others, enable the redistribution of wealth and minimize inequities in a society to some extent. Despite this, SEP still varies widely between individuals within countries, with important consequences for the life opportunities, health and well-being of those with a lower SEP. 

SEP is most commonly operationalized by three different indicators in empirical work: highest attained educational level, type of education and income. Although the three main indicators of SEP are inherently associated, each indicator can lead to different results, magnitudes and interpretations of the causal mechanisms that contribute to socioeconomic inequalities. Therefore, the choice of a particular indicator of SEP in empirical research is not so straight-forward.

What does the intersectionality framework entail?

Although research often examines SEP indicators individually, the experience of individuals are rarely restricted to one layer. The intersectionality framework states that multiple social categories intersect at the micro level in forming one's individual experience. Research has indicated that the accumulation of disadvantages is greater than the sum of effects of individual disadvantages when we look at SEP. The intersectional approach enables researchers to identify a group at particular risk of health inequalities as a result of discrimination. In addition to traditional indicators of SEP like education, income and occupation, SEP can be operationalized as a subjective measure, which we call self-perceived SEP. Self-perceived SEP may capture the individual experience of SEP ore broadly and the intersectionality of social class with other social identities better than traditional indicators of SEP. 

Why do we feel more and more relatively deprived in modern society?

Comparing your own SEP to others' SEP can lead to the experience of relative deprivation. This refers to the extent to which a person or social group is deprived compared to others in society. In highly unequal societies, relative deprivation is larger than in less unequal societies. The idea of determining perceived SEP by making comparisons with neighbours through displays of material wealth is persistent in modern societies and contributes to materialism. While comparing yourself to others within your social category used to be more common than comparing yourself to those higher up the social ladder, this seems to have changed. In modern society, we are bombarded with relative deprivation-provoking cues. Through targeted advertising and social media, comparisons of social status can be continuously communicated. 

What are SEP-related stereotypes?

SEP is also experienced through SEP-related stereotypes, which are cultural products that support gaps between those with low and high SEP. Those with a high SEP are often viewed as more competent but cooler, and those with a low SEP are viewed as less competent and warmer. Findings about SEP-related stereotypes have been relatively consistent for different measures of SEP, although especially for occupation, other attributes like trustworthiness may play a significant role within groups defined by SEP. At the societal level, the amount of inequality also impacts stereotype perceptions. In more unequal countries, status is more strongly linked with competence, reinforcing the stereotype that people with a lower SEP are considered less competent. All in all, inequality penalizes the perceived competence of people with a lower SEP and penalizes the perceived warmth of those with a higher SEP. 

What are the consequences of SEP for health and well-being?

Overall, those in low socioeconomic groups experience poorer health than those in high socioeconomic groups. These inequalities are observed for many health indicators; life expectancy, chronic diseases, different types of cancers, and respiratory diseases. While it is clear that socioeconomic inequities in health exists, there are two competing hypotheses about the direction of the relationship between SEP and health:

• The hypothesis of social selection posits that being in poor health can, over time, lead people to either drift to a lower socioeconomic group or fail to move to a higher socioeconomic group. 
• The social causation hypothesis, on the other hand, posits that experiencing disadvantaged SEP leads to an increased risk of poor health via different underlying mechanisms. 

Although there is evidence for both hypotheses, the social causation hypothesis has been studied most often in the field of social epidemiology. This field studies the explanatory mechanisms on which policies and interventions could intervene to reduce inequalities.

What approaches do we distinguish within the social causation hypothesis?

Within the social causation hypothesis, multiple explanations for socioeconomic inequities have been put forward, including material, psychosocial and behavioral approaches. All three approaches propose certain intermediary mechanisms that drive the effect of SEP on health. 

• The materialist approach focuses on material resources, like income, and what those resources enable in terms of population health.
• The psychosocial approach focuses on the unequal social distribution of psychosocial risk factors, such as self-esteem and social support, and the impact of those risk factors on health.
• The behavioral approach emphasizes the role of health-related behavior, as lower socioeconomic groups are generally more likely to practice unhealthier behaviors than higher socioeconomic groups.

While the three approaches were developed separately, they are not mutually exclusive. The three factors all play a role in shaping health. The mechanisms driving socioeconomic inequities in health are numerous, multi-leveled, interrelated and complex. 

What are social determinants of health?

Depending on the definition of SEP as well as the mechanisms deemed central to explaining health inequities, different policy approaches are likely to be taken. The role of the individual is key in the behavioral approach, leading to interventions like health education that place the responsibility for changing health behaviours and outcomes of the individual. Many policy initiatives aim to address health inequalities by targeting the root of the issue; the social determinants of health. These are the non-medical factors that influence one's health, including a wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life, such as education, healthcare, working conditions, housing, safety and social inclusion. 

The tendency of policy-makers to circle back to lifestyle factors instead of structural factors is referred to as the lifestyle drift: The tendency of policymakers to focus on lifestyle- and disease-related factors instead of the social determinant of health while aiming to address socioeconomic health inequalities. The lifestyle drift not only takes away resources from targeting structural factors but has been suggested to contribute to the widening of socioeconomic inequalities in health, which likely has an adverse impact on solidarity because these types of policies unfairly place blame and responsibility on disadvantaged individuals. There is a need to move from the lifestyle and individual responsibility viewpoint to a focus on health equity, addressing social determinants of health and enabling equal opportunities for healthy behavior across all layers of society, thereby increasing social justice. However, the size of socioeconomic inequalities in health in a society can challenge solidarity, and specifically people's willingness to contribute to the costs of healthcare and disease prevention. SEP-related stereotypes influence and are influenced by the social policies that are in place to address health inequalities.

Chapter 12: How does deservingness relate to socio-economic cleavages?

What are perceptions of deservingness?

In political decision-making processes, public perceptions of the deservingness of specific groups receiving welfare state support, benefits and services can be important for either preventing cutbacks or making them more publicly acceptable. Those perceptions can also be important in supporting the development of new, more generous welfare state policies or deterring their implementation. Research shows that perceptions of deservingness vary according to individual characteristics, self-interest, ideological preferences, and institutional context, as these influence the type of policies being supported or views on the deservingness of specific groups. Taking socio-economic cleavages into account is vital when attempting to gain an understanding of the conditions of rising social inequalities in European countries. 

How does the deservingness theory relate to socio-economic differences?

People apply various criteria when thinking about what help and support people deserve from the welfare state. Based on these criteria, it seems there is a pattern of ranking various groups. Europeans relatively consistently rank older people, as well as those who are sick and/or disabled as more deserving, whilst ranking the unemployed, people receiving social assistance and, in particular, immigrants, as less deserving. There are, however, significant individual differences in perceptions based on age and political preferences.

How can we rank the relationship between deservingness perceptions and socio-economic differences?

When we put the ranking of various groups in society into the context of socio-economic differences, the literature offers insights into three different dimensions.

• The first dimension related to the socio-economic position of (potential) beneficiaries. Perceived need often means that the poor are ranked lower on the deservingness scale than those with middle or higher incomes.
• The second dimension is the reasoning behind rankings. A lower ranking of people in weak socio-economic positions has been linked to the role of stereotypes play in forming attitudes. The perceptions of people being, for example, lazy, are often linked to gendered and racial stereotyping. 
• The third dimension of the relationship between deservingness perceptions and socio-economic differences related to the socio-economic position of people. Income and education affects individual attitudes towards welfare programmes and how indivudals rank deservingness. Individuals with a higher SES are found to be believe that individuals are in control of their own life, and they therefore emphasized control criteria. Also, the position of lower SEP individuals towards immigrant is more exclusionary, in line with literature on welfare chauvinism or welfare nationalism. This is the political belief that welfare benefits should be only or primarily provided to natives of a certain country. 

What study was conducted towards deservingness perceptions in Slovenia and Germany?

A case study was conducted towards deservingness perceptions in Slovenia and Germany. To stimulate discussion, focus group anticipants received different vignettes of target welfare groups: an unemployed person, a retired elderly person who was previously employed, a family with a median income and two children, a person with a low income, and a person with a high income, and a migrant. For each vignette, the group was asked what social benefits and services the person(s) should receive and why, as well as what should be demanded from the person(s) and why. A discussion was brought about revolving around rights, entitlements, conditions, obligations, responsibilities, needs and deservingness. At the end of the discussion, each participant was asked to rank the vignettes according to who is most deserving of welfare state support and who is the least deserving.

What were the results of this study?

The groups were relatively unanimous in their positions towards the bottom end of the deservingness scale: the well-off person is ranked at the lowest positions. For the top positions, there was no apparent unanimity: The unemployed, the old person, the family and the immigrant scattered across all four focus groups. However, an interesting pattern appears when taking a closer look at the German and Slovenian focus groups: In Slovenia, the unemployed rank first in both groups, whereas in Germany, the old person and the family share the top deservingness positions. While the arguments for the lower deservingness of immigrant and well-off earners were very similar in Slovenia in Germany, both the ranking and the reasoning behind this ranking differed for the unemployed vignette. In Slovenia, this resulted in high deservingness, mostly due to a high perceived need and lack of control. In Germany, this resulted in medium deservingness due to a perceived lack of need combined with individual control. 

What are the most important conclusions when we look at deservingness perceptions?

Deservingness is a complex phenomenon that is linked to among others, context and institutional settings, group identity and individual characteristics. Even though participants in both countries emphasized criteria of control and need, their deservingness ranking differed.

• They judged the deservingness of an unemployed benefit recipient vary low in Germany and very high in Slovenia, due to contextual differences in the unemployment and economic situation in both countries, as well as potentially different stereotypical and media representations of the unemployed. 
• Furthermore, interesting differences arose when observing the distinctions in which criteria were applied and the perceptions of deservingness between the participants with higher versus lower SEP backgrounds. One of the most striking disparities was the attitude towards immigrants: those with a lower socio-economic background placed this group much lower in the deservingness scale. This can be explained by self-interest theory linked to the welfare chauvinism literature, which indicates an important part of deservingness perceptions are driven by fears of losing jobs and welfare state benefits and services to immigrants.
• We also saw that the identity criterion was stronger among lower socio-economic groups, while need was emphasized in higher socio-economic groups, showing different deservingness valuations due to SEP. These differences can also be interpreted in the context of class and social identity theories.

Chapter 13: What are different public perceptions of immigrants and their consequences for solidarity?

What does an ethnic hierarchy entail?

Immigrants are generally perceived as less friendly and less economically successful than the non-migrant population. As a consequence of such stereotypes, immigrants are seen to occupy lower places in an ethnic hierarchy and can be seen as a source of threat. An ethnic hierarchy is a cumulative sequence of preferences for or societal acceptability of ethnic groups based on the stereotypes that are held about them. Fears about competition over economic resources as well as about attacks on national culture and identity are prominent in the discourse on the management of immigration and diversity, and these fears are frequently mobilized by political actors who advocate for more stringent migration and integration policies. Research has shown that stereotypes and intergroup threats are two central explanations of negative attitudes, a.k.a. prejudice, and behavior, a.k.a. discrimination, directed against immigrants in Western societies. 

What are common stereotypes about immigrants?

Social Identity Theory (SIT) was developed to explain intergroup conflict, prejudice and discrimination in society and stereotypes play an important role in this theoretical perspective. In this context, stereotypes have been conceptualized as the cognitive aspects of prejudice that produce specific behavioral intentions in combination with the emotions that they elicit. Qualitative and cross-cultural research reveals an abundance of different derogatory terms used for immigrant groups and their alleged 'national character;. Groups that are more economically successful are generally rated higher on competence, and groups that are more strongly perceived as competitors for resources are rated lower on warmth.

How do stereotypes form barriers for inter-ethnic solidarity in the context of immigration?

Because of their implications for prejudicial feelings and discriminatory behavior toward immigrant-origin ethnic minorities, negative outgroup stereotypes have been the topic of a large body of research. When comparing a range of groups within the same society in terms of the content and (positive versus negative) valence of the stereotypes that are held about them, a hierarchical structure is typically revealed where majority members are at the top and described in most positive terms. Different immigrant groups subsequently follow in a specific order, such that some groups are seen as more similar to the majority and are more positively stereotyped whereas others occupy the lowest rungs of the ethnic hierarchy. In the Netherlands, for instance, post-colonial migrants from Suriname and the Dutch Antilles are typically perceived as nicer and more culturally similar than former 'guest worker' and prevalent Muslim immigrant groups form Turkey and Morocco. 

Notably, minority members have been found to agree with many of the group stereotypes and rank other minority groups in an order that is consistent with majority perceptions. Research on ethnic hierarchies reveals the complexity of group stereotypes in terms of how multiple groups are positioned vis-a-vis each other. According to the stereotype content model, stereotypes of out-group are often mixed rather than uniformly positive or negative, and the specific combination of competence and warmth stereotypes shapes emotional and behavioral reactions to out-groups.  

What does ethnic discrimination entail?

Ethnic discrimination can be understood as a behavioral response to emotions of envy elicited by group stereotypes that reflect high competence and low warmth to the extent that it occurs consciously with the goal to exclude immigrant form specific social positions. Ethnic out-groups with the opposite pattern of mixed stereotypes are likely to encounter quite different treatment: If a group is seen as warm but incompetent, it is met with pity and paternalistic behaviors. Finally, ethnic groups that are perceived to be neither warm nor competent face contempt as prevalent emotional reaction and elicit both active and passive forms of harmful behavior. 

The Stereotype Content Model (SCM) helps us understand why different immigrant groups elicit different emotions and behavioral reactions, depending on their expected contributions to the national economy of the receiving society and the competition for material and symbolic resources that they are perceived to engender. Many specific types of attitudes, emotions and behaviors towards immigrants can be understood from this general model based on the two core dimensions of stereotype contents; warmth and competence.

What is the difference between symbolic and realistic threat?

When there are different ethnic groups present in a society, there can be competition over resources. This competition does not even have to be real; as long as people perceive it, this can have consequences for their reactions to the 'rival' out-group. Depending on the type of resource at stake, we can distinguish between realistic and symbolic threats as two main sub-dimensions of ethnic threat.

• Realistic threat refers to threat to tangible scarce resources that are crucial for one's group's material well-being (such as jobs and houses), but also threats tot the physical well-being of the group (such as crime).
• Symbolic threat refers to threat to intangible group resources such as culture, norms and values.

Immigration can trigger perceptions of realistic threat, both in terms of economy and safety. Next to realistic threat, immigration can also trigger perceptions of symbolic threat. Immigrants crossing international borders often bring along culture and traditions that are different form those of the host society, and their prescience can be experienced as threatening to the continuity of the local culture and the general way of life. Symbolic threat in response to cultural differences introduced by immigration tends to be experienced more by host society members who are politically conservative as opposed to liberal. Similarly, those who highly identify with their national identity are more sensitive to perceiving symbolic threat when thinking about racial and ethnic diversity. This is because conservatives and higher national identifiers are more concerned with maintaining the cultural values and traditions of their nation.

How can threat perceptions form barriers for host society's solidarity with immigrants?

Researchers have examined the consequences of realistic and symbolic threat perceptions for intergroup relations. Studies using an overarching measure of threat perceptions have shown that ethnic threat is positively associated with voting for anti-immigrant political parties, support for collective action against refugees, and the refusal to grant rights to immigrants, and is negatively associated with out-group trust. 

However, which type of threat, so realistic versus symbolic threat, matters more for intergroup outcomes is dependent on contextual factors. Realistic threats tend to matter when the economic conditions are declining, and symbolic threats in contexts with clear cultural differences. Negative stereotypes have been related to negative feelings via higher symbolic threat, in line with the Intergroup Threat Theory, that states that stereotypes are a precursor of threat. The role of threat differs when it comes to immediate versus long-term reactions to immigration as well. Altogether, there is evidence that immigration and the related stereotypes of immigrants can bring about perceptions of both realistic and symbolic threat, and that threats can trigger negative attitudes and behavioral intentions toward immigrants. 

Chapter 14: What does welfare chauvinism entail?

What is the difference between the neoliberal multiculturalism model and the welfare chauvinism model?

The progressive force of nationhood is widely disputed since it is often linked to the exclusion on non-nationals. However, nationhood also contributes to sustaining welfare states. For welfare state development, the choice appears to be the lesser of two 'evils': inclusion without solidarity or solidarity without inclusion.

• The neoliberal multiculturalism model is a national model in which policies stimulate mobility and relative openness towards immigrants, but with low levels of welfare state arrangements and welfare generosity. This model pursues a more open nation, with high levels of mobility and immigration but with decreasing levels of welfare state arrangements and generosity. This model champions mobility, also of immigrants, over national solidarity.
• The welfare chauvinism model is a national model in which policies restrict migration, combined with high levels of generous welfare state arrangements to which newcomers have limited access. This model pursues a nation that trumps in-group solidarity and upholds high levels of welfare state arrangements and generosity. However, in order to guarantee welfare state affordability and support, the welfare state in this model is exclusive, thereby restricting immigration. 

What is the difference between hard and soft welfare chauvinism?

Andersen and Bjorklund introduced the term welfare chauvinism referring to the attitude that welfare services should be restricted to our own.

• An attitude expressing this wish to exclude immigrants from welfare state benefits and arrangements and never giving them access to these benefits is labelled as hard welfare chauvinism. In this most extreme form of welfare chauvinism, people are likely to prefer no immigration altogether because for the burden it is thought to place on the welfare state.
• Soft welfare chauvinism refers to granting immigrants access to the welfare state, but under certain conditions. These conditions relate to, for example, the duration of residency within the country.

How does welfare chauvinism relate to the welfare deservingness literate?

Welfare chauvinism and welfare deservingness literature are closely related. Within this literature, immigrants are identified as one of the several relevant groups whose perceived deservingness to access welfare resources is debated. The Identity principle in the CARIN criteria includes the perception of deservingness based on national identity. The exclusion of immigrants from welfare state benefits and services is often related to this principle.

How can welfare chauvinism be explained?

To explain welfare chauvinism, theories address (1) general support for the welfare state, (2) attitudes towards immigrants and (3) egalitarian attitudes. 

• Welfare chauvinism is supported because people reject a (generous) welfare state altogether.
• Welfare chauvinism is also explained by unfavourable attitudes towards immigrants. Ethnic competition theory offers insights into this factors. The axiom here is that groups in society compete over scarce resources. When immigrants are not perceived as in-group members, competition exists between natives and immigrants.
• Then, welfare chauvinism can be understood through support for egalitarianism; which is the idea that people are equal and deserve equal rights. 

What is the incidence of welfare chauvinism in the Netherlands and Europe?

In the domain of healthcare, the majority of Dutch natives, namely 60 percent, think immigrants should have immediate access after registering as a resident. This finding also implies that 40 percent of individuals disagree with the current policy that grants immigrants immediate access to healthcare.

In most European countries, people hardly express welfare chauvinism, but soft welfare chauvinism is prevalent. Another important conclusion from research towards welfare chauvinism in Europe is that Central and eastern European countries show a strong increase in hard welfare chauvinism in the past 15 years, whereas Portugal and Spain stand out in the opposite direction. One likely explanation for these opposing change sin attitudes is the refugee crisis that began in 2015, which led to quite different reaction across European countries. Whereas Central and Eastern European countries expressed very little solidarity with regress, Spain and Portugal expressed empathy. 

Chapter 15: What is the role of stigmatized sexual and gender identities and minority community solidarity in social inequalities in well-being?

What do gender identity and gender conformity entail?

Over the past two decades, changes in social norms and laws occurred in many, mainly Western countries, reflecting increased social acceptance and equal rights of people in same-sex relationships. However, heteronormativity, the presumption and privileging of gender conformity and heterosexuality, prevails and affects the lives of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, and of other sexual orientation, or gender minority people. Sometimes this chapter also refers to research on transgender people. Sexual orientation is a multidimensional construct, encompassing sexual attraction, sexual behavior, and sexual identity. These components need not overlap, as, for instance, same0sex attracted people may not sexually act on their erotic desires, and people with same-sex experiences may not personally or publicly identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual.

How does social inequality affect lesbian, gay and bisexual people?

Acceptance of non-heterosexuality is more and more common. In many countries, younger generations, women, higher educated people and non-religious people are more accepting of homosexuality. Nevertheless, social acceptance is also increasing and conforming to dominant attitudes in minority population groups with traditionally more conservative views of homosexuality.

Despite the positive developments in legal frameworks and social acceptance, social inequalities persist between LGB people and their heterosexual peers. Increasing evidence shows that sexual orientation is associated with social inequalities in physical health, including poor self-rated health, increased risk of cancer, and higher rates of diagnoses of chronic condition. LGB people also experience earlier all-cause mortality than heterosexual people. Findings also showed that higher death rates in LGB people are more likely to use alcohol and other drugs, and to experience abuse or dependence on substances. LGB people are more likely to experience depression and anxiety and are more likely to make use of mental health services. 

What are different societal views of sexual orientations and gender identities?

The social disapproval of LGB people is deeply rooted in many religious teaching, notably the prohibition of sodomy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as immoral and against the laws of nature. This prohibition at some point because enshrined in criminal laws in many countries, and the criminalization of consensual same-sex activities prevails in some former British colonies and Muslim-Majority countries in Africa and Asia. In 2020, the death penalty was required or possible for consensual same-sex activity in 11 of the countries that criminalize same-sex practice. 

The American Psychiatric Association only removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973. Nevertheless, conversion therapies, which are therapies aimed at 'curing' homosexuality, are still practiced nowadays. However nowadays, in many Western countries, the dominant view of homosexuality is that it is a natural variation and not in any case a choice reflecting a changeable preference. 

How does social stigma affect the well-being of LGB people?

Contemporary research and theorizing of the increased mental health problems of LGB people sees these as caused by the social environments in which LGB people experience social disapproval. Various terms are used to refer to the social disapproval experienced by LGB people, including homophobia, homonegativity, heterosexism, and heteronormativity. While distinct, these terms all reflect that non-hetereonormativity people often experience social stigma. Goffman identifies social stigma as an attribute that is deeply discredited by society and reduces the person "from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one".

Socially stigmatized individuals are likely to experience societal rejection and a negatively evaluated social identity. Social stigma has been posited as a fundamental cause of social inequalities in health. Social stigma and its impacts results from consecutive social psychological processes that start with placing LGB people in a separate category that is labelled as deviant in society. Negative stereotypes become attached to this label. Status loss can result in discrimination of LGB people, which may be overt and blunt, or covert and subtle. LGB discrimination is multidimensional, including general discrimination, verbal or physical victimization, and healthcare discrimination. 

How does the minority stress theory relate to this process?

The Minority Stress Theory posits that social stigma and discrimination adversely affect the health and well-being of LGB people because they experience unique stressors related to their sexual orientation, in addition to general stressors that everyone can experience. Minority Stress Theory distinguishes between distal and proximal minority stressors. 

• Distal minority stressors are objective, stressful events and conditions that can be one-off or repeat occurrences. Distal minority stressors affect the health and well-being of LGB people through proximal minority stressors.
• Proximal minority stressors are subjective experiences, and encompass expectations of rejection, concealment of one's sexual orientation, and internalized negative societal attitudes, commonly referred to as internalized homonegativity or internalized homophobia.

Minority Stress Theory underscores that self-identification can also be a source of strength, by providing opportunities for affiliation, social support, and coping. Social support and coping resources, that may originate from community or family, can buffer the impact of minority stressors, and include individual strengths, such as self-esteem and pride. 

What is the effect of sexual identity concealment on mental health?

A review of almost 200 studies found a small, positive association between sexual orientation concealment and mental health problems. This findings may reflect a negative effect of the stress of hiding one's sexual orientation, and/or absent or limited access to community support. A small, negative association was found between sexual orientation concealment and substance use problems. This may reflect that people who conceal their sexual orientation are likely less involve din LGB communities and less exposed to substance use norms and practices. LGB people experience better mental health if they develop pride in their sexual identity and can integrate their sexual identity as one aspect of a broader self-concept.

What does the development of sexual identity in LGB people entail?

Conceptualizing sexual orientation as a naturally varying, inborn characteristic implies that, at some point in their life, LGB people become aware that their sexual interests are different from the majority of people. This awareness typically arises during adolescence by may also occur at a later age. Awareness for one's non-normative sexual orientation poses psychological and social challenges related to self-acceptance as well as public disclosure.

The process of sexual identity formation is predominantly captured in so-called stage models of sexual identity development that have been proposed and critiqued since the 1970s. Stage models start with a denial stage, followed by gradual recognition and acceptance. Subsequently, a period of experimentation with sexual attraction and/or sexual behavior is thought to occur, as well as a growing sense of normality. Increasing self-acceptance enables a sense of sexual identity that becomes an integrated positive aspect of one's self-concept. Stage models of sexual identity development have their limitations, however. Cultural norms are, for example, and important factors in the occurrence of this process.

What role does social activism play in the achievement of social justice for LGB people?

The coming together of LGB people and their allies enables the social activism that is critical to achieving social justice for LGB people. Notably, social activism requires and contributes to building, organizing and empowering LGB(T) communities. In Western countries, social activism of LGB communities has been critical to successful LGB emancipation, which is reflected in increasing social acceptance and legal equality. 

Chapter 16: How are perceptions of deservingness altered for same-sex families?

What are the two critical issues related to solidarity and social justice with the growing diversity of families?

The concept and the experience of 'family' has grown increasingly diverse in recent decades. While heterosexual married households still dominate family structures across Europe, cohabitation and births outside of marriage are on the rise, as well as childfree couples, 'living apart together' couples and one-parent families or same-sex families. With this ongoing diversification of families, at least two critical issues related to solidarity and social justice arise: 

• First, the issue of how welfare policies legitimize and support diverse families across countries.
• Second, increasing family diversity and recognition of this diversity can challenge European solidarity, given the tension between the free movement of persons within the EU and variation in ​​​​​​​citizenship rights across the member states of the EU.

What are citizenship rights?

Citizenship rights are individual's right to have basic needs fulfilled as a right of citizenship, not charity. The portability of these citizenship rights from one member state to another is an important topic. There is a distinction between civil citizenship rights and social citizenship rights.

• Civil citizenship rights include marriage, civil partnerships, divorce law, abortion, adoption and assisted reproductive technology. 
• Social citizenship rights include tax benefits, housing benefits, family allowances, childcare benefits, childcare services and paid parental leave.

What are post-materialist values?

The literature on perceptions of deservingness towards citizenship rights for same-sex versus heterosexual families is limited. The question whether individuals in diverse family forms "deserve" social rights has only been asked with regard to inheritance rights, social security benefits, health insurance and some employee benefits.  In wealthier, well-educated countries, post-materialist values such as cohabitation and a sense of freedom and autonomy in developing one's own life dominate, where church attendance is lower, individuals tend to be more accepting of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

What is the current debate around civil and social rights for same-sex families within the EU?

In addition, a country's level of gender equality and a country's economic wealth are key indicators of more positive individual attitudes towards the rights of same-sex families. In countries with full recognition of same-sex family formation, disapproval of homosexuality is the lowest. While approval of homosexuality may not necessarily equate to believing same-sex families should have the same rights as heterosexual families, we previously found significant individual-level differences in the perceptions of deservingness for social and civil rights of same-sex vs. different-sex couples across countries differing on these indicators.

What study was conducted towards to portability of civil and social rights of same-sex families?

In a study, the idea that students in Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark will have more supportive attitudes towards the portability of civil and social rights of same-sex families than respondents in Croatia and Italy was conducted. Various arguments are put forward in this study to explain cross-country differences in attitudes towards European integration. The study found that strong national identities lead to lower support for a strong EU, especially i countries with greater political division and with stronger anti-EU parties. The social and civil rights of same-sex families are less developed in Spain, Italy and Croatia, therefore the 'cost' of transferring sovereignty on these rights to Europe is relatively low. This is not the case in Denmark and the Netherlands, where social and civil rights for same-sex families are more strongly developed. The findings of the study suggest a gap between attitudes towards the role of the EU in standardizing civil rights for marriage versus civil partnership is somewhat larger in those countries where a legal recognition of civil unions is absent or only recently. No meaningful differences emerged in the Netherlands and Denmark, where culturally and institutionally, marriage and civil partnership are equally legitimate.

One of the problematic aspects about EU citizens maintaining their social rights as they move across countries concerns who should pay for such rights. A very high percentage of respondents in Denmark and the Netherlands believe social rights should not be portable, and no one should pay for them. In the other three countries, students were much less likely to give this answer and were much more likely to answer than either the EU or the receiving country should pay for the maintenance of these rights. In particular, the results of this study seem to indicate less cross-national solidarity in Denmark and the Netherlands, whereas students in Spain, Croatia and Italy favour greater cross-national solidarity in supporting citizens who move across Europe. 

Chapter 17: How does climate change form a societal challenge for social justice and solidarity?

Why is the topic of climate change important when we talk about social justice and solidarity?

Climate change poses a major challenge to societies worldwide. Environmental degradation and global problems of an unprecedented scale are arising because of global warming and contemporary generations are the first to experience these negative consequences first-hand. That climate change is a problem that needs immediate action is recognized by researchers, policymakers and citizens. That at least a substantial proportion of citizens is also concerned about climate change and feels we need to act now is exemplified by the large climate change protests of 2019. 

What does environmental justice entail?

The term environmental justice was initially used as an activist term to flag that lower socioeconomic and Black communities were disproportionately burdened and put at risk by environmental hazards as these are often located near their neighbourhoods. In social scientific research, the term environmental justice has also been applied more broadly, to encompass a set of questions related to fairness and justice in climate change adaptation and mitigation. Within the social sciences, different terms are used to refer to environmental justice, such as green justice and climate justice. Research on environmental justice has revealed that three justice principles can be distinguished.

• Regarding environmental issues, the scope of justice can be extended with the inclusion of future generations, including current younger generations. 
• Second, by adopting a global environmental justice principle, people worldwide are included into one's scope of justice, especially taking economically disadvantaged groups into account. Global environmental justice most closely aligns with then way environmental justice was conceived as an activist term. 
• Third, ecological environmental justice is about extending of the scope of justice toward an inclusion of nature and non-human speeches. By extending the scope of justice beyond the human species, as with intergenerational environmental justice, entities that otherwise do not have a voice in the environmental debate are included in people's fairness considerations.

Research on these environmental justice principles in relation to climate change reactions has only recently started to develop. In studies on sustainable behavior intention, intergenerational justice concerns were found to increase people's anger about environmental damage, and this in turn somewhat increased people's sustainable behavior intentions. In contrast, adhering to an ecological justice principle increased a sense of responsibility, which had a stronger positive effect on people's sustainable behavior intentions. Of the three environmental justice principles global justice concerns were least influential on intentions for sustainable behavior. 

What role does individual behaviour play in climate change mitigation?

To date, the sociotechnical perspective dominates the conceptual understanding of sustainability transitions, a perspective where economic development, technological innovation, and policy change are considered critical factors in shaping sustainability transitions, the energy transition in particular. Sustainability transitions encompass a transition form less suitable ways of being to more sustainable ones and these are needed in several life domains. The sociotechnical transitions approach has been critiqued for its biased focus on technologies and systems and a lack of attention for people's behavior and underlying drivers of behavior. Individuals must critically change their energy use, food consumption habits, transportation patterns, and general consumerism to enable a successful sustainability transition. 

What does the value-belief-norm theory entail?

The Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory provides extensive insight into this 'human side' of the transition process. According to VBN theory, values, more sustainable-behavior-specific beliefs, and personal norms are key determinants of people's sustainability attitudes and behaviors. Four types of core values have been discerned: biospheric values and altruistic values, and egoistic and hedonistic values.

• First, two types of self-transcending values motivate sustainable behavior intentions, namely biospheric values and altruistic values. These self-transcending values overlap with the environmental justice principles presented earlier. Altruistic values overlap with intergenerational and global justice principles, while biospheric values and ecological justice principles also align.
• Second, two types of self-enhancing values typically hamper sustainable behavior intentions, namely egoistic values and hedonistic values.

VBN theory further posits that the extent to which people hold their four values affects sustainable-behavior-specific beliefs. These beliefs, in turn, shape people's personal norms - their perceived moral obligations to preserve the environment. Research has shown that among people who hold strong pro-environmental personal norms, a so-called 'green identity' can be discerned and cultivated. Such self-identification as a pro-environmentalist predicts engagement in various sustainable behaviors. Alongside personal norms and self-identity, social norms and social identity play a crucial role in shaping people's sustainability intentions and behaviors. Research has shown that when social in-groups hold pro-environmental social norms, this positively affects individuals' engagement in sustainable activism, organic product purchase and sustainable food consumptions.

What does the capability-opportunity-motivation behavior model entail?

The Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model outlines why the transition to more sustainable behaviors is not equally achievable for everybody, and why being motivated to act sustainably is insufficient. Following this model, engagement in the sustainability transition is hoped not only by individuals motivation but also by their capabilities and opportunities. Crucially, capabilities to transition may lag behind in certain groups, most notably lower socio-economic groups, as these groups tend to have a lower level of sustainability-related skills and knowledge. Multiple studies have shown that lower socio-economic status groups are not less motivated, nor do they have fewer intentions to behave sustainably. Perceived social norms are not always supportive of behaving sustainably and individuals sometimes fail to recognize the sustainable value of these behaviors, indicating limited capabilities to transition. 

How do sustainability transitions form challenges for solidarity and social justice?

Taken together, climate change and the necessary sustainability transitions raise important challenges for solidarity and social justice. First, social justice can be an important instigator of climate action. However, an extension of the scope of justice is necessary, going beyond the here and now and beyond the human species. Most social scientific research has focused on factors motivating individuals to engage in sustainable behavior. However, the shift towards a sustainable transition is not equally attainable. Existing social inequalities will likely transfer into this sustainable transition process or may even become exacerbated. Vulnerable populations suffer a double burden in the sense that they are disparately affected by the negative effects of climate change, while at the same time they have structurally lower opportunities and capabilities, which makes it come difficult for them to participate in the sustainability transition. 

Chapter 18: How does the digitalization of public service form a challenge to social justice?

What does the current development of digitalization entail?

Emerging digital technologies are promoted on the basis that they might improve efficiency and service quality by reducing waiting times, increasing transparency, and offering seamless service provision across departments. This chapter focuses on the examples of education and elder care, as these two public policy areas have experienced increased digitalization in the past decade and have a key role in shaping inequalities of opportunities and outcomes. In education, the development of information and communication technology (ICT) has created excitement about its power to enhance access and improve learning results, prompting policy efforts to integrate digital technology into education. In elder care services, technologies have been conceptualized as a potential solution to limited budgets. Optimistic expectations of digitalization can be identified in policy documents and initiatives that aim to create and promote a variety of technologies so that older people can age at home. However, the digitalization of public services can bring about challenges to social justice as people's capacity to engage with these services is mediated by their social position and context. 

How does the digitalization of public services develop?

Researchers have described the processes of digitalizing public services as proceeding from an initial focus on ICT access, to the development of skills, and subsequently a more contextual understanding of ICT integration within particular institutional cultures. At the global level there are great disparities in the application of different ICT policies. In some regions, the focus is still on access to basic ICT and whether expenditure on ICT represents good value vis-a-vis other investment. While there are regional and national contexts where inequalities around access and use are still relevant, in many developed countries current inequalities centre on the digital persona that is imagined as the service user. This digital persona is conceptualized as a self-directed and motivated individual who can access, use and benefit from ICT.

While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this aspiration, individuals' capacities to become digital citizens are mediated by a range of factors. Becker argues that the term digital citizen not only includes digital competences and skills, but also a critical awareness of the digital environment's power to influence and shape the individual. The social construction of this digital citizen marginalizes the voices of the less digitally literate and enhances the ability of the already adept to take further advantage of digital resources and might therefore reinforce social inequalities. 

How does social justice relate to the digital divide?

Miller characterizes the scope of social justice debates as pertaining to 'how the good and bad things in life should be distributed among members of human society'. Social justice is understood as 'requiring some form equality' between individuals and groups. Baker proposed a five-dimensional framework to examine equality; incorporating inequalities of respect and recognition, inequalities of resources, inequalities of power, inequalities of love, care and solidarity, and inequalities of working and learning. These five dimensions potentially overlap and intersect with each other as well as with the different forms of justice.

The term digital divide refers to inequalities in access to or use of ICT. Scholars have suggested that when thinking about inequalities and digitalization, a shift is needed from a focus on access and use to costumes of ICT such as unequal technological capital. Technological capital refers to differential ability to benefit from the use of technology. An additional form of digital inequality is the data divide between those who generate data and those who collect, store, sort and use it. Since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, digitalization of education and care services has expanded and accelerated, comparising a diversity of functions, such as online classes for school-children and teleconsusltation for patients. While the benefits and services that can be accessed digitally are varied, in the case of public service they tend to pertain to basic rights and needs of citizens. Steps towards selective digitalization where face-to-face interactions and support are reserved for those with digital skills challenges arguably represents effective and just use of resources.

What inequalities of respect and recognition exists due to digitalization?

The first dimension of social justice refers to recognizing the equal status of all citizens while also acknowledging their differences. When digital public services mediate the interaction between citizens and public services, the ICT system assumes the role of the public official. Therefore, the provision and design of these systems become particularly. In the area of elder care, developers designing and providing the technology enabling digital public services tend to belong to a homogeneous group; mainly young middle-class men. 

What inequalities of resources exists due to digitalization?

Inequalities of resources exert a major influence on access to and ability to benefit from digitalized care and education services. Older people's access to technological capital is shaped by individual factors such as age, gender, social class and previous experience with computers. Even in its most open and accessible forms, digitalization can deepen inequality of resources in education. Open educational resources (OER) are digitalized materials that are offered freely and openly to educators and students to use and reuse for teaching, learning and research. OER have been proposed as way to complement and augment formal education provision, especially for those who lack the resources to follow traditional learning paths. However, OER might not just complement but supplant important elements of education provision if campus attendance becomes unnecessary and the use of PER dominates the educational experience. 

What inequalities of power exists due to digitalization?

The third dimension concerns the protection of basic civil and personal rights against the state and other powerful actors. With the public service taking on the form of a programmed ICT system, as opposed to human actors with whom citizens can discuss and negotiate, the asymmetrical relationship between the citizen and public services can be worsened. According to Andrejevic, big data mining undermines the democratizing and empowering promise of digital technologies. In education, power inequalities can results from the use of artificial intelligence and adaptive technologies in educational programmes, which can gather vast amounts of information about students to create complex algorithms. While this can results in a learning programme that better suits the needs and learning style of a student, collecting, interpreting and acting upon such data raises issues linked to reliability, responsibility and informed consent. Eubanks argues that rather than framing digital equity issues in terms of access, we should think of them in terms of power as well.

What inequalities of love, care and solidarity exists due to digitalization?

Humans typically have both a need and a capacity for intimacy, attachment and caring relationships. Being deprived of the capacity to develop such supportive affective relations is a serious deprivation for most people. Concerns have been raised that a move from humans to care technologies implies a shift from 'warm' to 'cold' care. This could lead to isolated older people being surrounded by technologies yet receiving no support from caring staff. Caring relationships in the form of warm experts, which are close and trusted persons, are important for older people in accessing, using and benefiting from technology. 

What inequalities of working and learning exists due to digitalization?

The final dimension refers to the large differences between individuals and countries in the burden of work. Inequalities of work are closely related to inequalities in learning and inequalities of educational attainment. The potential inequalities that can result from digitalizing education can affect students in the amount and type of work they can obtain in the future as more valued educational credentials are correlated with better-quality and higher-paid employment. Inequalities in the ability of students to build social capital might become more pronounced with the OER model. Digitalization of public services moves the public encounter to people's homes, individually shaping working and learning conditions as some homes are better suited for teleconsultations and online lessons than others, as they vary in layout, cleanliness, atmosphere, inhabitants, equipment, and space.  

Chapter 19: What societal challenges did the COVID-19 pandemic cause to solidarity and social justice?

In what way does the COVID-19 pandemic have consequences for society?

The COVID-19 pandemic is considered the most challenging global crisis in recent history. This is due in large part to its severe negative health consequences, but is also stems from the high demand on limited health care capacity and the resulting delay of planned health care. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic also has serious adverse economic and social consequences related to the prevention measures imposed globally to reduce the spread of the virus. The pandemic presented a systemic shock to societies worldwide and raised many questions regarding solidarity and social justice. Initially, the pandemic was hailed by some journalists as 'the great equalizer': The idea was that COVID-19, as a virus, doe snot discriminate and affects individuals and societies in similar ways. Crucially, the social inequalities emerging from and amplified by the pandemic are visible along many of the societal fault lines. 

What inequalities in the prevalence and severity of COVID-19 existed?

COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality are socially stratified. Specifically, ethnic minority groups and socio-economically disadvantaged groups bear a disproportionate share of the disease burden. This trend was observed around the world. There are several reasons for these social inequalities related to the impact of COVID-19. 

• First, ethnic minority groups and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups are more likely to have pre-existing chronic health conditions, such as overweight, high blood pressure and heart conditions, which put them at higher risk of CPVID-19 associated morbidity and mortality.
• Second, structural differences make it more difficult for socio-economically disadvantaged groups to engage in health behaviors that boost the immune system.
• Third, people who are less well-off typically have poorer health insurance and health care access, and receive less optimal health care when they do access health care services. 
• Then, socio-economically disadvantaged groups may also have lower health literacy and less access to correct health information, which makes them more vulnerable to misinformation and misperceptions. As a result, socio-economically disadvantaged groups are less likely to adhere to preventive and protective measures.
• Finally, socio-economically disadvantaged groups may also be less able to adhere to prevention measures. 

What inequalities in the impact of measures to curb COVID-19 existed?

Various prevention measures are implemented worldwide to curb the spread of the virus, to protect the most vulnerable, and to ensure the need for hospitalization of people with COVID-19 does not exceed the availability of health care services. Yet, these prevention measures, especially those that promote social distancing, also affect people in multiple intrusive ways, including people who are more likely to be affected by COVID-19 related health impacts.

• Many people were impacted economically as a result of COVID-19 prevention measures. 
• Furthermore, social distancing measures appear to affect adolescents and young adults more than any other age group. The need for social connectedness is at its highest in this stage of life, and limiting young people's ability to go out into the world and meet each other significantly impacted their well-being.
• A meta-analysis has shown that almost 80 percent of younger children across the world are also negatively affected by the pandemic and prevention responses in some way, including experiences of anxiety, depression, irritability, boredom, sleep disturbances, excessive fear or inattention. These effects are likely to be larger for children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds who are less likely to have the required resources to successfully manage their schoolwork. 
• School closures also placed a large burden on parents although not in equal measure. The additional demand it took from parents was higher for poorer families and parents in less skilled and lower-wage occupations, who are less likely to be able to work from home, less able to take time off from work to take care of their children, and have lower financial resources to cover unforeseen expenditures.

What were the challenges to solidarity and social justice during the pandemic?

The social inequalities related to the impact of the pandemic and social inequalities related to measures taken to curb it posed unique challenges to solidarity and social justice. Initially, the response to the crisis was mostly one of spontaneous empathy and solidarity. The call for informal solidarity resonated with the public, whereby many initiatives were developed to support the vulnerable and where a new appreciation for essential workers developed. Simultaneously, many countries witnessed an increase in formal, institutionalized forms of solidarity, such as welfare state support to protect workers. However, as the crisis continued, solidarity and social justice were increasingly put under pressure.

• One key social justice challenge of the pandemic related to intergenerational solidarity. COVID-19 was initially presented mainly as a threat to the elderly. For this reason, younger generations were asked to be solidaristic with older generations. COVID-19 related ageism was reflected in social media hashtags, such as #BoomerRemover quotes by politicians and public debates on triage criteria. As the pandemic continued and young people were disproportionally negatively affected by social distancing measures, there was a shift from upward to downward expectations of intergenerational solidarity in public discourse. Younger people began asking for solidarity from the elderly to allow some social distancing measures to be lessened, thereby reducing some of the harmful social impacts on younger generations. Continued COVID-19 prevention measures challenged reciprocity as a basis for intergenerational solidarity. 
• A second key challenge related to global solidarity. People were expected to be solidaristic with groups around the globe, in particular disadvantaged population groups. In empirical studies, COVID-19 related global solidarity has oftentimes been operationalised as support for development assistance aimed at curbing the pandemic. A reduction in global solidarity may occur, as people experienced a realistic threat tho their national economy or their health as national funds were allocated to development assistance. In contrast, an increase in global solidarity could also have occurred when people saw similarities with others worldwide.

Chapter 20: What barriers to solidarity and social justice still remain in contemporary society?

What are the most important conclusions from the book?

It is clear that solidarity, and social justice are necessary but contested societal elements in addressing social inequalities. If solidarity is about a shared identity, aims and interests, and the willingness to share resources within and across groups, social justice provides the rules and values through which people can do so. Our social identities play a key role in shaping intergroup animosity, solidarity and our receptivity to social change. Furthermore, group boundaries help determine who is included in our scope of justice. Social identifications, interests, and socio-cultural contexts such as power relations, and the scarcity of resources can trigger solidarity and social justice at both levels, as well as boundary drawing between 'us' and 'them'. 

Despite the necessity of solidarity, and social justice, historical and emerging societal challenges are putting them under pressure. Social justice-oriented solidarity initiatives challenge nation states and their populations about the redistribution of resources and the recognition of identities. Questions of who is deserving of what and by whom are at the forefront of much social scientific research. However, justice is about much more than distributive questions alone, and at a minimum, questions about procedures scope, and recognition also need to be addressed. Historically, welfare states have differed in the extent to which they are wiling to address social inequalities dependent upon their normative foundations. The continued popularity of welfare states puts pressure on policymakers to design social policies in a capacitating way, allowing citizens to adapt to rapidly changing economic and social conditions. 

What are the key conclusions about solidarity and social justice?

Some key conclusions can be drawn about solidarity and social justice in contemporary society.

• Solidarity is dynamic and shifting within and across groups, within and beyond welfare state borders. Our perspectives on what is just in society are similarly fluid, influenced by processes of identification in ever-changing societies, which affects our perceptions of what is fair and who is deserving of help from the welfare state. 
• Just as stereotypes shape what we expect of men, women or other genders, age-based stereotypes shape what we believe about younger and older cohorts. The inevitable process of ageing makes age-based stereotypes pernicious and persistent. Despite strong presence of age-based stereotypes in our society, often used by political parties to suggest an 'age war' is taking place. However, it was found that there is little empirical support for such a claim.
• Potentially one of the largest societal fault lines in contemporary societies is socio-economic position. Socio-economic position captures the complex interaction of income, educational level, and occupational differences in society that crucially shape multiple life outcomes. Health inequalities along socio-economic lines are some of the most despairing inequalities.
• Our willingness to share resources with other groups is further challenged by processes of migration in contemporary societies and subsequent ethnic diversity. Ethnic stereotypes are associated with prejudice, discrimination and other forms of exclusion. 
• Another societal fault line explored in this book is sexual orientation, a multidimensional concept shared by history and culture. Negative effects of sexual orientation-based stereotypes lead to stigma and significant health and well-being consequences for sexual minorities.
• Global challenges, such as climate change and the continued rapid expansion of digitalization in social service, require us to consider new scopes of justice and potentially new questions of justice to create and sustain a shared sense of solidarity needed to address these issues.

What were the three central questions around solidarity and social justice?

This book centres on three key questions:

• How do various societies respond to enduring, growing or changing inequalities?
• Do these challenges lead to an expansion of solidarity or an erosion of solidarity, in an 'us versus them' rhetoric?
• And lastly, to what extent do societies differ in their social justice values and hence the acceptance of social inequality? 

Underlying these questions is a more basic question: To what extent do solidarity and social justice still matter in contemporary societies? Reflecting on these questions is crucial because significant ambiguity exists in contemporary societies and welfare states about where individual responsibility ends and/or where welfare state support is required. Enduring and existing social inequalities are exacerbated in many contemporary welfare states. Moreover, new inequalities are emerging in light of global social challenges, such as climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. Individualistic tendencies can make it more difficult to look past short-term individual burdens towards sustaining the welfare state in the long run. These global social challenges make reflections on solidarity and social justice.

What was the goal of this book?

With the far-reaching extent of many of the social issues outlined in the book, some readers may now be looking for how to solve these social issues, and thus how to create social change. This book explicitly aims to show the complexity of the social issues at hand without providing a definitive answer on how to solve them. There are no easy answers to these social issues. This book outline numerous theoretical and empirical perspectives intended to help readers reflect on why we feel particular social policy responses to social inequalities are needed, or not. Throughout these reflections, we need to recognize that debates and contestations about these issues are ongoing, and an inherent part of the societies in which we live.