In nearly a century, the Western world has not known such a difference in wealth as it does today. But we hardly seem to care about it. Success is our own merit, right? Dr Jonathan Mijs, sociologist at Erasmus University Rotterdam, (EUR) on the myth of meritocracy and his research into the phenomenon of disconnected inequality.
Social inequality in the Western world is increasing. Why is this?
“That is mainly the result of a series of political decisions. Look at the United States, for example. Almost a hundred years ago – after the stock market crash of 1929 and the subsequent Depression – the New Deal was set up there. That was a major job creation program with a strong social base. It was decided to tax the top incomes, so every dollar that you earned more than a certain maximum, with 93 cents per dollar. This has been maintained for about four decades. But presidents like Nixon, Reagan and Trump and some controversial Supreme Court decisions caused a turnaround, with the tax burden on big earners becoming lighter and lighter. If you add up all the taxes, so not only income tax but also VAT, profit tax and so on, the lowest incomes spend a larger part of their income in tax than people at the top.”
It's not that bad in the Netherlands, is it?
"That is disappointing. We like to think of ourselves as a tolerant and progressive country, but if you dig in you will see that wealth inequality in the Netherlands is almost as strong as in America. It is made easy for the wealthier in various ways. Think, for example, of subsidies that you receive as a homeowner and that do not apply to tenants or that apply to a much lesser extent. Especially under the purple cabinets at the end of the last century, market forces were implemented in areas that were previously the domain of government, such as public transport and health care. This gave rise to the mentality that everyone has more or less equal opportunities, or in other words the idea of meritocracy: your successes are your own merit. But if you don't succeed, you also have 'to blame yourself' for this. That view is dubious: not only are you poor, but it is also your own fault. As if the victims of the Allowances Affair can be blamed. And let's not just focus on financial inequality. Education or ethnicity can also lead to inequality. Some population groups have significantly fewer opportunities because of their origin. A crude reality that clashes with our image of an egalitarian Netherlands.”
"We lack a clear picture of the way to a fairer society"
You speak of disconnected inequality.
“I mean that perception and reality do not match when it comes to inequality in society. The facts and figures show large differences in prosperity, but many people are not aware of this. We all know that black Americans are discriminated against. But we do not see that it is structurally more difficult to find a job in the Netherlands with an Islamic name. Or we don't want to see it. Because the meritocratic idea that you owe your success to yourself is deeply rooted in Western culture. Moreover, it is a situation that reinforces itself. We tend to seek friends and associates within our own group, often people of similar education and income levels. So, on the – popularly said – successful side of the divide, we have a little diverse frame of reference. As a result, we experience the world as less unequal, while the actual differences grow.”
How did the theory of meritocracy come about?
“That's pretty bizarre. The term was coined by British sociologist Michael Young. His book The Rise of Meritocracy [1958] is a preposterous, dystopic tale in which inequality and poverty are justified by social success. Like the absurd metaphor of the bootstrap: if you want to progress, you must pull yourself up by your shoelaces to a better life. Intended as a social critique, the theory of meritocracy was nevertheless embraced as a healthy situation. As mentioned, this is because we are too little aware of inequality and tend to look away. A third reason is the lack of a clear alternative. There is no clear picture of the path we can take towards a fairer society.”
"The Netherlands sees itself as an egalitarian country, but wealth inequality is almost as strong as in America"
What does your research into this disconnected inequality look like?
“In a nutshell, I would like to know: how do people shape their perception of inequality and where do they get their information? I have mapped out how over time the pattern of actual income inequality is related to fluctuations in public opinion. Remarkably enough, it appears that people seem to be less concerned about a dichotomy in periods of greater inequality. I will then conduct a survey in the Netherlands and the United States, in which I ask people about their ideas about and explanations for social inequality. Some of the respondents also receive information and others do not. The research shows that people who stay very much in their own bubble are less likely to adjust their perception of inequality. People with more contacts outside their own group are more likely to take the factual information as true. They form a more realistic picture of inequality. In America you see this phenomenon especially in the field of wealth inequality, in the Netherlands in contact with ethnic groups. Its mission is to ensure that public debate is based on facts and less on perceptions and misperceptions. Then we can make a profit.”
What must be done first?
“If you really want to end the dichotomy as a government, ensure more integration between neighbourhoods. Make sure there are no poor and rich schools. Create and invest in public spaces such as parks, squares and libraries where people meet. Provide public forums and good information. Why is there no SIRE campaign on discrimination or poverty? Scientists and journalists also have a responsibility in this, by the way. I myself am part of an expert group of the OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] to look at how we can better involve people in policy making and evaluation. When I worked at the London School of Economics, I had a lot of contact with Oxfam, the organization that fights poverty and inequality. Amnesty International is also a discussion partner, alongside scientists from all kinds of disciplines.
But you also have your responsibility as an individual. For example, if you are looking for a school for your child, do not always automatically choose the 'whitest' school. Ultimately, the way we live together is an accumulation of individual choices.”
Jonathan Mijs (1983) is a postdoctoral researcher at Erasmus University Rotterdam, with a part-time appointment at Boston University. He obtained his PhD as a sociologist from Harvard University. In February, Mijs received the prestigious KNAW Early Career Award. He is currently doing research into public attitudes towards inequality in the Netherlands and the United States. Mijs is also working on the book 'The Inequality Paradox: Why the Growing Gap Leaves Us Less Concerned'.
- Researcher
- More information
Read more about Jonathan Mijs and his research on his own website.
- Related content
