a sense of entitlement ii

i babbled something the other day about some groups maybe having a stronger sense of entitlement than others and wondered, if so, which ones those might be. so, i did a little digging around in the world values survey to see if i could find anything interesting.

i was looking for any question/s related to redistribution of wealth issues, and this is the closest one i could find in the last survey wave (2005-2008):

Many things may be desirable, but not all of them are essential characteristics of democracy. Please tell me for each of the following things how essential you think it is as a characteristic of democracy. Use this scale where 1 means *not at all an essential characteristic of democracy* and 10 means it definitely is *an essential characteristic of democracy*: Governments tax the rich and subsidize the poor.

i know, not the perfect question. but let’s see what the results looked like anyway (see also previous post). here are the percentages of respondents answering *10* to that question — governments taxing the rich and subsidizing the poor is *definitely* an essential characteristic of democracy:

the global average is 24.9%. all of the anglo nations (great britain, u.s., canada, australia) score well below that, with australia having the most redistributive inclinations at 12.5%. most of the other european countries also score below the global average, except for romania, germany and russia. the russian federation has got the highest score of all european nations at 44.5%. (i should’ve done a breakdown of the russian fed. by region, but i didn’t. maybe i’ll work on that.)

in asia, the thais, japanese, and taiwanese all score lower — way lower — than the global average. meanwhile, the chinese, south koreans, vietnamese and indonesians are over the global average.

the interesting group, again, are the arabs/north africans/middle easterners (in green) — the father’s brother’s daughter (fbd) marrying folks. all but one (iran) included in the survey are waaaay above the global average: iraq (34.2%), morocco (35.4%), egypt (58%) and jordan (62.9%). these folks often seem to be found in the extremes of surveys/studies — recall the connection between pathogens and consanguinity, and the fact that fbd marriage groups are very consanguineous despite not living in pathogen-rich environments. curious.

finally, (*envelope please*) — and the winner is — india! at 72.7%.

you’d think that poorer countries would be more interested in redistribution of wealth than richer ones, but that doesn’t seem to be the case — at least not 100% of the time. one of the countries least interested in their democratic government (if they have one) redistributing wealth is rwanda. meanwhile, germany’s not poor, but they’re all about the redistribution of wealth apparently.

in the united states, whites scored lower than the u.s. average (6.6%) at 5.8%. the “others” (asians?) scored even lower at just 3%. hispanics and blacks both desire greater redistribution of wealth in america than whites (but you already knew that!):

mexicans back in mexico score on average 18.20% on the question, with white mexicans desiring the least redistribution of wealth, indios wanting the most, and mestizos somewhere in between:

i wanted to check out the numbers for great britain by race, but the sample sizes were too small (<50) for groups like blacks and south asians, so i checked out g.b. by region instead:

prolly can’t tell much from the london score since that is such a “vibrant” city. i’m not at all surprised to see the peripheral populations in g.b. being (like the arab cousin marriers) more interested in redistributing wealth: folks up north and the north west (cumbria’s in the north west), yorkshire and humberside. meanwhile, the english long-term outbreeders in the midlands and south east don’t want the wealth shared around. dunno what to make of the scots, though! i would’ve expected to see them with a high score. hmmmmm.

i also checked out the regional scores for china having in mind that i have the impression (impression) that cousin/endogamous marriage and clans have always been more frequent/stronger in southern china than in the north (which would fit the pathogen-consanguinity theory, btw). i found that there is a -0.47 correlation between latitude and desire for the redistribution of wealth in china — the further south you go, the more people want the wealth spread around (i.e. to them) [latitudes grabbed from geohack]:

lastly, india. i broke the india numbers down by region before, so this time i thought i’d look at them by religion:

a LOT of people in india are very enthusiastic about redistributing wealth. muslims and hindus the most (muslims more than hindus), christians and sikhs the least — christians least of all. recall that muslims in india have the highest rates of consanguineous marriage in india, while sikhs and christians have the lowest rates.

(note: n>50 for all cases. way more than 50 on the national level.)

previously: a sense of entitlement and democracy and the redistribution of wealth

(note: comments do not require an email. hard day.)

Advertisements

22 Comments

  1. This metric is far too influenced by ideologies (the recent influence of socialism) to be of any use as a biological indicator.

    Reply

  2. The Anglo-sphere, including the UK and the US, used to have extremely progressive tax codes just half a century ago, with top rates of about 90%. I think its safe to say that attitudes to redistribution vary dramatically over time within countries. So do definitions of what “redistribution” consists of. Great Britain is very fond of its NHS, which is unquestionably an example of redistribution. So it’s not really true that 90%” of Britons are anti-redistributionist.

    The proposition itself is confusing, or at least confusingly phrased. “It is as a characteristic of democracy that [democratic] governments tax the rich and subsidize the poor”. I’d probably answer with a “5” myself. I wonder how it’s phrased in different languages?

    Reply

  3. @johnl – “The proposition itself is confusing, or at least confusingly phrased.”

    i agree. it’s not the best question — just the only one i could find in the latest wave of the survey that related at all to redistributing wealth.

    i, myself, would reply “1” — not at all — as i can’t see how governments taxing the rich to subsidize the poor is an essential part of a democracy — but i have a bad tendency to take things too literally, so i’m probably missing some subtle point. i’m not alone, though, since 16.4% of americans agree with me. (~_^) (and a whopping 27% of brazilians!)

    @johnl – “The Anglo-sphere, including the UK and the US, used to have extremely progressive tax codes just half a century ago, with top rates of about 90%. I think its safe to say that attitudes to redistribution vary dramatically over time within countries.”

    true, but perhaps within a range? i dunno. it would be interesting to have longitudinal data. (who on earth had a 90% tax rate anyway?! *gulp!*)

    @johnl – “So it’s not really true that 90%” of Britons are anti-redistributionist.”

    no, of course not. don’t forget that the scale is from 1 to 10, so it would really be just those responding 1-4 or 5 that would be anti-redistributionist (or who would think that redistribution of wealth is not an *essential* characteristic of democracy). for the record, 7.1% of brits responded “1.”

    maybe i should break it down between the 1 through 5s versus the 6 through 10s? for instance, for the brits:

    1-5 = 38.2%
    6-10 = 61.9%

    u.s.a.:

    1-5 = 59.2%
    6-10 = 40.8%

    mexico:

    1-5 = 51.4%
    6-10 = 48.6%

    egypt:

    1-5 = 12%
    6-10 = 88.1%

    hmmm. that’s kinda interesting. maybe that will be tomorrow’s project. (^_^)

    Reply

  4. Remember that Germany now includes E. Germans – who have amped up their demands but not reduced their sense of entitlement – explains their outlier status.

    Reply

  5. These results just beg for a correlation with economic development or even better the rate of economic growth.

    Reply

  6. Since the elites in the West often favor economic redistribution most — can you get the figures on that — we might also call it a sense of distitlement. I know I belong to that group — not because I think it is an essential part of the definition of democracy but because I think it would be good policy and would promote the general welfare. As it obviously does in many countries. So there!

    Reply

  7. @sam – “Remember that Germany now includes E. Germans – who have amped up their demands but not reduced their sense of entitlement – explains their outlier status.”

    could very well be! i thought about breaking down the german data by region, but then after doing all the others … well, i was a little tired. (~_^)

    i did look at “civicness” in germany regionally by longitude in a previous post, and found that west germans seem to be more civic-minded than east germans. i could very well believe a difference in ideas/feelings about entitlement exist along an east-west axis in germany, too.

    Reply

  8. @bob – “These results just beg for a correlation with economic development or even better the rate of economic growth.”

    or with consanguinity/historical inbreeding rates. (~_^)

    i thought about economic development, but not rate of economic growth. good idea! (anyone know of a good data set for rate of economic growth?)

    Reply

  9. @luke – “Since the elites in the West often favor economic redistribution most….”

    yeah. one for us, ninety-nine for them. one for us, ninety-nine for them…. (~_^)

    Reply

  10. @johnl – “The US in the 1950′s.”

    huh. interesting. thanks! (sure hope there were BIG loopholes! (~_^) )

    seems like those (what can’t possibly be referred to as anything else than extreme) rates were somehow connected to wwii when they shot up to an 88% rate for those with an income of just (heh!) $2.75M (adj. 2011). then the rates slipped up to 94% in ’44 for pretty much the same income bracket. and didn’t really get corrected until some time after ’54 (but before ’64?).

    so all that was maybe paying for the war during and after? i dunno. i’m just guessing here.

    Reply

  11. where do ideologies come from? (~_^)

    Foreign influence and the promise of power. Arabs in the 60’s and 70’s didn’t embrace Arab nationalist-style socialism because they have a biological predilection towards it. But I can guess how they would have replied to this survey.

    Reply

  12. @ihtg – “Foreign influence and the promise of power.”

    really? i thought they (ideologies) came from the minds of people (usually men, come to think of it). unless you’re into all that divine inspiration stuff.

    Reply

  13. The numbers this study provides do not work.
    US blacks are on welfare at over 4 times the rate of US whites.
    This either means the question wasn’t completely understood (if you are on welfare your only answer should be 10) or people lied (people not wanting to be perceived as welfare dependent).

    Reply

  14. really? i thought they (ideologies) came from the minds of people

    Don’t be Unzin’ me, hbdchick. :P

    Ideologies can spread for very different reasons from the one they were originally created because of.

    Reply

  15. @ihtg – “Don’t be Unzin’ me, hbdchick. :P”

    (^_^) no, no! that was a genuine question, i assure you. it, and a few others, go/goes along with that other question i ask a lot: “where does culture come from?” (see categories below in center column.)

    @ihtg – “Ideologies can spread for very different reasons from the one they were originally created because of.”

    sure. but SOMEbody has to think them up, first. they don’t arise out of thin air. and then, different populations are prolly more or less receptive to different ideologies. not a whole lot of communism in the united states or england or even canada, especially when compared to the former soviet union/eastern bloc countries or china. you gotta ask yourself why.

    and then, of course, different populations alter ideologies to suit their own tastes, like the early medieval germans did with christianity.

    @ihtg – “Arabs in the 60′s and 70′s didn’t embrace Arab nationalist-style socialism because they have a biological predilection towards it.”

    i say they did — in part. of course there were all the political movers and shakers who obviously had a huge influence on what happened in those nations at the time, but i think they wouldn’t have been able to sell the socialism (such as it was) part of their ideology without some willingness on the populations’ side to accept it. and i think the attitudes of tribal egyptians that i posted about it the last post give a hint as to what the people in these arab, tribal countries expect from their leaders. it’s only one example, so maybe i’m wrong — i am on the look out for other examples from the region, though. and when you couple it with the example from china — i think there is a general pattern here.

    i could always be wrong, though. “failure is always an option!” (~_^)

    Reply

  16. @rjp – “if you are on welfare your only answer should be 10”

    good point. any idea what percentage of african americans (and other groups) are on welfare? i actually don’t know.

    Reply

  17. In FY 2009, African-American families comprised 33.3% of TANF families, white families comprised 31.2%, and 28.8% were Hispanic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States)
    demographics of population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
    white: 68%
    aa: 13%
    hispanic: 16%

    44,708,726 total receive SNAP. i can not find data on good on TANF. the only data i can find shows total recipients at a little over 4 million, and i am not sure i trust the 44mm SNAP total. — i think the use of all these acronyms are so the statistics are difficult to compile.

    Reply

  18. @rjp – “In FY 2009, African-American families comprised 33.3% of TANF families, white families comprised 31.2%, and 28.8% were Hispanic.”

    wow. that is something. =/ thanks for checking!

    like you say, a lot more of them should be answering *10* on this wvs question. then again, a lot of low iq people on welfare might not really grasp where, exactly, the money comes from (i.e. taxpayers). you know the phenomenon: “obama’s gonna pay my bills!.”

    Reply

  19. Hello HBD Chick.

    Being from México, I can tell you that though the sub-racial break-down in the averages of wealth redistribution are correct, you will also see different attitudes towards this kind of policy if you could break it down by area, meaning, north, center and south. Most of the white(hispanic white) population of México is concentrated in the north(especifically the states of Sonora, Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila and Durango), I´m, from personal experience(being a native born Chihuahuense, mestizo too but mostly from european decent, german and spanish and some indian blood too trow in the mix) I´m prone to believe that the attitude towards wealth redistribution is a lot less than the rest of the national average, even lower than the national sub-racial break down would indicate.

    I´m also guessing that the souther states in México(Oaxaca, Tabasco, Guerrero, Veracruz and Chiapas) are the ones that have the most positive attitude towards wealth redistribution, since most of the indigenous population is concentrated in this area.

    I´m guessing too that the reason that the “american”-mexicans attitude towards wealth redistribution is lower on average than the Mexican national average is, first an foremost, the mexican state since 1917, is a social(ist) state in nature, and people for generations now have grown accostumed to goverment largest via state sponsor social programs(this has historicay not always been the case for most of mexican history), this is going to affect the way people think about this policies, second, you will have to determine from were the mexican immigrants come from in mexico, this will too affect there attitude towards wealth redistributionism.

    Probably, up to the 1980´s, most of the mexican immigrants to the US came from the nothern states and center states(especifically guadalajara, there is some indications to this), nother mexican states tend to be more independent/individualistic in nature than center states, and even more so than southern states. The current waves of mexican/mestizo migrants to the US come primarily from southern states in mexico and central american countries like guatemala and el salvador, the racial make up of this people is more indian than european, sometimes being almost entirely indian(guatemala having the largest population of native people, of mayan decent)

    Reply

  20. @erick – “…you will also see different attitudes towards this kind of policy if you could break it down by area, meaning, north, center and south…. I´m prone to believe that the attitude towards wealth redistribution is a lot less than the rest of the national average, even lower than the national sub-racial break down would indicate.

    I´m also guessing that the souther states in México(Oaxaca, Tabasco, Guerrero, Veracruz and Chiapas) are the ones that have the most positive attitude towards wealth redistribution, since most of the indigenous population is concentrated in this area….”

    ah ha! thanks, erick. yes, that makes sense. i should actually be able to break down the world values survey data for mexico by region — i will definitely have to do that one of these days! thank you.

    @erick – “Probably, up to the 1980´s, most of the mexican immigrants to the US came from the nothern states and center states (especifically guadalajara, there is some indications to this), nother mexican states tend to be more independent/individualistic in nature than center states, and even more so than southern states. The current waves of mexican/mestizo migrants to the US come primarily from southern states in mexico and central american countries like guatemala and el salvador, the racial make up of this people is more indian than european, sometimes being almost entirely indian(guatemala having the largest population of native people, of mayan decent)”

    this is something that i’ve been wondering about, actually — which parts of mexico do our immigrants come from (because obviously that would make a difference — at least i think it would)? i did a little investigating on this for another post a few months ago, but my efforts were really just very tiny compared to the huge topic and vast amount of info out there — so that last post is HARDLY the final word on the matter. probably large parts of it are just flat out wrong. (*^_^*)

    thanks again! (^_^)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s