IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v22y2017i4p27-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Culture is a Meritocracy’: Why Creative Workers’ Attitudes may Reinforce Social Inequality

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Taylor

    (The University of Sheffield, UK)

  • Dave O’Brien

    (University of Edinburgh, UK)

Abstract

The attitudes and values of cultural and creative workers are an important element of explaining current academic interest in inequality and culture. To date, quantitative approaches to this element of cultural and creative inequality have been overlooked, particularly in British research. This article investigates the attitudes of those working in creative jobs with a unique dataset: a web survey of creative workers’ attitudes (n = 2487). Using principal components analysis and regression, we have three main findings. First, in contrast to Richard Florida’s thesis on the attitudes and values of ‘the creative class’, our respondents’ attitudes were no more meritocratic than those of the general population. Second, those with the strongest belief in meritocracy in the sector are those in the most privileged positions, specifically those are best rewarded by the sector. Third, our research provides support for existing qualitative research on attitudes in the cultural sector, in which the worst rewarded workers are most aware of structural inequality. We conclude that the attitudes held by creative workers, and who holds which attitudes, make it unlikely that access to the sector and trajectories of individual progression within the sector will change. These findings also have important implications for current public interest in whether access to creative work is limited to those from privileged backgrounds.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Taylor & Dave O’Brien, 2017. "‘Culture is a Meritocracy’: Why Creative Workers’ Attitudes may Reinforce Social Inequality," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 22(4), pages 27-47, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:22:y:2017:i:4:p:27-47
    DOI: 10.1177/1360780417726732
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1360780417726732
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1360780417726732?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paolo Brunori, 2017. "The Perception of Inequality of Opportunity in Europe," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 63(3), pages 464-491, September.
    2. Oakley, Kate & Laurison, Daniel & O'Brien, Dave & Friedman, Sam, 2017. "Cultural capital: arts graduates, spatial inequality, and London's impact on cultural labour market," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84366, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Isaksson, Ann-Sofie & Lindskog, Annika, 2009. "Preferences for redistribution--A country comparison of fairness judgements," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 884-902, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrea Salas‐Ortiz & Andrew M. Jones, 2024. "Inequality of opportunity in the double burden of malnutrition in Mexico," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(10), pages 2342-2380, October.
    2. Rene Schwaiger & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Daniel Kleinlercher & Utz Weitzel, 2020. "Unequal Opportunities, Social Groups, and Redistribution: Evidence from the General Population," Working Papers 2020-26, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    3. Michał Litwiński & Rafał Iwański & Łukasz Tomczak, 2023. "Acceptance for Income Inequality in Poland," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 166(2), pages 381-412, April.
    4. Olivier Bargain & Mathias Dolls & Dirk Neumann & Andreas Peichl & Sebastian Siegloch, 2014. "Comparing inequality aversion across countries when labor supply responses differ," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 21(5), pages 845-873, October.
    5. Rafael Carranza, 2023. "Upper and Lower Bound Estimates of Inequality of Opportunity: A Cross‐National Comparison for Europe," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 69(4), pages 838-860, December.
    6. Gualtieri, Giovanni & Nicolini, Marcella & Sabatini, Fabio, 2019. "Repeated shocks and preferences for redistribution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 53-71.
    7. Olivier Bargain & Mathias Dolls & Dirk Neumann & Andreas Peichl & Sebastian Siegloch, 2014. "Tax-Benefit Revealed Social Preferences in Europe and the US," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 113-114, pages 257-289.
    8. Olivier Bargain & Mathias Dolls & Dirk Neumann & Andreas Peichl & Sebastian Siegloch, 2011. "Tax-Benefit Systems in Europe and the US: Between Equity and Efficiency," CESifo Working Paper Series 3534, CESifo.
    9. Kuhn, Andreas, 2012. "Redistributive Preferences, Redistribution, and Inequality: Evidence from a Panel of OECD Countries," IZA Discussion Papers 6721, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Tina Haussen, 2018. "Intra-Household Income Inequality and Preferences for Redistribution," Jena Economics Research Papers 2018-004, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    11. Erik Schokkaert & Tom Truyts, 2017. "Preferences for redistribution and social structure," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(3), pages 545-576, December.
    12. Brock, J. Michelle, 2020. "Unfair inequality, governance and individual beliefs," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 658-687.
    13. Antonino Callea & Dalila De Rosa & Giovanni Ferri & Francesca Lipari & Marco Costanzi, 2022. "Can Emotional Intelligence promote Individual Wellbeing and protect from perceptions' traps?," CERBE Working Papers wpC39, CERBE Center for Relationship Banking and Economics.
    14. Lionel Page & Daniel G. Goldstein, 2016. "Subjective beliefs about the income distribution and preferences for redistribution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(1), pages 25-61, June.
    15. Ibrahim, Solava, 2021. "The dynamics of the Egyptian social contract: How the political changes affected the poor," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    16. Tina Haussen, 2019. "Intra-household income inequality and preferences for redistribution," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 499-530, June.
    17. Knight, John & Gunatilaka, Ramani, 2022. "Income inequality and happiness: Which inequalities matter in China?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    18. Erik Schokkaert & Benoît Tarroux, 2021. "Empirical research on ethical preferences: how popular is prioritarianism?," Working Papers 2104, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    19. Niclas Berggren, 2012. "The Calculus of Consent: some Swedish connections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 313-321, September.
    20. Konrad, Kai A. & Morath, Florian, 2010. "Social mobility and redistributive taxation," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship & Project "The Future of Fiscal Federalism" SP II 2010-15, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:22:y:2017:i:4:p:27-47. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.