An official website of the United States government
It is well documented that earnings inequalities have risen in many high-income countries. Less clear are the linkages between rising income inequality and workplace dynamics, how within- and between-workplace inequality varies across countries, and to what extent these inequalities are moderated by national labor market institutions. In order to describe changes in the initial between- and within-firm market income distribution we analyze administrative records for 2,000,000,000+ job years nested within 50,000,000+ workplace years for 14 high-income countries in North America, Scandinavia, Continental and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. We find that countries vary a great deal in their levels and trends in earnings inequality but that the between-workplace share of wage inequality is growing in almost all countries examined and is in no country declining. We also find that earnings inequalities and the share of between-workplace inequalities are lower and grew less strongly in countries with stronger institutional employment protections and rose faster when these labor market protections weakened. Our findings suggest that firm-level restructuring and increasing wage inequalities between workplaces are more central contributors to rising income inequality than previously recognized.
more »
« less
Leading countries in global science increasingly receive more citations than other countries doing similar research
Abstract Citations and text analysis are both used to study the distribution and flow of ideas between researchers, fields and countries, but the resulting flows are rarely equal. We argue that the differences in these two flows capture a growing global inequality in the production of scientific knowledge. We offer a framework called ‘citational lensing’ to identify where citations should appear between countries but are absent given that what is embedded in their published abstract texts is highly similar. This framework also identifies where citations are overabundant given lower similarity. Our data come from nearly 20 million papers across nearly 35 years and 150 fields from the Microsoft Academic Graph. We find that scientific communities increasingly centre research from highly active countries while overlooking work from peripheral countries. This inequality is likely to pose substantial challenges to the growth of novel ideas.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2022395
- PAR ID:
- 10375701
- Publisher / Repository:
- Nature Publishing Group
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Nature Human Behaviour
- Volume:
- 6
- Issue:
- 7
- ISSN:
- 2397-3374
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 919-929
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)In many academic fields, the number of papers published each year has increased significantly over time. Policy measures aim to increase the quantity of scientists, research funding, and scientific output, which is measured by the number of papers produced. These quantitative metrics determine the career trajectories of scholars and evaluations of academic departments, institutions, and nations. Whether and how these increases in the numbers of scientists and papers translate into advances in knowledge is unclear, however. Here, we first lay out a theoretical argument for why too many papers published each year in a field can lead to stagnation rather than advance. The deluge of new papers may deprive reviewers and readers the cognitive slack required to fully recognize and understand novel ideas. Competition among many new ideas may prevent the gradual accumulation of focused attention on a promising new idea. Then, we show data supporting the predictions of this theory. When the number of papers published per year in a scientific field grows large, citations flow disproportionately to already well-cited papers; the list of most-cited papers ossifies; new papers are unlikely to ever become highly cited, and when they do, it is not through a gradual, cumulative process of attention gathering; and newly published papers become unlikely to disrupt existing work. These findings suggest that the progress of large scientific fields may be slowed, trapped in existing canon. Policy measures shifting how scientific work is produced, disseminated, consumed, and rewarded may be called for to push fields into new, more fertile areas of study.more » « less
-
Abstract ObjectivesStudies suggest that living at high altitude decreases obesity risk, but this research is limited to single‐country analyses. We examine the relationship between altitude and body mass index (BMI) among women living in a diverse sample of low‐ and middle‐income countries. Materials and MethodsUsing Demographic and Health Survey data from 1 583 456 reproductive age women (20–49 years) in 54 countries, we fit regression models predicting BMI and obesity by altitude controlling for a range of demographic factors—age, parity, breastfeeding status, wealth, and education. ResultsA mixed‐effects model with country‐level random intercepts and slopes predicts an overall −0.162 kg/m2(95% CI −0.220, −0.104) reduction in BMI and lower odds of obesity (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87, 0.95) for every 200 m increase in altitude. However, countries vary dramatically in whether they exhibit a negative or positive association between altitude and BMI (34 countries negative, 20 positive). Mixed findings also arise when examining odds of obesity. DiscussionWe show that past findings of declining obesity risk with altitude are not universal. Increasing altitude predicts slightly lower BMIs at the global level, but the relationship within individual countries varies in both strength and direction.more » « less
-
Abstract The production of research and faculty in the US higher education system is concentrated within a few institutions. Concentration of research and resources affects minoritized scholars and the topics with which they are disproportionately associated. This paper examines topical alignment between institutions and authors of varying intersectional identities, and the relationship between research topics and identities with institutional prestige and scientific impact. Our results show statistically significant differences between minoritized scholars and White men in citations and journal impact. The aggregate research profile of prestigious US universities is highly correlated with the research profile of White men, and negatively correlated with the research profile of minoritized women. Furthermore, authors affiliated with more prestigious institutions are associated with increasing inequalities in both citations and journal impact. These results suggest a relationship—which we coin as the Howard‐Harvard effect—in which the topical profile of minoritized scholars is further marginalized in prestigious institutions as compared to mission‐driven institutions. Academic institutions and funders should create policies to mitigate the systemic barriers that prevent the United States from achieving a fully robust scientific ecosystem.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Disturbances fundamentally alter ecosystem functions, yet predicting their impacts remains a key scientific challenge. While the study of disturbances is ubiquitous across many ecological disciplines, there is no agreed-upon, cross-disciplinary foundation for discussing or quantifying the complexity of disturbances, and no consistent terminology or methodologies exist. This inconsistency presents an increasingly urgent challenge due to accelerating global change and the threat of interacting disturbances that can destabilize ecosystem responses. By harvesting the expertise of an interdisciplinary cohort of contributors spanning 42 institutions across 15 countries, we identified an essential limitation in disturbance ecology: the word ‘disturbance’ is used interchangeably to refer to both the events that cause, and the consequences of, ecological change, despite fundamental distinctions between the two meanings. In response, we developed a generalizable framework of ecosystem disturbances, providing a well-defined lexicon for understanding disturbances across perspectives and scales. The framework results from ideas that resonate across multiple scientific disciplines and provides a baseline standard to compare disturbances across fields. This framework can be supplemented by discipline-specific variables to provide maximum benefit to both inter- and intra-disciplinary research. To support future syntheses and meta-analyses of disturbance research, we also encourage researchers to be explicit in how they define disturbance drivers and impacts, and we recommend minimum reporting standards that are applicable regardless of scale. Finally, we discuss the primary factors we considered when developing a baseline framework and propose four future directions to advance our interdisciplinary understanding of disturbances and their social-ecological impacts: integrating across ecological scales, understanding disturbance interactions, establishing baselines and trajectories, and developing process-based models and ecological forecasting initiatives. Our experience through this process motivates us to encourage the wider scientific community to continue to explore new approaches for leveraging Open Science principles in generating creative and multidisciplinary ideas.more » « less
