Marcel Świerkocki

Abstract

In its treatment of the concept of social inequality, this article first describes the contemporary definitions, as well as introducing certain synonymous terms. The aim is then pursued further through the posing of auxiliary questions; and it is in an effort to arrive at answers that the remainder of the text is developed and structured.

In respect of the first matter – of contemporary definitions, we may note how the English-language literature defines inequality as the unequal distribution of a given resource, but with a concomitant valence charge implying that the phenomenon is also subject to social evaluation. This in then in marked contrast with a Polish subject literature that has long sought to avoid naming the phenomenon directly. As a result, as many as three terms are in operation, effectively translating as “differentiation” and “disparity” as well as the precise equivalent of “inequality”. As usual, full consideration of an issue requires, or at least benefits greatly from, a process of defining what is actually meant by associated phenomena.

Leading into the subsequent question, of “how does social inequality affect the condition of society and the quality of life?”, the author first supplies a brief description of the history of social inequality and points out that, among the phenomenon’s many dimensions (also relating to age, gender, race, religion, etc.), it is the economic factors that do most to differentiate today’s societies. Severe economic inequality can suffice to slow down economic development overall – in developed countries in particular (Brueckner and Lederman, 2015); and it assuredly has a negative impact when it comes to numbers of political conflicts, social capital and productivity (Persson and Tabellini, 1991). According to OECD reports, the economies of more egalitarian countries grow more rapidly, yet also in a more stable fashion, than those of more unequal countries (OECD, 2015). It is therefore worrying when analyses reveal that social and especially economic inequalities are increasing in European countries, and in terms of both objective and subjective standards.

The answer to a third question was intended to allow for an overview of the main research traditions that have taken up the theme of social inequalities. These only transformed into a fully-fledged research topic with the quantitative revolution and beginnings of the positivist approach in geography – in the 1960s. With the widespread use of quantitative methods in geography came the welfare approach, in which inequalities (notably economic) were also the subject of study. Despite the very different scales of research (from the global down to the local), researchers were united by a question summarisable as: “what is the equitable distribution of a given good?”

The positivist turn in geography also had its critics – a circumstance leading to the emergence of the new groups of approaches currently dominating the research discourse on social inequality, i.e. radical geography and critical geography. The two are united by the social commitment of their researchers, as well as research themes including emancipation and social justice. However, there are also differences. First of all, as critical geography rejects ‘revolution’ as a goal of action, revolutionary beliefs have been replaced by conviction as to the effectiveness of small changes in ultimately transforming individuals and societies. A second significant difference relates to the research problems addressed: where radical geography has focused on economics, critical geography has been more about culture and representation. A third divergence relates to the research methods used – given critical geography’s rejection of positivist and neo-positivist approaches and therefore the quantitative research methods associated with these approaches (Gregory et al., 2009).

The last section answers questions concerning research directions in the study of social inequalities; in so doing identifying two that are most popular, as well as one that is developing. The first of these categories includes research into spatial patterns of inequality and the neighbourhood effect; while the last (least-explored) research direction concerns itself with the link between social inequality and quality of life – in both the objective and subjective dimensions. If we take individual ‘goods’ not distributed evenly in society (i.e. issues relating to health, education or living conditions), and then compare individual spatial units in terms of these parameters, we can obtain information on inequalities in objective quality of life; as well as detailed information regarding the different dimensions to these inequalities, or the spatial patterns.

The article concludes with a reminder of the most important findings, and with a kind of call for the further involvement of geographers in the study of inequalities, and thus the creation of a theoretical framework allow the topic to be researched further.

Keywords: social inequality, spatial inequality, urban geography, city, disparities, social differentiation, segregation

Marcel Świerkocki [m.swierkocki@uw.edu.pl], Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Geografii i Studiów Regionalnych

Citation

APA: Świerkocki, M. (2024). Perspektywa geograficzna badań nierówności społecznych w przestrzeni miast. Przegląd Geograficzny, 96(2), 235-252. https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2024.2.5
MLA: Świerkocki, Marcel. "Perspektywa geograficzna badań nierówności społecznych w przestrzeni miast". Przegląd Geograficzny, vol. 96, no. 2, 2024, pp. 235-252. https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2024.2.5
Chicago: Świerkocki, Marcel. "Perspektywa geograficzna badań nierówności społecznych w przestrzeni miast". Przegląd Geograficzny 96, no. 2 (2024): 235-252. https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2024.2.5
Harvard: Świerkocki, M. 2024. "Perspektywa geograficzna badań nierówności społecznych w przestrzeni miast". Przegląd Geograficzny, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 235-252. https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2024.2.5