Social Class and Socioeconomic Status: Relevance and Inclusion in MPA- terjemahan - Social Class and Socioeconomic Status: Relevance and Inclusion in MPA- Bahasa Indonesia Bagaimana mengatakan

Social Class and Socioeconomic Stat

Social Class and Socioeconomic Status: Relevance and Inclusion in MPA-MPP Programs



Heather Wyatt-Nichol and Samuel Brown
University of Baltimore



Warren Haynes
Rutgers University



Abstract
Social equity has been challenged in recent years through increasing income inequality. The widening gap between the rich and the poor contributes to economic segregation among regions and neighborhoods and has a direct impact on public service delivery. This article examines declining mobility, economic segregation,
and education to demonstrate the relevance of social class and socioeconomic status to the field of public administration. The potential for positive change lies in the willingness of scholars to advance social equity through representation, research, and pedagogy.



The U.S. economy has experienced a severe economic downturn in recent years, evident in the millions of home foreclosures, layoffs, and declining retire- ment portfolios. This “Great Recession” has a direct impact on the public sector as state and local governments are forced to cut budgets for various services due to declining revenues. Paradoxically, it is during times of economic decline and fiscal retrenchment that demand for public services increase. In addition to the economic crisis, there has been a gradual decline of the middle class—evident in declining mobility, increasing income inequality, and economic segregation.
As discussions on social equity have been dominated by race and gender, social class and declining mobility have been marginalized in premiere and mainstream journals of public administration. For example, Public Administra- tion Review and American Review of Public Administration have been silent for over a decade on matters such as the impact of social class on the development of public policy (Oldfield, 2003). When socioeconomic status has been addressed,
it has been narrowly framed within the policy realm of welfare reform and taxa- tion policy.


JPAE 17(2), 187–208

Journal of Public Affairs Education 187


Mainstream public administration curricula also tend to marginalize issues of social class. Although the 2009 NASPAA Diversity Standard includes class as an element of diversity to promote “Diversity across the Curriculum,” most mem- ber institutions continue to emphasize race, gender, and ethnicity. The omission of issues of social class and socioeconomic status in public administration pro- grams has the potential to create blind spots among future public administrators and policy analysts.
An examination of the implications of inequality and declining mobility on public service illustrates the relevance of social class and socioeconomic status to the field of public administration, particularly within the context of social equity. The potential to advance social equity through representation and research is
then considered, considered, followed by strategies to incorporate and assess is- sues of social class and socioeconomic status in MPA-MPP programs.

Relevance to the Field

Social Equity
The emergence of the New Public Administration Movement in the late
1960s, influenced by works of Dwight Waldo and H. George Frederickson, argued that the traditional school emphasized the institution rather than the problem to be solved by the institution. A commitment to social equity and the belief that administrators should be policy advocates are among the major
themes of New Public Administration. Decades later, social equity gained greater acceptance within the field as the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) referred to social equity as the fourth pillar, following economy, efficien- cy, and effectiveness (NAPA, 2005). The conceptualizations and definitions of social equity have also become more refined over the years. The Standing Panel on Social Equity in Governance at NAPA defines social equity as:

The fair, just and equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract; the fair, just and equitable distribution of public services and implementation of public policy; and the commitment to promote fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of public policy (NAPA, n.d.).

Social equity, reflected through justice and fairness in the delivery of public services, is democracy in action. Social equity has been interpreted along the lines of procedural due process and fairness in distribution. The difficulty is that equitable distribution of resources is subject to interpretation and analysis of sometimes competing indicators: equity based on need, demand, preference, or willingness to pay (Lucy & Mladenka, 1977; Wooldridge, 1998). More recently, NAPA’s Standing Panel on Social Equity delineates measures of distributional


equity along the lines of simple equality (equal distribution/water), differenti- ated equality (criteria or need/calls for service), targeted intervention (geographic concentration/health clinics), and redistribution (public assistance).

Social Class and Socioeconomic Status
The terms social class and socioeconomic status are used interchangeably throughout this article. Social class has been conceptualized through both struc- tural and processual approaches, whereby the former interprets class as a matrix of fixed categories in which individuals move up or down a continuum while the latter interprets class as group identities shaped by common, shared experiences (Wright & Shin, 1988). Structural approaches of class analysis typically measure social class through indicators of socioeconomic status such as income, occupa- tion, and education. Weber (1947) categorized classes as working class, lower- middle class, intelligentsia, and upper class. Similar to Weber, the stratification
of classes demonstrated through Warner’s class model (1949) divides classes into upper, middle, and lower, with subdivisions in each (upper-upper class, lower- upper class, upper-middle class, lower-middle class, upper-lower class, lower-low- er class). Newer variations of Warner’s model have since been produced by sociol- ogists such as Gilbert (2002) and Thompson and Hickey (2005), and although the variations use different labels, the six hierarchical levels usually remain intact. In comparison, processual approaches to class analysis explore how individuals develop, interpret, and display class identities.
While processual approaches have tremendous value in class analysis, struc- tural approaches are more appropriate to examine mobility. Mobility is broadly defined as the opportunity for one generation to increase relative earnings above the previous generation. The degree of mobility is often influenced by the op- portunities available from one generation to the next. Advances in opportunity can be achieved through structural mobility and circulation mobility. Bok (1996) defines structural mobility as the product of economic growth, which involves an increase in the total supply of opportunities. In comparison, circulation mobil-
ity is defined as a matter of how fairly society distributes the opportunities that already exist.
The U.S. Census, the Current Population Survey, and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics are among the measures used to examine income and oc- cupational stratification. The ranking of income is generally divided into five equal-sized groups or quintiles. This is done again for the incomes of individuals with the same characteristics in a later year. The quintile transition matrix is then used to compare the percentage of individuals who change income quintiles over a given period. Joseph Schumpeter’s (1955) analogy of income distribution to a hotel fully occupied by different people at different times illustrates mobility. To get an accurate description of individual experience over a lifetime, one needs to know not only the size of the rooms but also the rate at which individuals switch


rooms; therefore, the unequal distribution of income in any given year matters less if individuals are moving up or down the economic ladder over a lifetime.

The Implications of Inequality and Declining Mobility on Public Service
Box (2008) identifies socioeconomic inequality as a regressive value within our society that has been exacerbated over the last two decades as government “abandoned the idea of a systematic approach to problems of inequality” (p.18). The widening income gap between the rich and the poor in recent years provides evidence of increasing social inequality. Between 1979 and 2004, after-tax in- come of the poorest one-fifth of Americans increased by 9%; however, the richest one-fifth of Americans saw an increase of 69% (Sawhill & Morton, 2008). Twen- ty percent of the richest households in the United States in 2004 earned over
half of the total household income (Arcs & Zimmerman, 2008), while 10% of the richest families accounted for 70% of wealth (Haskins, n.d.). The disparities among the rich and poor, the shrinking middle class, and the recent economic crisis have a direct impact on the level and quality of public services available—it is here where social class and socioeconomic status become relevant to the field
of public administration.
Numerous sources that document income stratification provide evidence of less upward mobility. The 1998 U.S. Census March Current Population Survey (CPS) reported that men between the ages of 25 and 34 in 1987 were the first to experience a lower median income than their fathers. More recently, men in their
30s in 2004 earned an average 12% less (adjusted for inflation) than their fathers at the same age a generation earlier (Isaacs, Sawhill, & Haskins, 2008).
In addition to evidence of declining income compared to previous generations, upward mobility is less likely to occur for individuals born into poverty—42% of children born in the bottom income quintile remain in the bottom quintile as adults (Isaacs et al., 2008). Overall, 70% of those born in the bo
0/5000
Dari: -
Ke: -
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1: [Salinan]
Disalin!
Social Class and Socioeconomic Status: Relevance and Inclusion in MPA-MPP ProgramsHeather Wyatt-Nichol and Samuel BrownUniversity of BaltimoreWarren HaynesRutgers UniversityAbstractSocial equity has been challenged in recent years through increasing income inequality. The widening gap between the rich and the poor contributes to economic segregation among regions and neighborhoods and has a direct impact on public service delivery. This article examines declining mobility, economic segregation,and education to demonstrate the relevance of social class and socioeconomic status to the field of public administration. The potential for positive change lies in the willingness of scholars to advance social equity through representation, research, and pedagogy.The U.S. economy has experienced a severe economic downturn in recent years, evident in the millions of home foreclosures, layoffs, and declining retire- ment portfolios. This “Great Recession” has a direct impact on the public sector as state and local governments are forced to cut budgets for various services due to declining revenues. Paradoxically, it is during times of economic decline and fiscal retrenchment that demand for public services increase. In addition to the economic crisis, there has been a gradual decline of the middle class—evident in declining mobility, increasing income inequality, and economic segregation.Sebagai diskusi pada keadilan sosial telah didominasi oleh ras dan jenis kelamin, kelas sosial dan menurunnya mobilitas telah telah terpinggirkan di premiere dan jurnal-jurnal utama dari administrasi publik. Sebagai contoh, pemerintahan umum - tion Tinjauan dan tinjauan administrasi publik Amerika telah diam untuk lebih dari satu dekade mengenai hal-hal seperti dampak sosial kelas pada pengembangan kebijakan publik (Oldfield, 2003). Ketika status sosial ekonomi telah ditangani,telah nyaris dibingkai dalam bidang kebijakan kebijakan reformasi dan taksa-tion kesejahteraan. JPAE 17(2), 187-208 Jurnal pendidikan Public Affairs 187 Utama administrasi kurikulum juga cenderung untuk meminggirkan isu-isu sosial kelas. Meskipun 2009 NASPAA keragaman standar mencakup kelas sebagai elemen keragaman untuk mempromosikan "Keragaman di the kurikulum", kebanyakan lembaga mem-ber terus menekankan ras, gender, dan etnis. Kelalaian isu-isu sosial kelas dan status sosial ekonomi dalam administrasi publik pro-gram memiliki potensi untuk menciptakan bintik-bintik buta antara masa depan umum administrator dan analis kebijakan.Pemeriksaan implikasi ketidaksetaraan dan mobilitas yang menurun dalam pelayanan publik menggambarkan relevansi kelas sosial dan status sosial ekonomi di bidang administrasi publik, terutama dalam konteks sosial ekuitas. Potensi untuk memajukan keadilan sosial melalui perwakilan dan penelitianthen considered, considered, followed by strategies to incorporate and assess is- sues of social class and socioeconomic status in MPA-MPP programs.Relevance to the FieldSocial EquityThe emergence of the New Public Administration Movement in the late1960s, influenced by works of Dwight Waldo and H. George Frederickson, argued that the traditional school emphasized the institution rather than the problem to be solved by the institution. A commitment to social equity and the belief that administrators should be policy advocates are among the majorthemes of New Public Administration. Decades later, social equity gained greater acceptance within the field as the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) referred to social equity as the fourth pillar, following economy, efficien- cy, and effectiveness (NAPA, 2005). The conceptualizations and definitions of social equity have also become more refined over the years. The Standing Panel on Social Equity in Governance at NAPA defines social equity as:The fair, just and equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract; the fair, just and equitable distribution of public services and implementation of public policy; and the commitment to promote fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of public policy (NAPA, n.d.).Keadilan sosial, tercermin melalui keadilan dan keadilan dalam pelayanan publik, adalah demokrasi dalam aksi. Kesetaraan sosial telah ditafsirkan sepanjang garis prosedural proses dan keadilan dalam distribusi. Masalahnya adalah bahwa pemerataan sumber daya interpretasi dan analisis kadang-kadang bersaing indikator: ekuitas berdasarkan kebutuhan, permintaan, preferensi, atau kesediaan untuk membayar (Lucy & Mladenka, 1977; Wooldridge, 1998). Baru-baru ini, NAPA berdiri Panel pada keadilan sosial delineates ukuran distribusi ekuitas sepanjang garis sederhana kesetaraan (sama distribusi/air), differenti-mendatangkan kesetaraan (kriteria atau kebutuhan/panggilan untuk layanan), ditargetkan intervensi (geografis konsentrasi/kesehatan klinik), dan redistribusi (bantuan umum).Kelas sosial dan Status sosial ekonomiPersyaratan kelas sosial dan status sosial ekonomi yang digunakan secara bergantian seluruh artikel ini. Kelas sosial telah dikonseptualisasikan melalui struktur-tural dan processual pendekatan, dimana mantan menafsirkan kelas sebagai matriks tetap kategori di mana individu bergerak naik atau turun kontinum sementara yang kedua menafsirkan kelas sebagai identitas kelompok yang dibentuk oleh umum, berbagi pengalaman (Wright & Shin, 1988). Pendekatan struktural analisis kelas biasanya mengukur kelas sosial melalui indikator status sosial ekonomi seperti pendapatan, occupa-tion, dan pendidikan. Weber (1947) dikategorikan kelas buruh, rendah - kelas menengah, inteligensia dan kelas atas. Mirip dengan Weber, stratifikasikelas dibuktikan melalui Warner kelas model (1949) membagi kelas ke atas, tengah dan bawah, dengan pembagian setiap (kelas atas-atas, bawah - kelas atas, kelas menengah, kelas menengah-bawah, kelas atas-bawah, bawah-rendah-er kelas). Variasi yang lebih baru dari Warner model memiliki karena telah diproduksi oleh Social-ogists seperti Gilbert (2002) dan Thompson dan Hickey (2005), dan meskipun variasi menggunakan label yang berbeda, enam tingkat hierarki biasanya tetap utuh. Sebagai perbandingan, processual pendekatan analisis kelas membahas bagaimana individu mengembangkan, menafsirkan, dan menampilkan identitas kelas.Sementara pendekatan processual memiliki nilai yang sangat besar dalam analisis kelas, struktur-tural pendekatan lebih tepat untuk memeriksa mobilitas. Mobilitas luas didefinisikan sebagai kesempatan untuk satu generasi untuk meningkatkan penghasilan relatif di atas generasi sebelumnya. Tingkat mobilitas sering dipengaruhi oleh op-portunities tersedia dari satu generasi ke depan. Kemajuan dalam kesempatan dapat dicapai melalui struktural mobilitas dan sirkulasi mobilitas. Bok (1996) mendefinisikan struktural mobilitas sebagai hasil dari pertumbuhan ekonomi, yang melibatkan peningkatan pasokan total peluang. Perbandingan, sirkulasi mobil-ity didefinisikan sebagai masalah bagaimana cukup masyarakat mendistribusikan peluang yang sudah ada.Sensus AS, survei populasi saat ini dan studi Panel pendapatan dinamika adalah diantara langkah-langkah yang digunakan untuk memeriksa pendapatan dan oc - stratifikasi cupational. Peringkat pendapatan umumnya dibagi menjadi lima kelompok berukuran sama atau quintiles. Ini dilakukan lagi untuk pendapatan individu dengan karakteristik yang sama di tahun berikutnya. Sekelompok transisi matriks kemudian digunakan untuk membandingkan persentase orang-orang yang mengubah quintiles pendapatan suatu periode tertentu. Joseph Schumpeter analogi (1955) distribusi pendapatan Hotel sepenuhnya diduduki oleh orang yang berbeda pada waktu yang berbeda menggambarkan mobilitas. Untuk mendapatkan gambaran yang akurat dari pengalaman masing-masing selama seumur hidup, kita perlu mengetahui tidak hanya ukuran kamar tetapi juga tingkat di mana individu switch Kamar; oleh karena itu, tidak seimbang distribusi pendapatan setiap tahunnya penting kurang jika individu bergerak naik atau turun tangga ekonomi selama seumur hidup.Implikasi dari ketidaksetaraan dan menurun mobilitas dalam pelayanan publik Box (2008) identifies socioeconomic inequality as a regressive value within our society that has been exacerbated over the last two decades as government “abandoned the idea of a systematic approach to problems of inequality” (p.18). The widening income gap between the rich and the poor in recent years provides evidence of increasing social inequality. Between 1979 and 2004, after-tax in- come of the poorest one-fifth of Americans increased by 9%; however, the richest one-fifth of Americans saw an increase of 69% (Sawhill & Morton, 2008). Twen- ty percent of the richest households in the United States in 2004 earned overhalf of the total household income (Arcs & Zimmerman, 2008), while 10% of the richest families accounted for 70% of wealth (Haskins, n.d.). The disparities among the rich and poor, the shrinking middle class, and the recent economic crisis have a direct impact on the level and quality of public services available—it is here where social class and socioeconomic status become relevant to the fieldof public administration.Numerous sources that document income stratification provide evidence of less upward mobility. The 1998 U.S. Census March Current Population Survey (CPS) reported that men between the ages of 25 and 34 in 1987 were the first to experience a lower median income than their fathers. More recently, men in their30s in 2004 earned an average 12% less (adjusted for inflation) than their fathers at the same age a generation earlier (Isaacs, Sawhill, & Haskins, 2008).In addition to evidence of declining income compared to previous generations, upward mobility is less likely to occur for individuals born into poverty—42% of children born in the bottom income quintile remain in the bottom quintile as adults (Isaacs et al., 2008). Overall, 70% of those born in the bo
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
 
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.

Copyright ©2025 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: