This volume about changing structures of inequality is
the seventh published by the International Research Group for the Comparative Charting of
Social Change. Although it focuses on inequality, classes and social
stratification, its scope and the approach followed differ in fact considerably
from the sort of comparative studies which are usually published under these
labels. Following the research strategy of this project, to study trends of
social change in comparative perspective, this volume deals with changes in the
structures of inequality as part and consequence of the whole range of recent
trends of social change in several of the most developed contemporary societies
in Europe and North America. It examines a limited set of current social
changes, which - according to our previous research - deserve particular
attention and consideration.
The present volume covers France, Germany, Canada
and/or Quebec, Spain and the United States. All of these societies are highly
developed, but present differences in history, cultural background, the role of
the state, economic and political power as well as in their routes to modernity
(Therborn 1995). There is also the pragmatic reason that these countries had
qualified to participate in comparative studies within the Comparative Charting of Social Change Project, by completing
national profiles on Recent Social Trends[1][1]. Other countries participating in the project but not
covered by this volume are still in the process of accomplishing their national
trend reports[2][2], which include 78 trend dimensions grouped into 17
main topics. These are published in English under the title ”Recent Social
Trends in ...1960-1990”. These profiles, covering the whole range of social
change within each society provide important parts of the raw material for the
studies included into this volume. The contributors to this volume depart from
their previous work on charting and analysing recent social trends in various
realms of their respective societies and their expertise in this field. While
focusing on structures of inequality these studies therefore are embedded in
the broader scope and more complete panorama of significant trends of current
social change.
During the last decade the international sociological
community has engaged in a controversial discussion on the old topic of social
inequality: Are the traditional concepts of social class and social
stratification still valid or are they becoming more and more obsolete due to
significant changes in the economic and social structure? Is a trend towards
individualization eroding the traditional structure of inequality? Are new
forms of inequality replacing the old ones (Hradil 1987) or, even, is the
problem of inequality, which has long been one of the key topics of
sociological inquiry as well as of social politics, becoming less important
(Hondrich 1984)? Should we conclude that the end of the 20th century sees not
only the end of ideology and history (Fukuyama 1992), or the end of a century
of social democracy (Dahrendorf 1991) but the end of class, stratification or
even social inequality? Or are evaluations like these largely overestimated or
even artificial and more due to changes in the perceptions of social science
than in reality?
The rather fundamental question whether social classes
and/or social strata as manifestations of a traditional structure of inequality
are dying and whether a new structure of inequality is emerging in modern
societies has been the focus of current sociological debate. Since basic
concepts of sociological analysis are put into question and under examination
quite radically, this debate obviously is of eminent theoretical importance.
Opponents of the traditional view of inequality
include Beck (1983, 1986) in Germany, Holton/Turner (1989) in Great Britain,
Clark and Lipset (1991), and Kingston (1994) in the United States. In a rather
comprehensive critical review of the traditional conceptualization of the
structure of social inequality Pakulski and Waters (1996) postulate ”The Death
of Class”. Among the strongest defenders of the traditional concepts are
Goldthorpe and Marshall (1992), Hout, Brooks and Manza (1993), Marshall (1991;
1997), Müller (1986), Mayer and Blossfeld (1992), Geißler (1996), Haller (1997).
Among the arguments of those scholars criticizing the
traditional view and proposing the end of class and stratification are the
following:
Because of a general upgrading of the level of living
in terms of income, consumption, education and so on - Beck (1986) uses the
metaphor of an elevator as an illustration - inequality has lost much of its
earlier social meaning, although inequality distributions in terms of
differences between status groups have remained remarkably stable.
As a result of the development of modern welfare state
institutions, the individual’s standard of living is less dependent on their
occupational position and employment income (Lepsius 1979; Zapf 1981; Schnapper
1989). Class position and socio-economic status therefore have lost their
former dominance as a structuring principle of social inequality. Instead,
other dimensions of inequality - like gender inequality, inequality between
generations, ethnic inequalities and regional disparities - have gained
attention and have considered to be more important than the "old"
inequalities between classes and social strata.
Not only are class boundaries becoming less visible
and meaningful in everyday life, but also individual life styles seem to be
less determined by class affiliation. As a consequence of rising economic
resources and individual options a trend towards the pluralization and
individualization of life styles has been developed.
From this critical point of view trends in inequality
overall are interpreted as a development towards de-stratification. This
position is far from being consensual. While the observation of a weakening of
class boundaries and the deterministic power of class position is largely
accepted, the view that inequality has a significant vertical dimension and is
structured by social classes or strata is still popular. From this perspective
position in the economic system of production is the dominating principle of
structuration, although not the only one. As demonstrated by numerous studies,
the position within the class or stratification system is still clearly
correlated with living standards, life chances as well as value orientations
and attitudes. From this point of view tendencies of de-stratification and
de-structuration of inequality are largely overestimated.
However, even proponents of the traditional
perspective agree that class position and stratification have lost some
relevance compared to other dimensions of inequality. The notion that ”to
paraphrase Sombart, the key social question at the end of the twentieth century
is no longer the class question” (Pakuliski/Waters 1996: 67) is almost common
ground. On the other hand, it also seems to be rather undisputed that the
individualized society is a trend at best, but not yet a common reality.
Moreover it seems most likely that societies differ in the degree to which
class positions still structure social inequality and class differences as well
as class-sentiments are present in everyday life.
Even if we finally would conclude that the traditional
concepts are still useful for analyzing social reality, important changes in
the structure of inequality have obviously taken place, which cannot simply be
ignored. Some catch words that suggest these changes include the
"two-thirds-society" in Germany (Leisering 1995), the "vanishing
middle classes" in the United States and Canada (Kuttner 1983; Wolfson
1992; Danziger/Gottschalk 1993) and the "cosmographic" view of
inequality in France (Mendras/Cole 1991).
Accounting for the scope and intensity of social and
economic changes in western societies during the last thirty years, the
discussion about changes in the structure of social inequality is rather
consistent and all but surprising. The literature about the nature of trends of
social change points in particular to significant changes in this realm of our
societies (Lyotard 1984; Beck 1986, Giddens 1990). Referring to the results of
the country profiles that are part of our larger project on the Comparative Charting of Social Change, we
have good reason to take a closer look at the meaning of changes in patterns of
inequality in all their consequences and to reconsider the old and traditional
concepts of social inequality. We have identified quite a number of general
trends of social change[3][3] - more or less pronounced - challenging the
traditional view of a structure of social inequality which is mainly or even
exclusively based on economic relations. Among these trends the following seem
to be particularly significant:
Far
reaching changes in the demographic structure: Decreasing birth rates and an increasing longevity have resulted in
radical changes of the demographic structure in some of our most developed
societies. As a consequence of these processes, the relative weight and status
of age groups and generations have changed with obvious distributional
implications too. Age and generation may perhaps define new lines of conflict
and a form of inequality, which is likely to be of increasing importance.
A dramatic
improvement of the general level of living: During the last four decades all our societies, at least those
referred to as the ”western societies”[4][4], saw a remarkable upgrade in the level of living of
their populations, even if the extend and speed of progress in income,
consumption and wealth differed among nations. Although economic and social
inequality did not disappear along with this process, the question arises
whether the meaning and consequences of inequality are the same at different
level of material wealth. Did inequalities - referring again to Beck’s elevator
metaphor - lose some of their earlier significance or is Toqueville’s
observation still true, that while inequality declines in the course of social
progress, the remaining dimensions and degrees of inequality are becoming even
more important?
An enormous
expansion of the welfare state up to recent years: Regardless of differences between nations in concept, coverage and
level, welfare state institutions and respective expenditures expanded
considerably in most of our societies during recent decades, although this
process obviously is coming to a halt. The ”growth to limits” (Flora 1986) and
lack of resources in a rapidly changing world economy are now forcing
governments to rebuild or even dismantle welfare state institutions. But still
the existence of developed welfare states obviously makes a difference in the
impact of inequality and the importance and dominance of an economically based
structure of inequality.
A
continuous expansion of the service sector: The constant increase of the service sector is the major mechanism
whereby industrial societies change to post-industrial societies. The
transformation of the labour force from a predominantly male to a more gender
mixed labour force, from blue collar to white collar work, from fordist to a post-fordist
organization of work, and from a strongly unionized to a much less organized
labour force are all trends, which may well affect the traditional inequality
structure. Although there is not yet a generally accepted view of how
inequality is structured in post-industrial societies, it is according to
Esping-Andersen (1993: 7) quite clear that ”the erosion of our traditional
class structures is what many scholars associate with the coming
post-industrial society”.
A
revolution in the participation in higher education: The huge expansion of educational systems and participation in higher
education in all our societies, also raises the issue of the implications for
the structures of inequality. Did the expansion of participation in higher
education result in a levelling out of inequality of opportunities
(Shavit/Blossfeld 1993; Erikson/Jonsson 1996), and what are the consequences
for social mobility, social classes, and social stratification?
A
revolution in the labour force participation of women: The large increase in the labour force participation
of women during the last decades is without doubts one of the major changes in
the social structure of industrial societies (Noll/Langlois 1994), surely
affecting, among other matters, the structure of inequality. To mention only
one possible consequence, the socio-economic status and class location of
families are becoming less clear and consistent, because of the growing numbers
of so-called ”cross class families”.
Considerable
changes in the definition of gender roles and respective behaviour: Changes in conceptions of gender roles and behavior,
which are only partly related to the women’s movement, have marked our
societies in recent decades and establish another challenge to the traditional
view of the inequality structure. Along with these changes, gender inequalities
- sometimes cross-cutting class inequalities - have emerged as a new dimension
of inequality and received more and more public attention.
A
continuing if not even growing saliency of race, ethnicity and nationality: In recent years race, ethnicity and nationality have
had continuing or even growing salience. Largely neglected by the class
paradigm (Pakulsky/Waters 1996: 40f.), these social forces are likely to
structurate social inequality to a considerable degree in the future and
obviously are in part doing so already. Particular groups of immigrants and
ethnic minorities are sometimes the ”real” underclasses of our contemporary
societies.
The
increasing importance of the cultural dimension of consumption, lifestyle and
taste: According to some observers
the mode of production is becoming less and less significant in contemporary
societies while the mode of consumption is becoming more and more significant.
Some of the most important recent social changes are related to the fields of
consumption, lifestyle and taste. Because widespread affluence allows for a
wide range of personal choices, lifestyles seem to increasingly differentiate
social groups, more so than economic classes.
There is ample speculation then, that all these trends
- although in different ways, with different degree and perhaps also in
different directions - considerably affect the inequality structure. To date,
however, we do not know much about their separate impact in detail nor the
overall consequences for the structure of inequality. This volume is an attempt
to examine and reconsider consequences of some of these changes by comparing
five societies. Although this volume covers important aspects of the overall
subject it does not present a fully comprehensive analysis of all related
topics. The chapters of this volume differ not only in scope and style, but
also in theoretical orientation and use of empirical data. In methodological
terms, the articles included into this volume are not based on just one single
comparative empirical database. Rather, they use empirical evidence from
various national and international sources at an aggregate level, such as -
first of all - the ”Recent Social Trend” - volumes, but also all other kinds of
data as far as they are relevant and significant for the different subjects and
available for the societies under study.
The volume is divided into two main sections. The
first section contains five articles dealing with the development and current
”state of the art” in research on social classes and stratification within the
societies included into the following comparative studies: France (Y. Lemel),
Germany (H.-H. Noll), Quebec (S. Langlois), Spain (S. del Campo, R. Feito) and
the United States (P. Kingston). By reviewing the national research traditions
and describing the specific approaches and views followed in all those
societies, these articles present a conceptual background for the following
substantial empirical analyses. In addition this first section also includes an
article by T. Caplow discussing "Some Problems in the Comparative Charting
of Trends in Social Stratification”.
The second section consists of altogether six chapters
presenting the results of substantial comparative studies on different
dimension of the general topic of this volume.
Inequality
of Income and Wealth: The article by W. Glatzer and R. Hauser
studies the distribution of income and wealth as the most important resources
to get access to those aspect of welfare and life chances which are provided
through the market. Thus income and wealth still define the basic key
dimensions and most visible manifestations of inequality. Starting from a look
at the level, distribution and redistribution of GDP in the societies under
study, the article deals with the inequality of individual earnings and wages
as well as disposable household incomes. Special sections are addressed to
poverty and the inequality of wealth as well as to the people's subjective
assessments of the income distribution. The article demonstrates, that on the
one hand distributions across the societies under study are surprisingly
similar, but on the other hand each country has developed a specific pattern of
income and wealth distribution. Whereas the United States turns out as the one
case of a society with relatively high inequality of income, Germany represents
within this sample of countries the other case of society with a rather low
level of inequality. The authors conclude, that the long term hope for more
income inequality is challenged in all the countries. Reduced efforts of
respective redistributive policies obviously result in an increasing inequality
of income and wealth at least in some countries.
Educational
Inequalities: Based on a clarification of
different notions of educational inequalities, the article by Louis Chauvel
examines absolute and relative inequalities from a comparative point of view
using a chort analysis approach. The article also looks at differences in
educational opportunities in terms of gender, social origin and race and
discusses the consequences of educational inequalities for further life
chances. The author demonstrates, that compared to Europe educational systems
in North American societies are characterized by higher degrees of absolute as
well as relative educational equality. Whereas gender related educational
inequalities are generally small and declining across time, relative
educational inequalities in terms of class differences turned out to remain
rather unchanged.
Status
Crystallization: The article by M. Forsé and
Y. Lemel studies changes in correlation between three dimensions and indicators
of individual socio-economic status: education, occupational position and wage.
The degree of status crystallization and status inconsistency as well as the
stability of the underlying structure is studied for France, Germany and the
United States. Although there are some differences in the country specific
patterns, correlation levels are quite similar. The structure of associations
between the three status dimensions has not changed since the early eighties.
International
Migration and Social Inequality:
The Article by H. Bahr, M. Bös, G. Caldwell and L. Alipranti focuses on
migration across national borders as an expression of international inequality.
Although migration is considered to be a mechanism that connects international
inequalities to inequality within each society it departs from the assumption
that the inequalities of admission and membership are more fundamental than the
internal between-group differentials in education, occupational status, or
income: ”..it makes little sense to worry about neighbourhood status or
dwelling size when one is outside the city walls, unable to enter. Nor should
we be concerned about priorities in the positioning of our deck chairs until we
have achieved places in the boat” (pp). Accordingly this article studies
differences in size and scale of migratory flows, it compares national trends
in immigration as well as aspects of national ”migration systems”. It also
examines processes of national closure as revealed in differences in
citizenship law, naturalization requirements, and immigration policy. Among the
manifold results is the observation of a convergence in increasing
heterogeneity of people and inequalities going together with an increasing
legitimacy of diversity within societies. Also the finding of a decreasing
importance of citizenship as a determinant of access to social benefits has important
implications in terms of inequality structures.
Gender
Inequality: Gender inequality is certainly a dimension of inequality with
growing attention: important topic of political discussion. Article by D.
Lemieux and M. Möhle considers gender inequality as the unequal access by women
relative to men to material resources, status, power and privileges. The
empirical analysis across the five societies compared focuses on aspects of
inequality on the labour market with some references to differences in education
and in political participation and representation of women.
The
Structuring effect of Social Class: The last article in this section by P.
Kingston, S. Langlois, Y. Lemel and H.-H. Noll focuses on the topic of ”class
structuration”. Following Giddens (1973: 20) suggestion of ”rather than
speaking of the ‘existence’ or ‘non-existence’ of classes, we should speak of
types and levels of what I shall call class structuration”, this chapter
examines to which degree classes are still operating as structuring forces of
social inequality in two European and two North American societies. Six
dimensions of class structuration are investigated: patterns of social mobility
and interaction, cultural orientations, class sentiment, political action,
consumption and quality of life. Even if there is evidence of a process of
class destructuration in some of the countries under study, this does not point
to the end of ideology, conflict or inequality, since other social cleavages
come to the fore.
Conclusion: A conclusive chapter summarizes the main results and
consequences for the conceptualization of social inequality. Is there a new
structure of inequality emerging, and what are the differences between the
societies compared?
References
Beck, U. 1983, “Jenseits von
Klasse und Stand”. In: R. Kreckel (ed.): Soziale
Ungleichheiten. Sonderband 2 der Sozialen Welt, Göttingen: pp. 35-74.
Beck, U. 1986, Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine
andere Moderne. Frankfurt a.M.
Boutenko, I. and K. Razlogov
(eds.) 1997, Recent Social Trends in
Russia 1960-1995. Frankfurt a.M.; Campus Verlag; Montreal et. al.:
McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Caplow, T., H. Bahr, J. Modell,
B. Chadwick 1991, Recent Social Trends in
the United States 1960-1990. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus Verlag; Montreal et.
al.: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Caplow, T. and H. Mendras 1994,
“Introduction. Convergence or Divergence?” In: S. Langlois with T. Caplow, H.
Mendras, W. Glatzer: Convergence or
Divergence? Comparing Recent Social Trends in Industrial Societies.
Frankfurt a.M.: Campus Verlag; Montreal et. al.: McGill-Queen’s University
Press: pp. 1-21.
Clark, T.N. and S.M. Lipset
1991, “Are Social Classes Dying?” In: International
Sociology 6: pp. 397-410.
Dahrendorf, R. 1991, Betrachtungen über die Revolution in Europa.
Stuttgart: DVA.
Danziger, S. and P. Gottschalk
1993, Uneven Tides. Rising Inequality in America. New York: Russel
Sage Foundation.
del Campo, S. (dir.) 1993, Tendencias Sociales en Espana (1960-1990). Vol. 1 & 2.
Bilbao: Fundación BBV Documenta.
Erikson, R. 1996, “Can Education be Equalized ?”.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (ed.) 1993,
Changing Classes. Stratification and
Mobility in Post-Industrial Societies. London: Sage.
Esping-Andersen, G. 1993,
“Post-industrial Class Structures: An Analytical Framework.” In: G.
Esping-Andersen (ed.): Changing Classes.
Stratification and Mobility in Post-Industrial Societies, pp. 7-31.
Flora, P. (ed.) 1986, Growth to Limits. The Western European
Welfare States Since World War II. Berlin, New York.
Forsé, M., J.-P. Jaslin, Y. Lemel, H. Mendras, D.
Stoclet and J.-H. Déchaux 1993, Recent
Social Trends in France 1960-1990. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus Verlag;
Montreal et.al.: Mc Gill-Queen’s University Press.
Fukuyama, F. 1992, “The End of History and the Last Men”.
London: Penguin Books.
Geißler, R. 1996, “Kein Abschied
von Klasse und Schicht. Ideologische Gefahren der deutschen
Sozialstrukturanalyse.” In: Kölner
Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 48: pp. 319-338.
Giddens, A. 1973, The Class Structure of Advanced Societies.
London: Verlag Hutchinson.
Giddens, A. 1990, The Consequences of Modernity.
Cambridge: Policy Press.
Glatzer, W., K.-O. Hondrich,
H.-H. Noll, K. Stier and B. Wörndl 1992, Recent
Social Trends in West Germany 1960-1990. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus Verlag;
Montreal et.al.: Mc Gill-Queen’s University Press.
Goldthorpe, J. and G. Marshall
1992, “The Promising Future of Class Analysis: A Response to Recent Critiques.”
In: Sociology 26: pp. 381-400.
Haller, M. 1997, “Klassenstruktur
und Arbeitslosigkeit - Die Entwicklung zwischen 1960 und 1990”. In: S. Hradil,
S. Immerfall (eds.): Die westeuropäischen
Gesellschaften im Vergleich. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 377-428.
Holton, R. and B.S. Turner
1990, “Has Class Analysis a Future? Max Weber and the Challenge of Liberalism
to Gemeinschaftlich Accounts of Class”. In: Holton and Turner: Max Weber on Economy and Society. London: Routledge.
Hondrich, K.-O. 1984, “Der Wert
der Gleichheit und der Bedeutungswandel der Ungleichheit”. In: Soziale Welt 35: pp. 267-293.
Hout, M., C. Brooks and J.
Manza 1993, “The Persistence of Class in Post-Industrial Societies”. In: International Sociology 8: pp. 259-278.
Hradil, S. 1987, “Sozialstrukturanalyse in einer
fortgeschrittenen Gesellschaft: von Klassen und Schichten zu Lagen und
Millieus”. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Kingston, P. 1994, “Are there
Classes in the United States?” In: Research
in Social Stratification and Mobility 13: pp. 3-41.
Kuttner, B. 1983, “The
Declining Middle”. In: Atlantic Monthly
(July): pp. 60-69.
Langlois, S. with T. Caplow, H.
Mendras and W. Glatzer 1995, Convergence
or Divergence? Comparing Recent Social Trends in Industrial Societies.
Frankfurt a.M.: Campus Verlag; Montreal et.al.: Mc Gill-Queen’s University
Press.
Langlois, S., J.-P.
Baillargeon, G. Caldwell, G. Fréchet, M. Gauthier and J.-P. Simard 1992, Recent Social Trends in Québec 1960-1990.
Frankfurt a.M.: Campus Verlag; Montreal et.al.: Mc Gill-Queen’s University
Press.
Leisering, L., 1995,
“Zweidrittelgesellschaft oder Risikogesellschaft”. In: Bieback, K.-J., Milz, H.
(eds.): Neue Armut. Frankfurt a. M.:
Campus-Verlag: pp. 58-92.
Lemel, Y. and J. Modell 1994,
“Is There a Single Pattern of Social Evolution?” In: Langlois, S. with T.
Caplow, H. Mendras, W. Glatzer: Convergence
or Divergence? Comparing Recent Social Trends in Industrial Societies.
Frankfurt a.M.: Campus Verlag; Montreal et.al.: Mc Gill-Queen’s University Press,
pp. 23-42.
Lepsius, Rainer M. 1979, “Soziale
Ungleichheit und Klassenstruktur in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland”. In: H.U.
Wehler (ed.): Klassen in der europäischen
Sozialgeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoech &Ruprecht: pp. 166-209.
Lyotard, J.-F. 1984, La Condition Postmoderne. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Mendras, H. with A. Cole 1991, Social Change in Modern France. Towards a Cultural Anthropology of the fifth Republic. Cambridge:
University Press.
Marshall, G. 1991, “In Defense
of Class Analysis: A Comment on R. E. Pahl”. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 15: pp.
114-118.
Marshall, G. 1997, Repositioning Class. Social Inequality in
Industrial Societies. London: Sage.
Martinelli, A., A. Chiesi and
S. Stefanizzi 1999: Recent Social Trends
in Italy. Montreal et.al.: Mc Gill-Queen’s University Press.
Mayer, K.-U. and H.-P. Blossfeld
1990, “Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion sozialer Ungleichheit im
Lebensverlauf”. In: P. A. Berger, S. Hradil (eds.) 1990: Soziale Welt, Sonderband 7: Lebenslagen, Lebensläufe, Lebensstile,
pp. 297-318.
Müller, W. 1986, “Soziale
Mobilität. Die Bundesrepublik im internationalen Vergleich”. In: M. Kaase
(ed..): Politische Wissenschaft und
politische Ordnung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag: pp: 339-354.
Noll, H.-H. 1992: “Zur Legitimität
sozialer Ungleichheit in Deutschland: Subjektive Wahrnehmungen und
Bewertungen”. In: P. Mohler, W. Bandilla (eds.): Blickpunkt Gesellschaft 2, Einstellungen und Verhalten der
Bundesbürger in Ost und West. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 1-20.
Noll, H.-H. and S. Langlois
1994, “Employment and Labour-Market Change: Toward Two Models of Growth”. In:
S. Langlois with T. Caplow, H. Mendras and W. Glatzer (eds.): Convergence or Divergence? Comparing Recent
Social Trends in Industrial Societies. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus Verlag;
Montreal et.al.: Mc Gill-Queen’s University Press, pp. 89-113.
Pakulski, J. and M. Waters
1996: The Death of Class. London et.al.: Sage.
Schnapper, D. 1989, “Rapport a l’emploi, protection
sociale et status sociaux”. In: Revue
Francaise de Sociologie 30, 1, pp. 3-29.
Shavit, Y. and H.-P. Blossfeld
1993, “Persistent Ineqaulity. Changing
Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries”. Boulder: Westview Press.
Therborn, G. 1995, “Routes
to/through Modernity”. In: M. Featherstone, R. Robertson and S. Lash (eds.): Global modernities. London: Sage.
Waters, M. 1994, “Succession in
the Stratification System: A Contribution to the ‘Death of Class’ Debate”. In: International Sociology 9, 3, pp.
295-312.
Wolfson, M. 1992, “Inequality
and Polarization: Is there a Disappearing Middle Class in Canada?” Statistics Canada. Ottawa.
Zapf, Wolfgang 1981,
“Wohlfahrtsstaat und Wohlfahrtsproduktion”. In: L. Albertin, W. Link (eds.): Politische Parteien auf dem Weg zur
parlamentarischen Demokratie in Deutschland. Düsseldorf: Droste (Verlag):
pp. 379-400.
