Skip to main content

Inequality - is it driving the breakdown of trust in society?

Written by Jamie Deakins

Category
Ecological Economics
Date

Surveys taken in the US show that from 1958 to 2014 trust in government fell from 73% to 24%. From 1972 to 2014 trust in each other fell from 46% to 31%.

These statistics are indicative of a wider international problem.

Since the 1980’s we have seen the liberation of finance, the deregulation of banks, and the globalisation of labour. This has resulted in massive inequality with those in the top 0.01% tripling their wealth share.

But why is this important?

Numerous studies have shown that the erosion of trust falls in proportion with levels of equality. Trust is correlated with desirable social variables including; political participation, giving to charity, tolerance of diversity, volunteering work and engagement with civic institutions. It also plays a much more fundamental role in our lives, one which is outlined eloquently in Yuval Noah Harari’s book ‘Sapiens’. A collective vision - a shared belief in the myths and stories of our culture - underpin all our social interactions. Without trust we cannot form the relationships required for a prosperous and equitable future.

So how are inequality and trust linked?

The relationship between unfair distribution - manifest as income and wealth inequality - and levels of trust has been widely studied in the social sciences, with the level of economic equality posited as the strongest predictor of generalised trust (trust in strangers).

The relationship is driven by two main mechanisms. The first being overall economic inequality, that is, the gap between the rich and the poor, and the second being equality of opportunity, or how optimistic people feel about their chances of economic progress.

High levels of economic inequality lead to social polarisation. Economic stratification results in clear class divisions and the breakdown of the vision of a collective fate amongst members of the community. Adam Seligman, author of ‘The Problem of Trust’, questions whether hierarchal cultures can promote trust due to the undercurrent of belief that personal achievements are a product of unfair advantage. This is reflected in more unequal societies where we see higher levels of ‘particularised trust’, or trust in an ‘in group’. This reinforces social segregation leading to exacerbated divisions in heterogeneous communities, and intolerance of diversity.

Research by Eric Uslaner shows that the link between trust and subjective well-being is more pronounced than objective economic circumstance. This is interesting as it implies that perception of social status is a stronger predictor of trust than actual income disparities. It makes sense therefore that optimism, as mentioned above, is a very strong predictor of interpersonal trust. Large levels of inequality resulting from unfair distribution are rightly perceived as a hindrance to social mobility. Therefore, inequality breeds pessimism, with economic progression deemed as a luxury of the higher social classes.

The negative effects of reduced optimism are apparent when looking at the issue of political participation. Mistrust driven by inequality results in decreased voter turnout. This creates a vicious cycle in which those who are already under represented, relinquish more political power. This makes it unlikely that redistributive policies will be proposed by those running for office.

To add to this, if we look at the underlying cause of such high levels of inequality, we find an ideology which promotes individualism. Neoliberalism calls on personal responsibility to justify the socioeconomic position of the rich and the poor. This denigration of the “have nots” decreases the probability that redistributive policies will receive public approval, and further reinforces social divisions.

It therefore seems that unfair distribution erodes trust in multiple ways. It creates a chain of corrosive feedback loops which undermine the relationships on which our society is constructed. Unfair distribution is reinforced by ideology, and the resulting breakdown in trust creates a social and political situation in which trust cannot be restored.

So what’s the solution?

The obvious solution to the problem is redistributive policy.

The evidence suggests that the current means-tested welfare system could potentially be part of the problem. Such systems encourage the development of social segmentation through denigration of those on welfare.

The solution therefore appears to be in universal programs. Services such as free education promote equality of opportunity, and are part of the reason for such high levels of trust in countries such as Sweden and Finland. The result of these programs is an elevated feeling of social solidarity and a reintroduction of a shared fate for those at varying ends of the income distribution. In my opinion the most effective of the universal programs would be the introduction of a basic income. This proposal counteracts both mechanisms by which inequality erodes trust. It is simultaneously both redistributive and empowering – with more income being diverted to those who need it most, whilst instilling citizens with a sense of optimism that comes from a life of autonomy.

References

1.
Boulton A, Tamehana J, Brannelly T. WHÄNAU-CENTRED HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICE DELIVERY IN NEW ZEALAND The challenges to, and opportunities for, innovation [Internet]. Available from: http://journal.mai.ac.nz/sites/default/files/Vol 2 (1) 024 Boulton.pdf
1.
Kingi TK. The Treaty of Waitangi: A framework for Maori health development. New Zealand Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2007;54(1).
1.
Pool I. Te Iwi Maori: A New Zealand Population Past, Present and Future. Auckland: Auckland University Press; 1991.
1.
Hooper KC, Kearins K. Substance but not form: capital taxation and public finance in New Zealand, 1840-1859. Accounting History [Internet]. 2003 Nov;8(2):101–119. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/103237320300800206
1.
SORRENSON MPK. LAND PURCHASE METHODS AND THEIR EFFECT ON MAORI POPULATION, 1865-1901 [Internet]. Vol. 65. The Polynesian Society; 1956. 183–199 p. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20703557
1.
Schoen C, Doty MM. Inequities in access to medical care in five countries: findings from the 2001 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey. Health Policy [Internet]. 2004 Mar;67(3):309–322. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016885100300174X
1.
Wilkinson RG, Pickett KE. Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction. Annual Review of Sociology [Internet]. 2009 Aug;35(1):493–511. Available from: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115926
1.
Ellison-Loschmann L, Pearce N. Improving access to health care among New Zealand’s Maori population. American journal of public health [Internet]. 2006 Apr;96(4):612–7. Available from: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2005.070680 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16507721 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC1470538
1.
Hooper K, Kearins K. Financing New Zealand 1860-1880: Maori land and the wealth tax effect. Accounting History [Internet]. 2004 Jul;9(2):87–105. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/103237320400900205
1.
Theodore R, McLean R, TeMorenga L. Challenges to addressing obesity for Māori in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health [Internet]. 2015 Dec;39(6):509–512. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1753-6405.12418
1.
King M. Between two worlds. In: The Oxford history of New Zealand. 1981. p. 279–301.
1.
Gardner W. A colonial economy. Oliver WH, Williams BR, editors. Auckland; 1981.
1.
Cózara A, Echevarríaa F, Ignacio González-Gordilloa J. Plastic debris in the open ocean. 2016; Available from: http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/2346820535
1.
Andrady AL. Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin [Internet]. 2011 Aug;62(8):1596–1605. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025326X11003055
1.
Barboza LGA, Gimenez BCG. Microplastics in the marine environment: Current trends and future perspectives. Marine Pollution Bulletin [Internet]. 2015 Aug;97(1–2):5–12. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025326X15003598
1.
Barnes DKA, Galgani F, Thompson RC, Barlaz M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences [Internet]. 2009 Jul;364(1526):1985–1998. Available from: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/doi/10.1098/rstb.2008.0205
1.
Claessens M, Meester SD, Landuyt LV, Clerck KD, Janssen CR. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine sediments along the Belgian coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin [Internet]. 2011 Oct;62(10):2199–2204. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025326X11003651
1.
Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, Teuten E, Tonkin A, Galloway T, et al. Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Woldwide: Sources and Sinks. Environmental Science & Technology [Internet]. 2011 Nov;45(21):9175–9179. Available from: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es201811s
1.
CARPENTER EL. PLASTICS ON THE SARGASSO SEA SURFACE. Science (washington D C) [Internet]. 1972;175(4027). Available from: http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/70567946
1.
Cole M. A novel method for preparing microplastic fibers. Scientific Reports [Internet]. 2016 Dec;6(1):34519. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep34519
1.
Crespy D, Bozonnet M, Meier M. 100 Years of Bakelite, the Material of a 1000 Uses. Angewandte Chemie International Edition [Internet]. 2008 Apr;47(18):3322–3328. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/anie.200704281
1.
Horton AA, Svendsen C, Williams RJ, Spurgeon DJ, Lahive E. Large microplastic particles in sediments of tributaries of the River Thames, UK – Abundance, sources and methods for effective quantification. Marine Pollution Bulletin [Internet]. 2017 Jan;114(1):218–226. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025326X16307251
1.
Imhof HK, Laforsch C, Wiesheu AC, Schmid J, Anger PM, Niessner R, et al. Pigments and plastic in limnetic ecosystems: A qualitative and quantitative study on microparticles of different size classes. Water Research [Internet]. 2016 Jul;98:64–74. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0043135416301427
1.
Law KL, Thompson RC. Microplastics in the seas. Science [Internet]. 2014 Jul;345(6193):144–145. Available from: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.1254065
1.
Cole M, Lindeque P, Halsband C, Galloway TS. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin [Internet]. 2011 Dec;62(12):2588–2597. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025326X11005133
1.
Free CM, Jensen OP, Mason SA, Eriksen M, Williamson NJ, Boldgiv B. High-levels of microplastic pollution in a large, remote, mountain lake. Marine Pollution Bulletin [Internet]. 2014 Aug;85(1):156–163. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025326X14003622
1.
Hidalgo-Ruz V, Gutow L, Thompson RC, Thiel M. Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A Review of the Methods Used for Identification and Quantification. Environmental Science & Technology [Internet]. 2012 Mar;46(6):3060–3075. Available from: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es2031505
1.
Ivar do Sul JA, Costa MF. The present and future of microplastic pollution in the marine environment. Environmental Pollution [Internet]. 2014 Feb;185:352–364. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0269749113005642
1.
Moore CJ. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environmental Research [Internet]. 2008 Oct;108(2):131–139. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S001393510800159X
1.
Song YK, Hong SH, Jang M, Han GM, Shim WJ. Occurrence and Distribution of Microplastics in the Sea Surface Microlayer in Jinhae Bay, South Korea. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology [Internet]. 2015 Oct;69(3):279–287. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00244-015-0209-9
1.
Lusher AL, McHugh M, Thompson RC. Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel. Marine Pollution Bulletin [Internet]. 2013 Feb;67(1–2):94–99. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025326X12005668
1.
Nelms S, Coombes C, Foster L, Galloway T, Godley B, Lindeque P, et al. Marine anthropogenic litter on British beaches: A 10-year nationwide assessment using citizen science data. Science of The Total Environment [Internet]. 2017 Feb;579:1399–1409. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969716325918
1.
Rosato D. Reinforced Plastics Handbook [Internet]. Elsevier; 2005. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9781856174503X50002
1.
Shim WJ, Hong SH, Eo SE. Identification methods in microplastic analysis: a review. Analytical Methods [Internet]. 2017;9(9):1384–1391. Available from: http://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=C6AY02558G
1.
Song YK, Hong SH, Jang M, Kang J-H, Kwon OY, Han GM, et al. Large Accumulation of Micro-sized Synthetic Polymer Particles in the Sea Surface Microlayer. Environmental Science & Technology [Internet]. 2014 Aug;48(16):9014–9021. Available from: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es501757s
1.
Takahashi CK, Turner A, Millward GE, Glegg GA. Persistence and metallic composition of paint particles in sediments from a tidal inlet. Marine Pollution Bulletin [Internet]. 2012 Jan;64(1):133–137. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025326X11005509
1.
Turner A. Marine pollution from antifouling paint particles. Marine Pollution Bulletin [Internet]. 2010 Feb;60(2):159–171. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025326X09005050
1.
Welden NAC, Cowie PR. Long-term microplastic retention causes reduced body condition in the langoustine, Nephrops norvegicus. Environmental Pollution [Internet]. 2016 Nov;218:895–900. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0269749116307278
1.
TAPPIN A, HARRIS J, UNCLES R. The fluxes and transformations of suspended particles, carbon and nitrogen in the Humber estuarine system (UK) from 1994 to 1996: results from an integrated observation and modelling study. The Science of The Total Environment [Internet]. 2003 Oct;314–316:665–713. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969703000780
1.
Thompson RC. Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic? Science [Internet]. 2004 May;304(5672):838–838. Available from: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.1094559
1.
Schmid AA. Conflict and Cooperation: Institutional and Behavioral Economics. John Wiley & Sons; 2004. 363 p.
1.
Conflict and Cooperation: Institutional and Behavioral Economics.
1.
Stern N. The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
1.
Schlüter M, Baeza A, Dressler G, Frank K, Groeneveld J, Jager W, et al. A framework for mapping and comparing behavioural theories in models of social-ecological systems. Ecological Economics [Internet]. 2017;131:21–35. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.008
1.
Sagal PT. Epistemology of Economics. Zeitschrift für allgemaine Wissenschaftstheorie. 1977;8(1):144–162.
1.
Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson \AAsa, Chapin FS, Lambin E, et al. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Nature. 2009;461(24):472–475.
1.
Robbins L. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: MacMillan & Co. Limited; 1932.
1.
Rizvi SAT. The Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu Results after Thirty Years. History of Political Economy [Internet]. 2006;38(Suppl 1):228–245. Available from: http://hope.dukejournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1215/00182702-2005-024
1.
Raworth K. Doughnut Ecnomics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. London: Random House Books; 2017.

Author

Jamie Deakins

MSc Ecological Economics 2017/19