PEACE 100

July 26, 2017

2:00-3:00 MWF

STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE

Group 2
Members:
Bonite, Jonil
Hermoso, Adelyne
Macmod, Aleah
Mejia, David Henz
Mosones, Glodane
Pulgarinas, Jasper
Tasil, Bai Johara
STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE
Structural violence is a term commonly ascribed to Johan Galtung, which he introduced
in the article "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research" (1969).[1] It refers to a form of violence
wherein some social structure or social institution may harm people by preventing them from
meeting their basic needs.
Institutionalized adultism, ageism, classism, elitism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, speciesi
sm, racism, and sexism are some examples of structural violence as proposed by
Galtung. According to Galtung, rather than conveying a physical image, structural violence is an
"avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs".[2] As it is avoidable, structural violence is
a high cause of premature death and unnecessary disability. Because structural violence affects
people differently in various social structures, it is very closely linked to social
injustice.[3] Structural violence and direct violence are said to be highly interdependent,
including family violence, gender violence, hate crimes, racial violence, police violence, state
violence, terrorism, and war.[4]
In his book Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic, James Gilligan defines
structural violence as "the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy
the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively lower death rates experienced by
those who are above them". Gilligan largely describes these "excess deaths" as "non-natural"
and attributes them to the stress, shame, discrimination, and denigration that results from
lower status. He draws on Sennett and Cobb, who examine the "contest for dignity" in a
context of dramatic inequality.[5]
Bandy X Lee wrote in her article Causes and cures VII: Structural violence, "It refers to
the avoidable limitations society places on groups of people that constrain them from achieving
the quality of life that would have otherwise been possible. These limitations could be political,
economic, religious, cultural, or legal in nature and usually originate in institutions that have
authority over particular subjects."[6] She goes on to say that it "directly illustrates a power
system wherein social structures or institutions cause harm to people in a way that results in
maldevelopment or deprivation".[6] Rather than the term being called social injustice or
oppression, there is an advocacy for it to be called violence because this phenomenon comes
from, and can be corrected by human decisions, rather than just natural causes. [6]

Cause and effects

In The Sources of Social Power, Michael Mann makes the argument that within state
formation, "increased organizational power is a trade-off, whereby the individual obtains more
security and food in exchange for his or her freedom."[7] Sinia Maleevi elaborates on Mann's
argument by saying, "Mann's point needs extending to cover all social organizations, not just
the state. The early chiefdoms were not states, obviously; still, they were established on a
similar basisan inversely proportional relationship between security and resources, on the
one hand, and liberty, on the other."[7] This means that although those who live in organized,
centralized social systems are not likely subject to hunger or to die in an animal attack, they are
likely to engage in organized violence, which could include war. These structures make for
opportunities and advances that humans could not create for themselves, including the
development of agriculture, technology, philosophy, science, and art; however, these
structures take tolls elsewhere, meaning that these structures are both productive and
detrimental. In our early history, hunter-gather groups used organizational power to acquire
more resources and produce more food, but at the same time, this power was also used to
dominate, kill, and enslave other groups in order to expand territory and supplies.[7]
Although structural violence is said to be invisible, it has a number of influences which
shape it. These include identifiable institutions, relationships, force fields, and ideologies,
including discriminatory laws, gender inequality, and racism.[8] Moreover, this does not only
exist for those of the lower class, although the effects are much heavier on them, including the
highest rate of disease and death, unemployment, homelessness, lack of education,
powerlessness, and shared fate of miseries. The whole social order is effected by social power,
but these other groups have much more indirect effects on them, with the acts generally being
less violent.[8]
Due to the social and economic structure in place today, specifically the division into
rich and poor, powerful and weak, and superior and inferior, the death rate is between 10 and
20 million per year, which is about ten times the death rates from suicide, homicide, and
warfare combined.[6]
Foreign Debt
What is 'Foreign Debt'
Foreign debt is an outstanding loan that one country owes to another country or
institutions within that country. Foreign debt also includes due payments to international
organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The debt may be comprised of
fees for goods and services or outstanding credit due to a negative balance of trade. Total
foreign debt can be a combination of short-term and long-term liabilities.

BREAKING DOWN 'Foreign Debt'

One relative measurement of foreign debt safety is that foreign exchange reserves
should not be less than outstanding short-term foreign debts. Governments can lower their
foreign debts by rescheduling their obligations or simply by paying them off. Foreign countries
typically hold U.S. debt in the form of short- and long-term government-issued bonds.

TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATION

Transnational corporations (TNCs) are incorporated or unincorporated enterprises

comprising parent enterprises and their foreign affiliates. A parent enterprise is defined as an
enterprise that controls assets of other entities in countries other than its home country,
usually by owning a certain equity capital stake.

An equity capital stake of 10 per cent or more of the ordinary shares or voting power for
an incorporated enterprise, or its equivalent for an unincorporated enterprise, is normally
considered as a threshold for the control of assets (in some countries, an equity stake other
than that of 10 per cent is still used. In the United Kingdom, for example, a stake of 20 per cent
or more was a threshold until 1997.).

A foreign affiliate is an incorporated or unincorporated enterprise in which an investor,

who is resident in another economy, owns a stake that permits a lasting interest in the
management of that enterprise (an equity stake of 10 per cent for an incorporated enterprise
or its equivalent for an unincorporated enterprise).

CONCEPT OF POVERTY
Poverty is general scarcity or the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material
possessions or money (people with $1.25 a day).[1] It is a multifaceted concept, which includes
social, economic, and political elements. Absolute poverty or destitution refers to the lack of
means necessary to meet basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter.[2] Absolute poverty is
meant to be about the same independent of location. Relative poverty occurs when people in a
country do not enjoy a certain minimum level of living standards as compared to the rest of the
population and so would vary from country to country, sometimes within the same country. [3]
After the industrial revolution, mass production in factories made producing goods
increasingly less expensive and more accessible. Of more importance is the modernization
of agriculture, such as fertilizers, to provide enough yield to feed the population.[4] Providing
basic needs can be restricted by constraints on government's ability to deliver services, such
as corruption, tax avoidance, debt and loan conditionalities and by the brain drain of health
care and educational professionals. Strategies of increasing income to make basic needs more
affordable typically include welfare, economic freedoms and providing financial services.[5]

Measuring poverty
Income Poverty: a family's income fails to meet a federally established threshold that differs
across countries.[16]
United Nations: Fundamentally, poverty is the inability of having choices and opportunities, a
violation of human dignity. It means lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It
means not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not
having the land on which to grow one's food or a job to earn one's living, not having access to
credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households and
communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living in marginal or fragile
environments, without access to clean water or sanitation.[17]
World Bank: Poverty is pronounced deprivation in well-being, and comprises many dimensions.
It includes low incomes and the inability to acquire the basic goods and services necessary
for survival with dignity. Poverty also encompasses low levels of health and education, poor
access to clean water and sanitation, inadequate physical security, lack of voice, and insufficient
capacity and opportunity to better one's life. [18]
 Poverty is usually measured as either absolute or relative (the latter being actually an
index of income inequality).
In the United Kingdom, the second Cameron ministry came under attack for their
redefinition of poverty; poverty is no longer classified by a family's income, but as to whether a
family is in work or not.[19] Considering that two-thirds of people who found work were
accepting wages that are below the living wage (according to the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation[20]) this has been criticised by anti-poverty campaigners as an unrealistic view of
poverty in the United Kingdom.[19]
Absolute poverty
Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and between
countries.First introduced in 1990, the dollar a day poverty line measured absolute poverty by
the standards of the world's poorest countries. The World Bank defined the new international
poverty line as $1.25 a day in 2008 for 2005 (equivalent to $1.00 a day in 1996 US
prices).[21][22] In October 2015, they reset it to $1.90 a day.[23]
Absolute poverty, extreme poverty, or abject poverty is "a condition characterized by
severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation
facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on
access to services."[24] The term 'absolute poverty', when used in this fashion, is usually
synonymous with 'extreme poverty': Robert McNamara, the former president of the World
Bank, described absolute or extreme poverty as, "a condition so limited
by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality, and low life
expectancy as to be beneath any reasonable definition of human decency."[25][notes 1][26] Australia
is one of the world's wealthier nations. In his article published in Australian Policy Online,
Robert Tanton notes that, "While this amount is appropriate for third world countries, in
Australia, the amount required to meet these basic needs will naturally be much higher
because prices of these basic necessities are higher."
However, as the amount of wealth required for survival is not the same in all places and
time periods, particularly in highly developed countries where few people would fall below the
World Bank Group's poverty lines, countries often develop their own national poverty lines.
Relative Poverty
Relative poverty views poverty as socially defined and dependent on social context,
hence relative poverty is a measure of income inequality. Usually, relative poverty is measured
as the percentage of the population with income less than some fixed proportion of median
income. There are several other different income inequality metrics, for example, the Gini
coefficient or the Theil Index.
Relative poverty is the "most useful measure for ascertaining poverty rates in wealthy
developed nations."[55][56][57][58][59] Relative poverty measure is used by the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Canadian poverty researchers. In the
European Union, the "relative poverty measure is the most prominent and mostquoted of the
EU social inclusion indicators."[60]
"Relative poverty reflects better the cost of social inclusion and equality of opportunity in a
specific time and space."[61]
"Once economic development has progressed beyond a certain minimum level, the rub
of the poverty problem from the point of view of both the poor individual and of the societies
in which they live is not so much the effects of poverty in any absolute form but the effects of
the contrast, daily perceived, between the lives of the poor and the lives of those around them.
For practical purposes, the problem of poverty in the industrialized nations today is a problem
of relative poverty (page 9)."[61][62]
In 1776 Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations argued that poverty is the inability to
afford, "not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life but
whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the
lowest order, to be without."[63][64]
Brian Nolan and Christopher T. Whelan of the Economic and Social Research Institute
(ESRI) in Ireland explained that "[P]overty has to be seen in terms of the standard of living of
the society in question."[70]
Relative poverty measures are used as official poverty rates by the European Union,
UNICEF, and the OEDC. The main poverty line used in the OECD and the European Union is
based on "economic distance", a level of income set at 60% of the median household income.
The Scale and Impact of Inequality
Inequalities represent differences in income, health, ownership of land, access to power
and so on. They are sometimes classed as avoidable or unavoidable. An example of an
unavoidable inequality might be that not all people have the physical capacity to become fast
runners. An avoidable inequality which some call an inequity might include sharp
differences in incomes or life expectancy. However, there are always debates about whether
inequalities are avoidable. Inequalities in income may be attributed to the supposed inherent
laziness of poor people, while life expectancy differences are sometimes driven by behavioural
patterns (such as smoking) over which people exercise some degree of personal control. On the
other hand, it can also be argued that individual behaviour can only account for a proportion of
the differences in life expectancy between rich and poor that afflict most countries, and that
unhealthy habits like smoking, drinking and risky sexual behaviour are deeply socially
patterned, suggesting that people do not have as much control over their choices as some
think. So is a life expectancy inequality in which smoking plays a role a truly avoidable
inequality? Inequality is studied by social scientists because they are interested in such debates.
The works of philosopher John Rawls are particularly important. He outlined his theory of
justice as fairness in A Theory of Justice (Rawls 1971).
He argued that if humans were able to construct principles of justice from behind a veil
of ignorance in which no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor
does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence,
strength, and the like most people would choose a society in which everyone was treated
equally, and would adopt a position that would maximize the position of the poorest. Rawls
therefore argued that social and economic structures and policies should be arranged so that:
They are to be of the greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society;
Offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity.
Through these principles, Rawls constructs a philosophical argument for reducing
inequality. Now, we will move on to examine two distinct types of inequality: first, inequality
between people living in the same society, and second, inequality between societies. Inequality
within societies The most common tool used to measure economic inequality within societies is
the Gini coefficient. Its value ranges from 0 for a perfectly equal society, where all income is
shared equally across the whole population, to 1 for a perfectly unequal society, where one
person owns everything.
There are interesting trends within and between regions.

In general, the countries of Europe and the former Soviet Union, with the notable exception
of Russia, have the lowest levels of income inequality.

Both Africa and Latin America have generally high levels of income inequality, though, as
noted above, there are exceptions.

There is considerable diversity in Asia, with some regions, including the Indian subcontinent,
Indonesia, Japan and South Korea, having relatively low inequality, while inequality is higher in
China and much of South-East Asia and the Middle East.

Interestingly, this map illustrates that relatively income-equal countries such as Rwanda,
Ghana, Canada and Indonesia are often neighbours of income-unequal countries. Regional
patterns and trends are difficult to identify.

Time trends in within-country inequality are summarized below. There is a lot of dispute
about the quality of data used to construct the Gini coefficient, especially for developing
countries. For example, while India is recorded as having a relatively low coefficient, more
accurate measurement would probably raise it substantially.

Global inequalities

It has been argued that better-off citizens in most of the developing world have fewer
opportunities than the poor in rich countries (World Bank 2006). The logical conclusion is that
inequalities between countries are greater than those within countries. This does not mean we
should ignore within-country inequality, but that both types of inequality should be recognized.
There are three ways of measuring global inequality.
 The first method is to forget that countries exist, and simply calculate the inequality in the
distribution of each person in the worlds income, adjusted for purchasing power parity. Strictly
speaking this is the measure known as global inequality (although we call all these types of
measure global inequality in everyday language).

The second method is to calculate the inequalities between countries by assigning each
person the mean income of his/her country instead of his/her own income. Known as
international inequality, this measurement is weighted by population size.

The third method is to assign each country its own mean income, regardless of the size of the
population. This is how we assess inter-country inequality.

Given the number of ways we can measure inequalities across the globe, you can imagine there
is considerable disagreement about whether the world is more sharply divided than before. The
use of different types of inequality data can lead to different conclusions about what policies
should be pursued to defeat world poverty.

Globalization
Globalization (or globalisation; see spelling differences) refers to the free movement of
goods, capital, services, people, technology and information. It is the action or procedure of
international integration of countries arising from the convergence of world views, products,
ideas, and other aspects of culture.[1] Advances in the means of transport (such as the steam
locomotive, steamship, jet engine, and container ships) and
in telecommunications infrastructure (including the rise of the telegraph and its modern
offspring, the Internet and mobile phones) have been major factors in globalization, generating
further interdependence of economic and cultural activities.[2][3][4]
Though many scholars place the origins of globalization in modern times, others trace its
history long before the European Age of Discoveryand voyages to the New World, some even to
the third millennium BC.[5][6] Large-scale globalization began in the 1820s.[7] In the late 19th
century and early 20th century, the connectivity of the world's economies and cultures grew
very quickly. The term globalization is recent, only establishing its current meaning in the
1970s.[8]
Manifestations of Structural Violence
Rampant corruption
The simplest definition is:
Corruption is the misuse of public power (by elected politician or appointed civil servant) for
private gain.
In order to ensure that not ony public corruption but also private corruption between
individuals and businesses could be covered by the same simple definition:
Corruption is the misuse of entrusted power (by heritage, education, marriage, election,
appointment or whatever else) for private gain.
Major corruption comes close whenever major events involving large sums of money, multiple
players, or huge quantities of products (think of food and pharmaceuticals) often in disaster
situations, are at stake. Preferably, corruption flourishes in situations involving high technology
(no one understands the real quality and value of products), or in situtions that are chaotic.
Think of civil war: who is responsible and who is the rebel? Natural disasters like earthquakes,
floods, droughts. The global community reacts quickly but local government might be
disorganised and disoriented. Who maintains law and order? Or maybe the purchase of a
technologically far advanced aircraft, while only a few can understand the technologies implied
in development and production of such a plane. Mostly , the sums of money involved are huge,
a relatively small amount of corrupt payment is difficult to attract attention. Or the number of
actions is very large, for instance in betting stations for results of Olympic Games or
international soccer-tournaments which can easily be manipulated. Geo-politics might play a
role like e.g. the East-West conflict did in the second half of the 20th century, in which the
major country-alliances sought support from non-aligned countries
Massive poverty and hunger
Poverty, food prices and hunger are inextricably linked. Poverty causes hunger. Not every poor
person is hungry, but almost all hungry people are poor. Millions live with hunger and
malnourishment because they simply cannot afford to buy enough food, cannot afford
nutritious foods or cannot afford the farming supplies they need to grow enough good food of
their own. Hunger can be viewed as a dimension of extreme poverty. It is often called the most
severe and critical manifestation of poverty.

Rural households are the most heavily burdened by the consequences of poverty and hunger.
In addition to causing hunger, poverty limits a rural communitys ability to invest in its own
development. Over 30 percent of rural girls living in poverty are kept out of school to save
money, opposed to the 15 percent of urban girls not in school. Studies have shown that lack of
general education leads to higher adolescent birth rates; births that in turn over-burden an
already economically strained community, perpetuating a cycle of gender inequality, poverty
and hunger.

Inequitable distribution of resources

Unequal distribution of resources

The recent price surge is another sign of the unequal distribution of resources on the planet. It
is not likely that people in rich countries will go hungry during the food crisis. This is because
people in developed countries spend only a relatively small amount of their income on food.

However, many families in poor countries spend up to 80 % of their income on food. If prices of
certain foods double, these families will not be able to buy food anymore.
Cause for higher food prices

Climate change
The reasons for the increase in food prices are complex. Those most commonly associated with
it are harvest failure and climate change.

As a consequence of climate change, some regions are becoming less and less suitable for
agriculture. This leads to hunger on a local level and it can have serious effects on global prices.
Concerns are also raised about the fast-growing world population and the increasing demand
for food. It will become increasingly difficult to feed all the

Injustice in the Education System

Students all over the country are not benefitting from a universal/single education. There are
educational injustices at play in the United States that suggest unequal opportunities for
students.
To begin with, surveys such as the US News and World Report indicate how colleges and
universities have been broken down to levels of prestige and rank. The differences may be
study abroad opportunities, accessibility to internships, perhaps passionate professors, valuable
resources like a Writing Center, or clubs and activities, however all these factors contribute to
the categorization of educational institutions. Moreover, they define the disproportion of
opportunity.
How can one compare the education given at an Ivy League like Columbia University and
Harvard, to the ones at a community college like LaGuardia Community College that only
requires a high school diploma for admission?
Students similarly belong to their own classification system; they are classified in terms of social
class and level of aptitude. Students are marked by their apparent intelligence, consequently
denied the opportunity to attend a prestigious college if their academic report card does not
qualify. Likewise, a student from a lower-income family cannot possibly afford to go to a college
that asks for $60,000 a year in tuition and residency, despite their academic abilities to attend
that school.
The education has, then, reserved the right to discriminate.
One may argue without grades, what other merit can universities use as a requirement? Yet
what is not taken into account is that students wish to attend college to learn. No other factor
can guarantee success but the willingness to reach it. All students should have the opportunity
to attend a prestigious college if they wish, because they deserve that quality education.
The ideals of the education system have evolved to ones that do not offer the best of the best
value in education to all students, rather, to only a selected few.
In a country that promotes the value of an education, the education system should exercise
higher flexibility. Education should be just that, an education, with no conditions, requirements
or selectiveness. Dont you agree that all students deserve that right and should not be
deprived of that right because of unnecessary restrictions upon them? As a country, we
understand the value of becoming an educated individual however act in a way that says
otherwise; that only some can reach such heights

Inadequate health services

The degree of general health improvement achieved by public and private health services is
not as high as might be desired. Although technical knowledge for achieving better health is
available, in most countries this knowledge is not being put to the best advantage of the
greatest number. Health resources are allocated mainly to sophisticated medical institutions in
urban areas. Rather than better health for the average person, "improvement of health" tends
to be equated with the provision of medical care dispensed by growing numbers of specialists,
using narrow medical technologies for the benefit of the privileged few. At the same time,
access of large segments of the world's population to health services is limited or non-existent;
disadvantaged groups throughout the world have no access to any permanent form of health
care. These groups probably total four-fifths of the world's population, living mainly in rural
areas and urban slums.

In some countries, even though health facilities are located within easy reach, inability to
pay or cultural taboos put them out of bounds. To complicate matters, health systems are often
devised outside the mainstream of social and economic development, frequently restricting
themselves to medical care, although industrialization and deliberate alteration of the
environment are creating health problems whose proper control lies far beyond the scope of
medical care. Such services operate in an isolated manner, neglecting other factors contributing
to human wellbeing such as education, communications, agriculture, social organization,
community motivation and involvement. This ignores the fact that health cannot be attained by
the health sector alone.

In developing countries in particular, economic development, anti-poverty measures, food

production, water, sanitation, housing, environmental protection and education all contribute
to health and have the same goal of human development. The pace of technological and
economic development requires an intensified release of human energy, placing heightened
importance on physical stamina as a precondition. However, although the current diet upon
which people exist may appear to be ample, it lacks the nutritional balance to sustain regular
participation in a modernized society. In addition, a whole complex of issues such as safe water,
refrigeration and basic hygiene remain relatively undeveloped and therefore continues to
perpetuate illness that drains vitality. The sheer number of people in the care of one doctor,
the remoteness of proper medical facilities and the high cost of treatment prevent early
detection of disease; continuation of energy-draining low-grade infections results in either long-
lasting or permanently chronic defects. The care of the physical well-being of rural people when
called upon to make such efforts at development is a crucial factor that cannot be neglected.

Gender and Economic Stratification

Gender stratification refers to the social ranking, where men typically inhabit higher
statuses than women. Often the terms gender inequality and gender stratification are used
interchangeably. There are a variety of approaches to the study of gender stratification. Most of
the research in this area focuses on differences between mens and womens life
circumstances, broadly defined. Scholarly debates focus on which dimensions of inequalities
are most relevant and the level at which inequalities are generated and maintained (i.e.,
individual, couple, family, group, or societal level). Researchers have been challenged to explore
gender, race, and class inequalities from an intersectional perspective, rather than treating
gender as independent of race and class. There is little acknowledgment of the hetero
normatively that is present in gender stratification research. Perhaps that will change once data
regarding sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression becomes more widely
available. In this section, we present key areas of gender stratification research. Gender
stratification can be examined at the level of individual outcomes and interactions or with a
macro perspective that compares indexes of gender inequalities across countries. Although
welfare states research examines many aspects within and across societies, it provides
important insights in how state policies can shape patterns of gender stratification. Gender
inequality in the area of education, economic resources, and family are closely linked in
individuals lives, but distinct strands of research have emerged and will be discussed
separately. Although we provide examples of research noting gendered health disparities are
outcomes of gender inequalities within societies, not all health research makes this connection.
Research on crime as well as migration and citizenship has traditionally focused on men. Yet a
recent shift to include women more explicitly and gender more broadly has great potential to
inform other areas of research on gender stratification.

An overarching theme in this article calls attention to a concept of institutional

discrimination. Legal discrimination is, after all, illegal. Presumably, if one can document legal
discrimination, one can remove such discrimination through the courts or legislatures.
Institutional discrimination, on the other hand, is much more insidious and, therefore, more
difficult to rectify. Institutional discrimination resides within the fabric of society. Harrington
(1984) poetically called institutional discrimination "structures of misery." Eitzen and Baca-Zinn
(1994:174) describe institutional discrimination as "the customary ways of doing things,
prevailing attitudes and expectations, and accepted structural arrangements [that] works to the
disadvantage [of the poor]." Institutional discrimination explains much inequality in gender
(and race and ethnicity) found in the workplace.

The specifics of this article explore earnings discrimination, occupational distribution, the
organization of work, and the character of relationships within the family where, according to
many, the essence of gender inequality resides.
II. Earning Discrimination

A. Equal Pay for Equal Work?

In 1980 women earned approximately 59 percent of every dollar earned by men (Eitzen
and Baca-Zinn, 1994:253). This ratio improves slightly during economic growth periods in the
national economy. In 1990 the figure was 71 percent of every dollar earned by men (Eitzen and
Baca-Zinn, 1994:253). Recessionary periods, on the other hand, are characterized by growing
disparity in wages earned by men and women.

Many, like Esping-Andersen (1990), argue that as the economy becomes more
internationalized, the gender bias in earnings begins to disappear. The logic here is that
advanced capitalism requires the best person for the job despite gender (or race and ethnicity).
There is some evidence to support Esping-Andersen's claim. Women who work in
internationally competitive industrial sectors do appear to earn salaries that are closer to those
earned by men (see Long, 1993).

Long (1995), however, disputes the claim that all women are experiencing greater parity
with their male counterparts. Huge salaries earned by women who have skills demanded by
corporations that produce in the international arena mask continued (and perhaps growing)
inequality experienced between men and women in the United States in the lower social strata.

B. Differential Access

Differential access means that men have greater access to the labor market than do
women. Differential access does not explain the entire problem, however. Women earn less
than men even on jobs where all other qualifications are held constant.

1. Women Enter the Labor Market with Lower Paying Jobs

Three issues are dealt with regarding institutional discrimination. The first item notes
that women enter the labor market at different and lower paying levels than do men.
Historically, men were doctors while women were nurses; men taught in college while women
taught in primary schools; men worked construction while women were secretaries; men
worked in the automobile and steel industries while women worked in apparels and textiles.

In each of the above comparisons men are employed in labor sectors that pay higher
wages than jobs that employ women.

2. Women Enter the Labor Market Later than Men and Periodically Have to Leave.

A second observation notes that women enter the labor market later than men and
periodically have to leave. The explanation is obvious. Women enter the labor market later
than men and periodically leave to have children. Childbearing is obviously a necessary social
endeavor. The labor market and society overall would cease to function if women did not leave
the labor market to have children. Unfortunately society does not compensate women for this
activity (and other domestic concerns) and it penalizes them in the labor market.

One has difficulty arguing that an employee who has longevity on a job deserves raises
while one who has a "spotty" work record does not. On the other hand, it is not especially
difficult to see the inherent inequity in a system that penalizes women for essentially doing a
good job (domestically) in an activity that is absolutely indispensable socially.

3. Women Earn Less Overtime Than Men

A final observation revolves around the fact that women earn less overtime than do
men. Overtime pay represents the difference between having a good life and a marginal life for
skilled and semiskilled workers. Industry and manufacturing provide overtime pay. These
sectors hire primarily males. Service sector work, such as clerical work, does not pay overtime
nearly as much as manufacturing. These sectors rely heavily on a female workforce.

Differential access highlights the institution character of gender inequality. One can
easily see the dynamics that generate inequality. Solutions are difficult to pinpoint within the
institution of work. One might argue that Americans place too much emphasis on WORK as an
avenue to prosperity. An analysis of Scandinavian social arrangements might be in order.

III. Occupational Distribution

The kind of work an individual does often determines whether that individual (and his or
her family) is wealthy or poor. The previous section, in part, explored inequities in wage-
compensation associated with various kinds of work. Wages, of course, are only one benefit
gained from employment. Other benefits include time-off (Gorz, 1984 argues that leisure is a
fundamental issue regarding work), health and retirement benefits, and longevity (to mention a
few).

At this point exploring the general structure of work is beneficial. Often minorities are
tracked into jobs that do not provide compensation at a level that allows economic
independence. An observation that one might draw is that there are entire categories of jobs
that have similar characteristics.

A. The Split-labor market

Worker's finds themselves employed in one of two great segments in the capitalist economy.
These segments have different characteristics, fulfill different roles in the economy, and
provide different rewards for the laborer (Eitzen and Baca-Zinn, 1994:441-443).
1. The Primary Sector

The primary sector is composed of large, bureaucratic organizations with relatively

stable production and sales. Jobs within this sector require advanced skills, provide relatively
high levels of wage compensation, include good working conditions, and are characterized by
stable employment.

a. Upper Tier

Women are moving into professional areas, but their proportion in professional areas is
still quite low. There has also developed a split in the professional circles that see some
professional jobs becoming routinized. Much of the employee's autonomy is taken out of these
"professional" jobs. Structural change occurs within the world system also which has impact on
women.

Within the primary sector are two sub tiers. Characteristics of the jobs in the upper-tier
are highly educated employees who work at jobs that require creativity and initiative. Upward
mobility is likely.

b. Lower Tier

In the lower-tier one finds white-collar clerical or blue-collar skilled and semiskilled
people. Limited mobility characterizes employment in the lower-tier, but jobs are relatively
secure and have union advocacy.

2. The Secondary Sector

The secondary market is composed of marginal firms where product demand is

unstable. Poor working conditions characterize the work place. Secondary sector employment
provides low wages, few opportunities for advancement, and little job security. Secondary
sector employment requires little education or skills. People get locked into these positions
because they do not have skills. Many account for the low levels of benefits and security found
in the secondary market by blaming the person occupying such positions. Many accuse
secondary sector workers of having poor work histories. Often, however, the poor work history
is a result of unemployment related to the production of marginal products. Workers in the
secondary market are subject to harsh working conditions and oppressive discipline from
management. Both conditions are related to the fact that there are no unions.

Minorities (ethnic, racial, and gender) tend to work in the secondary sector. This, in part,
explains wage and salary inequities.
B. Structural Change in the Job Market: Pink Collar Work

Eitzen and Baca-Zinn (1994:252) note that in 1940 only 20% of women of working age
were in the job market. By 1991 this figure had risen to 57 percent. Greater participation in the
labor force does not, however, translate into empowerment (Staudt, 1987) because often they
are forced into what Eitzen and Baca-Zinn (1994:252) call "pink-collar" professions. As the
capitalist economy is transformed from a manufacturing economy into an advanced service
economy, there is greater need for clerical and service sector jobs and women generally fill
these jobs.

Pink-collar refers to jobs generated in the clerical and service sector. They generally employ
women, but many men do this kind of work as well. "Pink-collar" positions generally offer low
wages compared with employment in manufacturing.

IV. The Organization of Work and Inequality

Economic independence is ultimately enhanced for some because their job allows them to
experience a great deal of upward mobility. Some individuals do not experience UPWARD
mobility. Their jobs are dead-end jobs. On the other hand, some jobs have slots that allow some
people to experience upward mobility, but the manner in which promotions are granted is
biased. This section addresses blocked opportunities and "old boy" networks.

A. The Power of Organizational Position: Blocked Opportunities

Majority groups always develop justifications to explain the inequalities they impose on
minority groups. Often religious or biological explanations are involved. Biology might be used
to explain stereotypical perceptions that "men are more ambitious, task-oriented, and work
involved." Perhaps god might even be invoked to explain why women are "seen as less
motivated, less committed, and more oriented toward work based social relationships than to
work itself."

Obviously we live in the 1990s and educated people recognize such clichs' as trash. There is,
however, the possibility that the expected behavior exists at a sufficient level to perpetuate the
stereotype -- a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. In the work force, male bosses in secretarial
pools might see enough "socializing" to fulfill their expectations that women socialize too much.
While that boss might conjure up religion or biology, the behavior he is seeing might be related
to "pressures" which emanate from the organizational position his secretaries occupy.

Blocked opportunities refer to structural barriers that minorities encounter that prevent their
advancement in an organization. People who have their opportunities blocked(despite their
demographic characteristics) limit their aspirations. Instead of defining themselves through the
work they perform, they seek satisfaction in activities outside work, dream of escape, and
create sociable peer groups in which inter personal relationships become more important than
the specific job they are hired to perform. The key point is that the characteristics of work (that
block opportunity) determine the characteristics of the employee.

B. Old Boy Networks

Old-boy networks refer to the informal social relationships that occur within any large
organization. They may not have discriminatory intentions, but their actions amount to
discrimination in that minorities are ultimately excluded from participation in the organization.
While the term "old-boy" implies a male dominated organization, the gender reference might
be misplaced. Old-boy simply refers to those individuals who have a historic relationship with
an organization who occupies positions of power within the organization. Women can occupy
these positions, but often men are the controlling force in many firms.

Demographic characteristics of informal associations within corporations may inadvertently (or

overtly) limit minority access to higher positions within the organization. Many decisions
concerning company policy (in terms of hiring and firing) occur in these "old-boy" networks.
Imagine, for example, the informal gathering at the health spa at 6:30 in the morning before
work. Obviously women would not "fit in" here. Or suppose the old-boys gather at the local bar
Friday evenings to discuss business or to tell gender specific jokes.

Again, it would not be too far-fetched to think of a scenario where the "old-boys" would argue
that women might be uncomfortable in the barroom setting. They might even convince
themselves that they would do a potential female employee a favor by not subjecting her to
that environment. Despite the patronizing position, one might hypothesize that many a
minority has been excluded from companies as the organization hierarchy engages in precisely
these kinds of arguments and justifications for not hiring minorities.

V. Inequality within the Family

The status of women within the family parallels the position that they hold in the job markets.
Women, however, earn no money for the jobs that they perform in terms of housework and
child rearing, although these jobs are necessary for the survival of the family. Despite the
importance of such work, it is not viewed as prestigious in terms of wage compensation.

The status of men, as wage earners outside the home, helps establish his highly valued position
within the family because women do not have access to resources outside the home. The
position of women in the labor market adds to their dependence experienced within the family.

Gender inequality is historically related to the subordinate position of women within the family
in terms of rule making and control of resources (e.g., money). This relationship is continued
within the labor market where historically men have secured vested positions by making the
rules (controlling management and labor) and by receiving unequal (greater) rewards. (Eitzen
and Baca-Zinn, 1994:443)
The reader should be aware that the kinds of relationships discussed above characterize most
majority/minority relationships. The dominant partner in any social relationship can maintain
power via a combination of control over decision making processes, control of wealth, and one
might add control over ideology that superimposes a justification on top of unequal
relationships.

Political Strife

Apart from the economic conditions and theories that affect the economy of a given
country, the political and social condition of that country is also very much responsible for its
economic state. In fact the internal state of affairs of a country matters the most if it has to
make the most of the advantageous economic trends of the global economy. It is very
important that the political condition of the country is stable and peaceful, only then can other
factors be looked into. However, if there are problems internally and if the political concerns
are fighting over petty and individualistic issues, then overall development of that country will
remain a farfetched dream. .

Interestingly India is one country that is flocked by political countries. Probably no country has
as many political parties as India can boost of. Unfortunately the huge bunch of political parties
only tosses up further complications and several internal problems in the country rather than
doing good. Due to the tussle of the political parties the country and the common man has to
suffer the most. India is literally bleeding under the massive weight of a whopping 500 plus
political parties. Over and above that in this country a government with absolute majority has
not been possible for over a decade now and it is not likely to happen in the near future also. As
a result coalition governments are at the helm of affairs. These coalitions are very much helpful
as in their presence the party with the maximum majority can't take whimsical decisions as the
other parties are there to oppose such irresponsible actions. Conversely, coalition governments
also prove to be an impediment at times as the other parties in the coalition try to fill their
stomachs first and then look into the matters of national importance. Even now due to some of
the good policy makers India benefited a lot from the boom in the IT sector. By gaining
expertise in the complex technical fields like and, India earned good name in the overseas
market.One country that suffered immensely due to internal political turbulences and
differences is the erstwhile USSR. One of the mightiest, richest and largest countries once upon
a time, the USSR has seen such days when its citizens were so short of money that they couldn't
even afford to buy tissue papers. The tussle between the communists and the capitalists led to
such dire consequences that the country got broken up into pieces. There was a terrible lack of
balance in the political atmosphere of the country. The rule of the capitalists was characterized
by the injustices against the common man and the subsequent rise of communism saw the
unparliamentary crushing down of the capitalists. The bloody era saw the breakdown of the
country and its economic condition started deteriorating from bad to worse to worst. Prior to
this, until 1905 the Tsars exercised absolute and undisputable power. There was nobody to
oppose them and they used the resources of the country as per their liking and convenience.
However, the good thing is that though broken up the country has fought back and regained
much of its lost power, splendor, and might and has climbed its way to make an entry into the
coveted list of the G-8 countries.

REFERENCES:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence

http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DIAE/Transnational-corporations-(TNC).aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756384/obo-
9780199756384-0138.xml

http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/136525

http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/137857/computers/internal_political_strife__ec
onomic_crisis__political_issues.html

Cornia G, Kiiski S (2001), Trends in income distribution in the post-World War II period:
evidence and interpretation. UNU/WIDER Discussion Paper 2001/89. Helsinki, United Nations
University, World Institute for Development Economics Research.

Kuznets S (1965), Economic growth and structure: selected essays. New Delhi, Oxford and IBH
Publishing Company.

World Bank (2006), World development report 2006: equity and development. New York,
World Bank/Oxford University Press.

Andersen, Margaret L. and Howard F. Taylor

2001 Sociology: The Essentials. Wadsworth.

Eitzen, D. Stanley and Maxine Baca-Zinn

1986 Social Problems. (3rd Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

1989 Social Problems. (4rd Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

1992 Social Problems. (5rd Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

1994 Social Problems. (6rd Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

1997 Social Problems. (7rd Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Esping-Andersen, Gosta

1990 The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Gorz, Andre

1964 Strategy for Labor: A Radical Proposal. Boston: Beacon Press.

Harrington, Michael

1984 The New American Poverty. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Lim, Linda Y.C.

1983 "Capitalism, Imperialism, and Patriarchy: The Dilemma of Third-World Women Workers in
Multinational factories." pp. 70-91 in June Nash and Maria Patricia Fernandez-Kelly, Women,
Men, and the International Division of Labor. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Long, Russell L.

1993" The World Economy and Patterns of Vulnerability and Inequality: A Comparative Analysis
of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Germany." Unpublished Dissertation.
The University of New Mexico.

1995 "The Differential Impact of the World Economy on Men and Women Employed in Globally
Competitive Industrial Sectors: A Cross-National Comparison." Currently under review by
the Humboldt Journal of Social Relations. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California

Staudt, Kathleen

1987 "Programming Women's Empowerment: A case from Northern Mexico." Pp. 155-176
in Women on the U.S.-Mexico border: Responses to Change by Ruiz, Vicki L and Susan Tiano.
Boston: Allen & Unwin.