Income segregation and development prioritization are forms of social inequality that perpetuate poverty worldwide. On the macro-scale, the poverty redress policies emphasize the importance of economic growth while the issue of social inequality remains in the background (Basu & Subramanian, 2020). A wider emphasis on growth further deepens the income gap since the people in the bottom 20% of the per-capita income spectrum do not necessarily benefit from the overall development (Basu & Subramanian, 2020). Thus, the policymaker’s hesitation in concentrating on the equal distribution of mean income remains the ultimate macro-cause of poverty.
On the micro-scale, there is an issue with ambiguous data on the poorest population due to no fixed income source, with money coming from multiple information sources that are difficult to document (Basu & Subramanian, 2020). The documentation complexity then undermines the availability of financial help. Furthermore, inequality in school environments contributes to socioeconomic achievement gaps, resulting in income segregation (Bischoff & Owens, 2019). Overall, the lack of socioeconomically integrated settings contributes to diminishing low-income students’ achievements, while the lack of proper documentation contributes to the challenge of acknowledging the scope of the problem.
Institutional discrimination is manifested through different systemic treatment of people in education, business, and politics. Social inequality is commonly rooted in an exclusionary institutional approach to education distribution (Teng, 2019). Education distribution, in turn, can be exacerbated by systemic income segregation through varying education funding (Bischoff & Owens, 2019). Furthermore, the institutions tend to select and promote people whose values align with the institution’s role in maintaining the group hierarchy (Huet, Gargiulo & Pratto, 2020). Generally, institutional discrimination tends to be self-perpetuating and persistent, resulting in social inequality in the short and long terms.
Beyond systematic discrimination, however, individual characteristics may also drive larger social inequality patterns. For instance, Huet et al. (2020) discuss how gender differences in self-esteem can create a male-dominant social hierarchy. As Bischoff and Owens (2019) point out, self-worth influences future employment success, further propagating the differences. Furthermore, if one assumes that each individual has resources partly derived from their support network, then people with greater resources may better advocate for their interests than the underprivileged population (Bischoff & Owens, 2019). Overall, the degree of individual well-being, sense of worth, and social resources create social inequality.
Historic solutions to social inequality problems have commonly attempted to address social inequality through technology, metrics design, and policy experiments. Various happiness indices, national GDP, and business reports provide volumes of data. Nevertheless, merely collecting and analyzing information does not suffice for alleviating inequality (Khosla, 2017). New policies on employment, social security, capital sharing, and taxing have been proposed; the ‘rent-seeking’ system has been tested only to find out that it reinforces inequality (Khosla, 2017). However, most historic solutions aimed to address the situation postfactum rather than preventatively, which has been their major limitation.
Preventative solutions, while not evident immediately, are often the most efficient long-term answer, which is the case for social inequality. Khosla (2017) recounts that knowledge and skills diffusion between and within countries always reduces economic and social inequalities. Nations must develop and incorporate a socially conscious movement, which would integrate education with the needs of society (Khosla, 2017). Properly distributed education, being the greatest equalizing force, can produce a workforce whose actions will benefit society in the long run (Khosla, 2017). Thus, incorporating an individual-focused approach in education may provide a long-term solution for social inequality by transforming human attitudes.
References
Basu, K., & Subramanian, S. (2020). Inequality, growth, poverty and lunar eclipses: Policy and arithmetic. Development & Change, 51(2), 352–370. Web.
Bischoff, K., & Owens, A. (2019). The segregation of opportunity: Social and financial resources in the educational contexts of lower- and higher-income children, 1990-2014. Demography, 56(5), 1635–1664.
Huet, S., Gargiulo, F., & Pratto, F. (2020). Can gender inequality be created without inter-group discrimination?.PLOS ONE, 15(8), e0236840. Web.
Khosla, pp 30-39 S. S. (2017). Social inequality and recession—causes and possible cure. Journal of Management and Training for Industries, 4(2), 30–39.
Teng, Y. (2019). Educational inequality and its determinants: Evidence for women in nine Latin American countries, 1950s-1990s. Revista de Historia Económica, 37(3), 409–441. Web.