Socioeconomic Status Essay ⋆ Business Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Socioeconomic status (SES) is examined both at the internal, family level and as a group and national attribute. At the family level, SES is an indicator of a family’s position in a hierarchy that defines societal standing and ultimately determines opportunity and future success of family members. SES considers family income, levels of education, occupational categories, family history or blood (e.g., royalty), gender, perceived intelligence of family members, community standing, and often race and religion. In some countries, the latter categories far outweigh more mutable traits such as income or education. As reflected in the term, both social attributes and economic standing are incorporated into the characterization. Status is sometimes divided into ascribed status (inborn, such as gender, intelligence, or royal blood) and achieved status (occupation, wealth, or education). Most commonly, SES is associated with wealth or poverty.

Families with higher SES almost always have greater opportunities for the success of their children in education and employment. Higher SES often is reflected in greater resources that are turned into higher-quality child care, greater access to reading materials and exposure to technology, more availability of communications such as cell phones and computers, and generally a better environment for learning. Simply being a part of a higher-level group alters, through regular exposure, vocabulary and language ability, which in turn opens opportunity for access to business, social, and educational groupings.

Likewise, the reciprocal is true. Lower SES is associated with deprivation of opportunity, greater likelihood of exposure to crime and gang violence, and even discouragement from academic success, thus developing a cycle of poverty and limited access to both skills and business capital.

The cyclic nature of SES often results in a rigidity of social stratification. Especially when SES is coincident with visible racial characteristics or religious identification, it can turn into a fractionalization of a society that leads to conflict. Examples include the relationship between whites and blacks in the United States, Malays and Chinese in Malaysia, Shia and Sunni in Iraq, and castes in India, among many.

The nature of government has an impact on SES within societies. In fact, the critical divisions between governments with capitalist and socialist objectives are only superficially about control of the means of production. The differences are as much about the leveling of SES and the government’s role in that process. Political leaders from the 18th century forward have often seen their roles as being to lift the lower classes and to promote social mobility. In some cases, this effort is pursued as a moral imperative, while in others it is seen as a means of conflict avoidance and economic progression. Philosophical cleavages of great magnitude related to SES exist based on differences in thinking about human nature, intelligence, ethics and morality, and economic achievement. The gaps between rich and poor, which inevitably parallel SES, are the essence of issues of nationalism, revolution, war, and raw politics in virtually every country in the 21st century, as they have been throughout much of modern history.

Measuring SES remains a matter of debate as it has for the last half century. While simple wealth is often used as an indicator, matters of royalty (bloodlines), biological racial character, IQ, class, and other human characteristics are often entered into the equation and the measures remain imprecise, even though the term is commonplace. More progress has been made when talking about groups, rather than families, and especially about countries.

The International Country Risk Guide (ICRG), which rates Political Risk for 140 countries, classifies them on an equivalent spectrum termed Socioeconomic Conditions. These conditions, like status, cover a broad spectrum of factors ranging from country wealth to market conditions to health status. These are encompassed methodologically by breaking the variable down into three subcomponents, each given a weight of four. The Socioeconomic Conditions variable itself is therefore 12 points in ICRG’s overall Political Risk rating of 100.

The measures are assessed by country experts, and each is asked to rate their view of the country on a unit scale. The specific measures are as follows:

Unemployment (assessed on a 4-point scale, zero being the worst, 4 being the best): While an unemployment level can mean different things to different populations (e.g., 5 percent in Japan versus 5 percent in Argentina), this subvariable tries to weigh the impact of an employment level on the particular society. Thus, while the same percentage might translate as a rating of 3.5 in one country, it might be 2.5 in another.
Consumer confidence (4 points): Now commonly measured around the world, this is a rating on the population’s feelings about whether they can spend or instead need to set aside resources for an uncertain future.
Poverty (4 points): Like with unemployment, an official poverty level can mean different things in different countries, so a rating works better than a percentage. Poverty is the extent to which a section of the population cannot feed or sustain itself.

The poverty measure in particular parallels a critical element of SES. The use of multiple indicators to give a quantitative assessment is an important step. Similar measures need to be undertaken to measure SES for families or groups. However, SES remains a condition that we understand implicitly, but one that we have yet to put into a common cross-national measure.

Bibliography:

Nancy E. Adler, Michael Marmot, Bruce S. McEwen, and Judith Stewart, eds., Socioeconomic Status and Health in Industrial Nations: Social, Psychological, and Biological Pathways (New York Academy of Sciences, 2000);
Raymond Aron, Helen Weaver, and Richard Howard, Main Currents in Sociological Thought II (Anchor Books, 1970);
Llewellyn D. Howell, ed., The Handbook of Country and Political Risk Analysis (PRS Group, 2008);
S. McEwen, Socioeconomic Status and Health in Industrial Nations: Social, Psychological, and Biological Pathways (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000);
Carol Propper and John A. Rigg, Socio-Economic Status and Child Behaviour: Evidence from a Contemporary UK Cohort (Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, 2007);
Max Weber, Basic Concepts in Sociology, trans. H. P. Secher (Citadel Press, 1962);
Max Weber, Economy and Society, trans. G. Roth and C. Wittich (Bedminster Press, 1968);
Charles V. Willie, Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status: A Theoretical Analysis of Their Interrelationship (General Hall, 1983).

This example Socioeconomic Status Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.