Everyday Law in Russia
Everyday Law in Russia
复制标题
俄罗斯的日常法律
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Stephenson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Stephenson
在社会经济地位和努力工作会让你出人头地的信念之间，不同的国家背景有所不同。在美国和从16个欧元区国家抽取的样本中，更富有的人更有可能将努力工作等同于向上流动。然而，在美国，收入最高和收入最低的五分位数受访者对努力工作的好处的平均回答之间的差异是欧元区样本的两倍。此外，在拉丁美洲的样本中，收入和对努力工作的信念之间没有关系。在第四章中，作者回顾了她自己和其他人对贫困和/或生活在不平等比率较高的地区的心理和情感后果的研究。除了确定贫困与压力、担忧、愤怒、悲伤和痛苦之间的密切关系外，格雷厄姆还提出了一项新的研究，证明了贫困和乐观之间的反向关系(衡量的是受访者对自己五年后生活的满意度)。当按种族和民族分解数据时，她发现黑人受访者的乐观率要高得多，而白人的乐观率要低得多(西班牙裔居中)。在白人受访者中，贫困受访者和非贫困受访者之间的种族/种族差异最大。无论是考虑到阿片类药物滥用死亡人数的上升，还是2016年总统选举的结果，美国白人的不满和希望破灭似乎与美国当前的社会政治局势特别相关。第五章从各种不同的学科中概述了我们所知道的关于信念和愿望如何影响人们对未来的投资以及这些投资的结果。证据表明，人们的信念往往会导致强化这些信念的行为。乐观的人为未来做准备，未来是光明的。悲观主义者恰恰相反，他们会经历更多的负面结果。该书最后对一些政策进行了回顾，这些政策在解决贯穿始终的各种问题方面显示出了一些希望，并讨论了幸福指标如何在评估这些政策时有用。我认为大多数社会学家会发现格雷厄姆的新书是一本雄心勃勃且耐人寻味的书，用来理解经济和社会资源丰富的人和拥有更少经济和社会资源的人之间日益扩大的裂痕造成的社会和经济原因和后果。它的时机特别幸运，因为它为关于美国人口中贫穷、白人和沮丧的部分的新兴叙事提供了强有力的经验证据。它包含了来自不同学科的大量研究，使其作为参考文本特别有用。而且，尽管可能是最不发达的国家，但她对研究驱动型公共政策的讨论，为如何在微观和宏观层面转变这些有问题的轨迹提供了初步建议，并为幸福指标应该--事实上，必须--纳入关于不平等和公共政策的学术讨论的论点提供了弹药。
between socioeconomic position and the belief that hard work will get you ahead varies across national contexts. In both the United States and a sample drawn from sixteen Eurozone countries, wealthier individuals are more likely to equate hard work with upward mobility. Yet the difference between average responses from respondents in the highest and lowest income quintiles to the question regarding the benefit of hard work is twice as large in the United States as it is in the Eurozone sample. Furthermore, there is no relationship between income and belief in hard work among the Latin American sample. In Chapter Four, the author reviews her own and others’ research on the psychological and emotional consequences of being poor and/or living in areas with high rates of inequality. In addition to identifying strong relationships between poverty and stress, worry, anger, sadness, and pain, Graham presents new research that demonstrates an inverse relationship between poverty and optimism (measured as how satisfied with their lives respondents think they will be in five years). When disaggregating the data by race and ethnicity, she identifies significantly higher rates of optimism among black respondents and significantly lower rates among whites (with Hispanics in the middle). And the within-race/ethnicity differences between poor and nonpoor respondents are largest among the white respondents. Whether considering the rising death toll of opioid abuse or the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, the dissatisfaction and diminished hopes of white Americans seem especially relevant to the current sociopolitical situation in the United States. Chapter Five draws from a wide variety of disciplines to provide an overview of what we know regarding how beliefs and aspirations influence the investments that people make in their futures and the outcomes of these investments. The evidence suggests that people’s beliefs often lead to behaviors that reinforce those beliefs. The optimistic prepare for the future, and the future is bright. The pessimistic do the opposite and experience much more negative outcomes. The book concludes with a review of policies that have shown some promise in addressing the various issues raised throughout and a discussion of how well-being metrics can be useful in assessing such policies. I think most sociologists will find Graham’s new book to be an ambitious and intriguing approach to understanding the social and economic causes and consequences of the growing rift between those with more and those with fewer economic and social resources. Its timing is especially fortunate, as it offers strong empirical evidence to the emerging narrative regarding the segment of the U.S. population that is poor, white, and frustrated. Its inclusion of a wealth of research from a variety of disciplines makes it especially useful as a reference text. And, while perhaps the least developed, her discussion of research-driven public policy offers initial suggestions for how to shift these problematic trajectories at both the micro and macro levels and adds ammunition to the argument that well-being measures should—in fact, must—be incorporated into the scholarly discussion of inequality and public policy.