A Postmaterial Crisis?
Did the 2008 economic crisis led to a decline in postmaterial values hold by
citizens of advanced industrial countries?
Masterthesis
Willem van Sermondt
(s3043681)
Date: 8 October 2014
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. M. Verloo
Management Faculty
Abstract
Modernization theory holds that economic development is linked with coherent and, to some extent, predictable changes in culture and social and political life. Inglehart is a prominent scientist standing in this modernization tradition, whereby he focuses on (postmaterial) values hold by citizens. He argues that starting from the 1960s citizens more dominantly hold postmaterial values. This is linked to modernization in the sense that he claims that prolonged periods of prosperity tend to encourage the spread of postmaterial values, economic decline tends to have the opposite effect. This thesis focuses on the second effect and test whether the 2008 economic crisis has led to a decline in postmaterial values. This is descriptively tested on a macro level (advanced industrial countries) and causally tested on a micro level (citizens of advanced industrial countries). The causal model holds that citizens are more insecure about their income due to the economic crisis and therefore have less postmaterial values. The hypotheses are tested using the World Values Survey and the European Social Survey. After examining the different analyses, with varying results, I conclude that it seems to be the case that the expected mechanism is going on. The effects are however that small that I conclude that the change in material vs postmaterial values is not one of the important elements describing the effects of the 2008 economic crisis. Furthermore the dichotomy between material and postmaterial values is criticized.
Key words:
Modernity – Inglehart – (post)material values – 2008 economic crisis – World Values Survey – European Social Survey
Content
Chapter Section Page
1. Introduction modernity, postmodern values and the 2008 economic crisis 1
2. Theory different conceptions of modernity 6
2.1 Modernity among three domains 6
2.2 How Inglehart conceives of modernity 9
2.3 Post-modernity: a new direction 11
2.4 Beyond post-modernity
Varieties of modernity Path dependency
Waves: a silent counter revolution
12
2.5 Inglehart and culture: generalization and particularization
16 2.6 Postmodern vs post-material: two distinct concepts? 18
2.7 Post-materialism according to Inglehart 20
2.8 Value change according to Inglehart
Life cycle effects Generation effects Period effects
24
2.9 Critiques on Inglehart’s claims 27
2.10 Moving forward or backward? The current economic crisis
Hypotheses and causal models
29 3. Methods measurement issues and the specification of hypotheses 35
3.1 Case selection and population-level causality
World Values Survey and European Social Survey
35 3.2 Dependent variable: measuring postmaterial values 36 3.3 Alternative index measuring postmaterial values
(European Social Survey)
39
3.4 Macro level hypotheses 41
3.5 The need of a multilevel model 44
3.6 Micro level hypotheses 46
4. Results macro and micro level 53
4.1 Lower scores of post-materialism? 53
4.2 Lower scores of post-materialism among youngsters? 58 4.3 Macro level correlation?
Correlation: economic growth with postmaterial change Correlation: change in unemployment level with postmaterial change
62
4.4 Micro level effects 67
4.5 The wealthy threshold 77
5. Critical Reflection what could the results mean? 81
5.1 Difference between World Values Survey and European Social Survey
81
5.2 Measuring post-materialism 83
6. Conclusion no postmaterial crisis 86
Literature 90
1) Introduction: modernity, postmodern values and the 2008 economic crisis
In May 2014 the elections for the European Parliament were held across 28 European Union member states. For the first time in history no less than seven animal welfare parties competed in these elections (Animal Welfare Party, 2014). Two of them, the Dutch and the German animal parties, were even elected in the Parliament. Characteristic for animal welfare parties is their strong appeal to post-modernism. The following phrases from the Dutch Party for the Animals’ program are typical for this appeal to postmodern values.
“the earth has enough to meet everyone’s needs, but not enough to meet everyone’s greed.
monetary issues are dictating the economy. money rules, while everything of real value is subordinated to money. Animals and nature have been turned into products with price tags. Even people’s desires and cares are expressed in terms of money. This one-sided approach stands in the way of the change we so dearly need.” Source: Party for the Animals (2012).
The aversion against the financial system and the appeal to a change towards a less economy-centered society are typical for the postmodern ideal. Although only a small part of the population voted for animal welfare parties, the popularity of those parties indicates a societal shift towards postmodern ideals. The Dutch member of parliament (MP) for the Socialist Party Emile Roemer also points to a similar shift. Roemer sees this shift especially among young people. “Younger generations have a different mindset, they do not care so much about money but have different longings. They put more value on friendship and spare time and do not feel the need for excessive salaries”. (E.G.M. Roemer, personal communication, 11 June 2014).
These two examples correspond with Inglehart’s (1977) view about modern society. Inglehart claims that since the 1960s a shift towards modernism has been taking place. In essence post-modernism1 is the idea that economic production becomes less important while interaction, communication and processing information becomes increasingly important (Bell, 1976). The changing societal economic relations led to changing gender roles, changing attitudes towards authority, changing sexual norms and the longing for more political participation (Inglehart, 1997). Inglehart’s modernization theory holds that the postmodern shift is intergenerational. Younger generations are more postmaterial than older generations. The intergenerational shift is based upon two hypotheses; the scarcity hypothesis and the socialization hypothesis. The scarcity hypotheses 1 The concepts post-modernism and post-materialism are often confused with each other. In the theoretical chapter the overlap and distinction of the two concepts is explained. This thesis mainly focuses on the postmaterial concept.
states that “under conditions of prosperity people become more likely to emphasize post-materialist goals” (Inglehart, 1977). People, however, do not immediately adjust their priorities. Hereby socialization places a key role. According to Inglehart (1977) one’s basic values reflect to a large extend the conditions that prevailed during one’s pre-adult years. Younger generations are raised under more secure conditions and therefore are more likely to hold postmaterial values. In this sense the fact that a party for animal welfare gets elected is only half of the story. The other half is partly explained by Emile Roemers’ statement that it is especially the younger generations that most often hold postmaterial values.
Inglehart’s theory fits perfectly within the larger modernization tradition. “The central claim of modernization theory holds that economic development is linked with coherent and, to some extent, predictable changes in culture and social and political life” (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). Some tend to focus more on general patterns whereas others focus on specific, or cultural, developments. Although Inglehart is usually put within the generalization strand, he does not neglect cultural differences (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). He argues that a lot of cross-cultural variation is explained by whether or not a society experienced two important shifts . The first shift is associated with the industrial revolution, through which life changed from a ‘game against nature’ towards a ‘game against fabricated nature’ (Bell, 1976). The second shift is the postmodern shift. Apart from these patterns with space for particularities Inglehart also draws bold statements about a general pattern. He translates the central claim of the modernization theory into a statement in which it applies to his own theory of post-materialism. Inglehart (1999, p. 211) states that; “Prolonged periods of prosperity tend to encourage the spread of postmaterial values, economic decline tends to have the opposite effect”.
Inglehart’s research has focused mainly on the first part, showing that modern societies have become more postmodern. Inglehart does not pay much attention to declining levels of post-materialism. This thesis, however, will focus extensively on this second effect that is to a great extend neglected by Inglehart. In this thesis the 2008 economic crisis2 is used as test case.
The 2008 economic crisis forms a typical case for testing the second part of Inglehart’s thesis. The economic crisis that started in 2008 can be seen as such a prolonged period of economic decline that Inglehart mentions in his theory on post-materialism. During the 2008 economic crisis a lot of citizens lost their jobs which led to rapidly increasing unemployment rates across many 2 The economic crisis started in 2007/2008 with the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007/2008. Dating an endpoint of the crisis is more difficult. Growth numbers have already turned positive, whereas unemployment rates are still on a high level. Therefore the term ‘2008 economic crisis’ is used in this thesis, referring to the starting point of the crisis.
countries(International Labour Organization, 2012). Additionally the 2008 economic crisis has been lasting longer than economic crises in previous decades (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2013). Thirdly, the 2008 economic crisis is a global one due to the interconnectedness of the financial system. Lastly the crisis is omnipresent due to the extensive media coverage. Even if you do not have relatives who are hit by the crisis, you are affected by stories about the crisis. If economic decline leads to less support for postmaterial values it is likely that this is the case for the 2008 economic crisis. This expectation is at odds with the view of the Emile Roemer. He sees the crisis as a signal for (young) people to make radical different choices, postmaterial choices. In this thesis it is tested what happened with the dominant material and postmaterial values in society after the start of the 2008 economic crisis.
This research question of this thesis is relevant for at least four reasons. The first reason is the economic crisis being an important subject of study . An economic crisis is known to have a serious impact on a society (Kentikelenis et al, 2011; Gunnlaugsson, 2012; Chang et al, 2009). It is a disruptive event which has the potential of changing dominant patterns is society. This thesis contributes to the existing literature because it provides descriptive information on the extent to which dominant values have been changed, or not. Secondly it provides explanatory knowledge on the fact whether the expected change for the support of certain values is correlated with recent economic developments.
The second reason why this research is theoretically relevant is the importance of studying the dominant values in society. The theory of planned behavior assumes that in general attitudes lead to intentions which lead to certain behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Although individual human behavior does not always follow this implied linear rational pattern, the relationship is supported by a vast amount of empirical evidence (see for example; Sniehotta, 2009; French et al, 2011). It is therefore likely that a change in dominant values has behavioral consequences. Although this thesis does not investigate these behavioral effects, it offers a building block for future researchers to do so.
In line with the second argument, research on postmodern values has led to research on several ‘postmodern’ subjects. These subjects, for example, consist of postmodern political parties or postmodern campaigning (Gibson & Römmele, 2001). Researchers making claims about postmodern or postindustrial politics (Axford & Huggins, 2001; Chandler & Siaroff, 1986) draw the assumption that dominant values in society changed. These changes consequently led to a different political reality. In order to draw conclusions about these political patterns it is important to first examine dominant value patterns among different societies. This is especially the case during or after a notable event such as the 2008 economic crisis.
These three reasons have both theoretical and real world importance. The fourth and last reason why the research question of this thesis is important is chiefly theoretical. Inglehart’s research
and predictions have been influential. Apart from the fact that his predications have been criticized and tested many times, different scholars have continued to work with Inglehart’s concepts. Notably Giddens (1991), Beck (1992, 2002), Bauman (2000), Huntington (1998) and Eisenstadt (2000) have developed ‘new’ concepts of modernity. Hereby they all make use of Inglehart’s work as an important scientific building block. Besides these newer concepts, the work of Inglehart remains important considering the number of recent citations3 of his work. For these reasons it will be a contribution to the scientific debate on modernization to test Inglehart’s thesis against new conditions, namely the 2008 economic crisis.
The main questions this thesis tries to answer is;
Did the 2008 economic crisis led to a decline in postmaterial values hold by citizens of advanced industrial countries?
In this thesis descriptive as well as explanatory hypotheses are tested. The descriptive hypotheses test macro level results. They test to what extend postmaterial values have declined in advanced industrial counties. They test whether this is the case for all citizens or only among youngsters. To test these hypotheses Inglehart’s own operationalization (12-item battery) of postmaterial values is used in the World Values Survey. This survey includes worldwide data measuring post-materialism before and during the 2008 economic crisis. After a critical discussion of Inglehart’s measurements a second operationalization is developed, using European Social Survey data. This is done in order to see whether these results corroborate the findings from the World Values Survey.
Based on only macro level results one cannot draw conclusions about causal relationships. Therefore causal relationships are tested using hypothesis testing micro level results. To this aim one possible causal mechanism is tested. This causal model is explained in the theoretical chapter and further elaborated on in the method chapter. Central to the causal model is the idea that an economic crisis affects the level of economic security of citizens. This feeling of security then influences citizens’ postmaterial values. This effect is not expected to be equally strong for all citizens. It is expected to be mainly applicable for those who are less well off in society.
This thesis consists of six chapters. The next chapter describes the most important notions concerning modernity. Thereafter several aspects of Inglehart’s theory are discussed. The theoretical chapter ends with Inglehart’s thoughts about change in the dominance of postmaterial values hold by citizens. Here the scarcity and socialization hypotheses are explained. Thereafter it is argued why the 3 Inglehart’s most famous work: 'The Silent Revolution’ (1977) is according to Google Scholar cited in more than 200 works in 2014.
2008 economic crisis could affect postmaterial values. The chapter ends with the explanation of the micro level causal model. In the method chapter this model is simplified in order to be able to test the causal links. The possibilities of the World Values Survey and the European Social Survey data are described. Furthermore the operationalization of the different variables is explained. Most important here is the measurement of postmaterial values among citizens. In the result chapter the outcomes for the different hypotheses, phrased in the method chapter, are given. These results are thereafter elaborated on in a separate chapter named; critical discussion. In this chapter the possible meanings of the results are discussed. In the final chapter from a more distant perspective more general conclusions and suggestions for future research concerning modernity and post-modernity are given.
The theoretical chapter consists of three main parts. In the first part I take a broad departure, while discussing different conceptions and dimensions of modernity. It is shown that the modernity concept is highly contested. An important divide consists between those who think of modernity from an economic point of view and those who think of it from a justice point of view. Also within these strands there are considerable empirical and normative debates about what modernity is or ought to be. From this range of views the chapter zooms into the way Inglehart conceives of modernity. Inglehart notes two important shifts that form important markers in the modernization process. The first shift is associated with the industrial revolution, the second with post-modernity. Inglehart explains that due to economic changes the dominant values in modern societies have changed. Traditional values were first most dominant. After the first shift secular/rational values became most dominant. After the second shift self expression values became most dominant in advanced industrial countries. After the description of Inglehart’s view other ‘newer’ concepts on modernity are described. These concepts state that globalization processes have changed and continue to change societies. The ‘varieties of modernity’ concept, in which culture has a dominant place, is extensively elaborated on. In the final part of the first part of the theoretical chapter Inglehart’s view on culture is discussed.
The second part of this chapter zooms into the postmaterial concept. Post-materialism is part of the postmodern concept but is more specifically in dichotomy with material values. Inglehart is a prominent researcher in the field of post-material values. His work and its critiques is discussed in these sections of the theoretical chapter. The main claim of Inglehart holds that as societies develop in an economic sense, they transform in a postmaterial direction.
The third part of the theoretical chapter explains how the research question of this thesis is extrapolated from Inglehart’s work. Though the main claim of Inglehart is about the effect of economic growth on postmaterial values, he has also made claims about the effect of prolonged periods of economic decline. It is expected that such periods will lead to a decline in the dominance of postmaterial values. To test this latter effect, the 2008 economic crisis is selected as a typical case. It is expected that due to the 2008 crisis and its great impact on society, postmaterial values have declined. Finally five hypotheses that are central to this thesis are formulated.
2.1 Modernity among three domains
Modernity is all about progress. But what is progress? About this question there is and has been a lot of contestation (Walby, 2009). Walby provides with her book ‘globalization and inequalities’ a comprehensive overview of different conceptions of modernity. Walby’s book is used as an important source in the below discussion on modernity. In order to place Inglehart’s work within the broader debate on modernity Inglehart’s theory is related to Walby’s concepts. One of the important divides
in the modernization debate is between those who think of progress from an economic point of view and those who think of progress from a justice point of view.
From an economic point of view, progress is seen as an improvement in living conditions and welfare (Ibid). Economic development is seen as neutral, since people can decide for themselves what to do with their money to improve their own life. Economic growth is thus not seen as an end in itself, but as the best means for improving one’s standard of living. The standard of living is often measured using life expectancy or subjective well being. Others measure the standard of living by computing different welfare elements. Most known is the Human Development Index of Anand and Sen (1994) whereby years of education, life expectancy and income are combined into an index. The positive relationship of income on life expectancy and subjective well being is highly corroborated (Inglehart, 1999; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010). This relationship is however curvilinear (Inglehart, 1999). To a certain degree one’s life expectancy and subjective well being shows a steep rise as one’s income rises. Beyond a certain threshold more economic growth does, however, not lead to a further improvement in life expectancy or a better subjective well being. Some lay this threshold at a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per person of 10.000 dollar (Inglehart, 1999, p. 218) others around 5.000 dollar (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010). Because advanced industrial countries are beyond these thresholds economic growth, as the engine for the improvement of the quality of life, has done its job in these countries (Ibid).
Beside the economic point of view, progress can also be seen from a justice stance. According to those who see modernity from a justice stance, modernity is not about material improvement of living conditions but about what kind of progress is just. Walby (2009, p. 6) list i.a. the following authors as making claims about what kind of improvement is just for a society; justice (Sandel, 1998; Rawls, 1999), equality (Phillips, 1995; Holli, 1997; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010), rights (Paine, 1984; Kymlicka 1995), human rights (Peters and Wolper, 1995), citizenship (Marshall, 1950), equal opportunities and equity (Acker, 1989; Shaw & Perrons, 1995), freedom and capabilities (Sen, 1999; Nussbaum, 2000), democracy, political rights and civil liberties (Gastil, 1982) and recognition (Taylor, 1994; Fraser, 1997). These authors mainly make philosophical arguments but also use empirical research to underpin their positions. According to Walby (2009) three of these approaches are dominant. These are 1) equality, 2) human rights and 3) human development, well-being and capabilities.
The economic and justice approach show that modernity can have different meanings and is highly contested. A clear ‘one size fits all’ definition for modernity is therefore hard to formulate. Walby (2009) does not formulate such a definition but pinpoints to different meanings modernity has
across different domains. These domains of social organization are; the economy, the polity, violence4 and civil society. Some authors mark, sometimes implicit, a starting point of modernity. They refer, for example, to the start of regional/global trade or to the industrial revolution. Walby argues that it is impossible to give to a starting point of modernization. Trade and human interaction have always been present. It is better not to see modernization as a certain event but as a process. In this process some markers or game-changers of modernity can however be named. This is something Walby also does. Below some of these key-events within the different domains are discussed.
In the economic domain free wage labour is a key aspect of modernity. The installment of free wage labour replaced forced and non-marketised unfree labour, such as slavery. It also opened doors for women to enter the labour market. The commodification of labour changed societies dramatically. This transition is seen as the shift from feudal modes of production to capitalist modes of production. More recent important processes in the economic domain are industrialization and globalization. In the polity modernization often refers to the transition towards a modern state. An important marker in this process is the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. With modernity power shifted from feuding barons to state actors. A key element of the modernization process in the polity is the concentration of legitimate state power. According to Weber (1947) a modern state is a body that has a monopoly over legitimate violence within a given territory. Some argue that the process of state modernization is over. Foucault (1997), for example, argues that modern societies are in next stage in which state violence is replaced by disciplining. Walby (2009) states that contemporary modern states do not have full control over legitimate violence, for example in the case of gender- and ethnic-based violence. For this reason the process of modernization in the polity is not yet over.
The third domain, civil society, is especially interesting because the subject of this thesis is closely linked with it. This thesis focuses on values hold by citizens, and citizens are the key actor within civil society. Rationalization is a key concept of modernity within civil society (Weber, 1922/1968). The process of rationalization refers to a shift from traditional and charismatic forms of authority towards rational, legal and bureaucratic forms of authority. Traditional and religious believes are in this process replaced by secular and rational modes of reasoning. The scientific method becomes the valid method for gaining knowledge. Secularization is seen as a consequence of this modernization process. Inglehart & Baker (2000) see this secularization in declining church attendance in most advanced industrialized countries. They do however not see secularization in the sense that religiosity is in decline. They rather see a redirection of spiritual concerns (Inglehart, 1999). Apart from rationalization and secularization also other concepts are ascribed to the modernization 4 Since violence as discussed by Walby (2009) does not link strongly to the modernization process in the way Inglehart conceives it, the violence domain is not further elaborated on this thesis.
process in civil society. Simmel (1995), for example, sees increased individuation as a key element of modernity. In primitive thinking about social connections, family and kin affiliations were important. In modern thinking about social relations, affiliations are based on rationality rather than simple external characteristics. In these modern relations people can decide for themselves with whom they want to affiliate.
Other key aspects of the modernization process crosscut through different domains. Democratization and the focus of human rights are examples of modernization processes which can be placed within different domains (Walby, 2009). According to modernization theory citizens in modern societies usually think that democratic and human rights ought to be respected. These values are seen as a product of modernity, although both concepts are highly contested. A key marker of modernity concerning human rights is the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Walby, 2009). Empirical research shows that democratic practices and beliefs are nowadays widespread. In almost all societies the majority of the population has a positive view on democracy (Inglehart & Norris, 2003).
As the above shows there are a lot of debates which concern modernity. Different concepts which have been developed form even research fields by themselves. Normative and empirical debates about democracy, measurement of human development and debates about equality are some examples of these research topics. One can easily get entangled in the web of all these different debates concerning modernity. I want to avoid this by bringing focus in this thesis. For that reason the following paragraphs zoom in on the way Inglehart conceives of modernity.
2.2 How Inglehart conceives of modernity
Inglehart is an important researcher within several debates concerning modernity. Inglehart most famous work is ‘The Silent Revolution’ published in 1977. Most of his later writings continue to work with the concepts developed in this book. Inglehart dominantly focuses on general patterns across countries while taking notice of specific developments within nations. Culture plays an important role in these specific developments. Inglehart, inspired by Bell (1976), sees two major socioeconomic shifts which form the markers of modernization processes. The first shift is associated with the industrial revolution, the second shift with post-modernism. According to Inglehart both shifts had important cultural and sociopolitical implications.
A first important societal shift that took place, according to Bell (1976), was the industrial revolution. Inglehart and Baker (2000) share this analysis and haveinvestigated what this shift meant for the dominant values hold by citizens. They found that before the industrial revolution, in preindustrial times, people dominantly needed to deal with their natural surroundings. These were
for example the seasons, storms and the depth of the mine seams. These surroundings had a major impact on individual lives. Bell (1976, p. 147) calls this the “game against nature”. Due to industrialization people became less dependent on nature. Nature became something which could be controlled. Furthermore the process of industrialization is associated with occupational specialization, rising educational levels and rising income levels (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). The industrial revolution created the rise of the working class and laid emphasis on economic growth. The world became dominantly technical, mechanical, rationalized and bureaucratic (Bell, 1973). According to Bell (1973, p. 147) life became a “game against fabricated nature”. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, Walby also sees free wage labour, industrialization, rationalization, bureaucratization and rising educational levels as key components of modernity.
The developments of and after the industrial revolution also influenced cultural, social and political life on a more fundamental level. The dominant mode of reasoning and dominant values in society changed due to the changing mode of production. This is a key component of modernization theory; “economic developments are linked with coherent and, to some extent, predictable changes in cultural, social and political life” (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). Before the industrial revolution traditional values were dominantly by citizens, after the industrial revolution secular and rational values became dominant. Traditional norms comprise i.a. religious norms and faith in (a nation’s) authority. Inglehart (1999) argues that in times of physical and economic uncertainty these norms and believes were important. The rigid religious norms and the trust in the nations gave guidance in the ‘game against nature’. The industrial revolution brought, to some extent, peace, prosperity and a stronger welfare state. These developments gave a sense of security that diminished the need of traditional norms and believes. According to Inglehart (1999), although taking notice of the complexity of societal change, the above causal mechanism is key to the societal change caused by the industrial revolution. Central to this mechanism is the role of sense of security. In table 1 the distinction between traditional and secular-rational values is shown.
Table 1 Traditional values versus secular-rational values
Traditional 1) God is very important in respondent’s life.
2) Respondent believes it is more important for a child to learn obedience and religious faith than independence and determination.
3) Respondent believes abortion is never justifiable. 4) Respondent has a strong sense of national pride. 5) Respondent favors more respect for authority. Secular-rational Values which emphasize the opposite.
Inglehart examines modernity as a process. Industrialization has however an important place in this process. He uses the industrial revolution as a marker of the beginning of modernity. He does not name any notable shift that took place before the industrial revolution. According to Inglehart, as well as for other authors, modernization did not end after the first shift. Inglehart (1977) argues that after the second world war a second important shift started to take place. This shift is associated with the concept of post-modernity.
2.3 Post-modernity: a new direction
Post-modernity holds the idea that after the first shift of modernity a second, ‘new’, process of modernization started to take place. Lyotard (1979/1984) argues that with this move societies entered the postindustrial age. With this shift societies not only became more modern, they also moved into a new direction (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). Especially during the 1990s the idea of a postindustrial or postmodern era triumphed scientific debates (Kumar, 2005). Soon the term post-modernity, and concepts alike, were used in many different (scientific) fields. It seems that almost all ‘new’ societal changes at that time were associated with post-modernity. The meaning of these concepts are however different. In philosophy of science postmodern perspectives see the end of grand narratives and emphasize the uncertainty of all knowledge. In International Relations postmodern views attack realism and emphasize local knowledge, relativism and social constructedness. Post-modernism is also a distinctive movement within arts and literature.
In comparative politics there are also a lot of different concepts which hold the idea of post-modernity. Some examples of these concepts are; postmodern campaigning (Gibson & Römmele, 2001), postindustrial politics (Chandler & Siaroff, 1986), postmodern politics (Axford & Huggins, 2001), postmodern populism (Axford & Huggins, 2000) and postmodern political parties. These different concepts can be confusing. This is above all caused due to the linguists of the word ‘post-modern’. ‘Post’ can mean after or can mean opposed to (Gibbins & Reimer, 1999). For that reason the question becomes after what? Or opposed to what? In this case ‘post’ contrasts with ‘modern’. This means that in order to know the meaning of post-modernity one needs to know what the user of the word means with modernity.
In the case of Inglehart (1997) it is clear what he means with modernity. According to Inglehart a modern society is a society in which secular-rational values are dominant, see table 1. This is created in a first shift that is linked to industrialization. The second shift seems to be a further evolution of prevailing worldviews, but is fact again a shift in direction (Ingehart & Baker, 2000). Inglehart and Baker, still inspired by Bell (1976), associate this shift with the emergence of postindustrial society. In industrial times life was a “game against fabricated nature” (Bell, 1976, p. 147). Due to increased prosperity dependence on both nature and production of material objects
becomes less important. Instead interaction with others, communication and processing information becomes most important. Life becomes a “game between persons” (Bell, 1976, p.148). The economic developments have again an impact on cultural, social and political life. Postmodern values, instead of modern values, are dominantly held by citizens in postmodern societies. Postmodern values encompass a range of different values. They concern for example gender roles, attitudes towards authority, sexual norms and longing for political participation. Modern values Inglehart (1997) calls survival values, postmodern values he calls self expression values. This distinction is shown in table 2.
Table 2 Survival values versus self expression values
Survival 1) Respondent gives priority to economic and physical security over self-expression and quality of life.
2) Respondent describes self as not very happy.
3) Respondent has not signed and would not sign a petition. 4) Respondent believes homosexuality is never justifiable.
5) Respondent believes you have to be very careful about trusting people. Self expression Values which emphasize the opposite.
Source: Inglehart & Baker (2000, p. 18).
The diversity of values shown in table 2 opens the debate for a further specification of the postmodern concept. This chapter and the next chapter does extensively so. Before I turn to this elaboration wider perspective on post-modernity is discussed. The following paragraphs discuss several concepts linked with, or in response to, the concept of post-modernity.
2.4 Beyond post-modernity
In the debate about progress different schools of thought have been developed. The idea of a postmodern era triumphed the debate during the 1990s. Several other ideas about progress have however also been developed. Some of the most prominent ideas are; late modernity (Giddens, 1991), reflexive modernity (Beck, 1992, 2002), liquid modernity (Bauman, 2000) and multiple modernities (Huntington, 1998; Eisenstadt, 2000). These concepts all hold the notion that globalization processes have changed and continue to change societies.
According to Giddens (1991) and Beck (1992) the world is dominated by ‘risk societies’. In pre-modern societies natural risks played an important role. Modernization brought a decline in these natural risks. Modernity did however create new risks. These new risks are social and can be caused by human decision making. The element of choice rather than fixed traditional patterns becomes important. Beck (1992) says; “There is an unprecedented possibility of destruction through
human decision making”. Humans can for example decide about the use of weapons, major industries and economic mechanisms. These bring, respectively, risks of mass destruction, destroyed vital ecological system and collapse of the global economy. In ‘risk societies’ reflexivity in social relations plays a key role. With reflexivity the individual (Beck, 2002) and self-identity (Giddens, 1991) become important. Although Walby (2009) prefers using concepts and language that originates in gender theory, she agrees with Beck and Giddens that social relations in small groups, like the family, are areas of significant social change.
Bauman (2000) goes a step further and argues that we live in an era of liquid modernity. The modernization process is according to Bauman about changing space and time relations. In this process the natural limit of accelerating the speed of movement has been reached. This led to a situation in which mutual engagement between supervisors and the supervised and between capital and labour, has ended. In Bauman’s view, which holds a pessimistic connotation, human interactions have become liquid, fluid and transitory.
Varieties of modernity
A lot of modernization theorists see some sort of linear or gradual pattern of modernity. Beck, Giddens and Bauman all see a singular path to modernity. With this they neglect that there can be different paths of modernity (Walby, 2009). These different paths can lead to important differences between countries. This idea of ‘multiple modernities’ (Huntington, 1998; Eisenstadt, 2000) or ‘varieties of modernity’ (Schmidt, 2006) is taken up by several scholars. These scholars are part of the particularization strand which argues against the generalization strand. Authors like Marx (1848/1967) and Bell (1976), part of the generalization strand, argue that socioeconomic developments are the driving force behind cultural development. They try to identify underlying factors that explain common social changes taking place around the globe (Shirokanova, 2012). Authors like Weber (1904/2002) and Huntington (1993), part of the particularization strand, point to cultural components of different paths of development.
Huntington and Eisenstadt focus on the idea of multiple modernities. They reject the notion that the modernization process is a western product. For Huntington (1993) the world is divided by different civilizations. These civilizations form the most important cleavage through which societal conflicts are and will be formed. Similarly, Eisenstadt (2000) points to differences between cultures. He argues that different cultures have value systems which are incompatible with each other. Both Huntington and Eisenstadt argue that cultural factors are dominant in the process of individual- and group-identification.
Schmidt (2006) warns for too much focus on differences and incompatibilities in culture. If one does so, similarities in development get snowed under, he argues. Schmidt (2006) developed the
concept of ‘varieties of modernity’. In this concept differences and similarities between societies are taken into account. The differences between societies are, according to Schmidt, not simply culturally rooted. Differences can better be seen as differences within one family. The mode of (economic) organization is similar across societies, namely modern capitalism. Within this mode of modern capitalism there are differences which form ‘varieties of capitalism’ (Hall & Soskice, 2001).
This mode of reasoning can also be found in the globalization literature (see for example: Featherstone, Lash & Robertson, 1995). Globalization makes that economies and cultures get increasingly intertwined which each other. This does however not mean that the world becomes a simple melting pot of cultures. Local events have different effects in the global world and global events have different impacts in the local sphere (Robertson, 1995). For Schmidt (2006) differences between societies are dominantly institutional, not cultural. Institutions are embedded in a cultural and political context, but these do not make societies incompatible with each other. Hereby the ‘varieties of modernity’ concept acknowledges the role of culture but leaves room for similarities across cultural lines.
Path dependency
Within the varieties of modernity literature authors emphasize different elements. They point to different factors which form, according to them, the most important division in the modernization process. The concept of path dependency (Walby, 2009) is often used while theorizing about these different factors (see for example; Moore, 1966; Skocpol, 1979; Korpi, 1983; Esping-Anderson, 1990). The idea of path dependency holds that political institutions shape different paths of development. Authors have focused on different factors of political organization and state institutions. Moore (1966) focuses on differences in class formations. Differences in class formations during the industrial revolution let, according to Moore, to dictatorship or democracy. Skocpol (1979) focuses on class relations and social structures in the state. With these structures she explains social revolutions. Korpi (1983) and Esping-Anderson (1990) both focus on class alliances. They argue that at critical moments these alliances created different types of welfare state regimes. Esping-Anderson (1990) defines three types of welfare states regimes; A social democratic, a liberal and a conservative welfare state regime. According to Walby (2009) neo-liberalism and social democracy are the main varieties of modernity. Central to these varieties are their depth of democracy and their degree of inequality. In the social democratic form there is more welfare provision, employment is regulated. The neoliberal form has less welfare provision and employment is not regulated by the state. In the neoliberal view the democratic state may interfere only as little as necessary in order to keep the economy running. This leads to a situation in which there is more inequality (in the polity, the economy and civil society) in a liberal state in comparison to a social democratic state. The importance of inequality is also argued by
Wilkinson & Pickett (2010). They argue that economic inequality has a negative effect on the level of trust, mental illness, life expectancy, infant mortality, obesity, children’s educational performance, teenage births, homicides, imprisonment rates and social mobility (Ibid, p.19). Their general statement is that differences in life expectancy and perceived happiness in advanced industrial countries can be explained by looking at economic inequality. In these countries inequality has more effect on society than economic growth, Wilkinson and Pickett argue.
Scholars like Giddens, Beck, Bauman, Hall and Soskice focus mainly on economic factors. Authors using the concept of path dependency primarily focus on political, or institutional, factors. They see the domain of the polity as the most important explanatory factor for societal change. In section 2.5 the place of Inglehart within the generalization/particularization debate is discussed. The following paragraphs discuss another school of thought that uses the concept of waves.
Waves: a silent counter revolution.
Apart from the concept of ‘varieties of modernity’ there is another critique on the linearity assumed by modernization theory. This is the idea that there can be counter developments. Most modernization theorists expect a somewhat linear development of modernity. They argue that more societies will pass a certain threshold from which subjective well-being is perceived as more important than economic growth. Inglehart (1988) also predicts a somewhat steady increase of post-materialism. Authors like Ignazi (1992) criticize such views and point to counter developments.
Ignazi (1992) sees that apart from Ingleharts’ ‘silent revolution’ there is a ‘silent counter revolution’. The rise of post-materialism values he sees as a phenomenon of the political left. The counter revolution is a phenomenon of the right side of the political spectrum. The silent counter revolution consists of the rise of extreme right parties, the ‘new right’. The new right is the non-materialistic answer to the question of the new politics (Inglehart & Flanagan, 1987). The postmodern movements decreased the salience of economic issues and provoked the emergence of the new right. New right issues are especially moral and religious issues like patriotism, law and order, anti-minority rights and xenophobia (Ibid, 1987). This is what different authors nowadays label as populist radical right issues (Mudde, 2010). The silent counter revolution is a reaction on some consequences of the crisis of modernity like globalization, postindustrial society and the post-fordist economy (e.g. Swank & Betz, 2003; Loch & Heitmeyer, 2001; Beck, 1992). Rapid changes in the postindustrial society let to winners, who are open for postmodern ideas, and losers, who have a higher change for voting for the populist radical right (e.g. Mudde, 2010; Betz, 1994; Minkenberg, 1998). Inglehart & Flanagan (1987) argue that left and right are not proper ways to describe new politics, since left and right refers predominantly to economic issues. For that reason they argue for an extra political axis of libertarianism and authoritarianism. Voters on the libertarian side of this second value cleavage
support for example “liberalizing of abortion, women's lib, gay rights, and other new morality issues; protecting the environment, antinuclear weapons, and other quality-of-life issues; and support for protest activities, more direct forms of participation and minority rights” (Inglehart & Flanagan, 1987, p.1306). Voters on the authoritarian side of this cleavage support issues like the “right-to-life, anti-women's lib, creationism, anti-pornography, and support for traditional moral and religious values; a strong defense, patriotism, law and order, opposition to immigration and minority rights, and respect for the traditional symbols of offices of authority”.
The above discussion raises attention for the fact that 1) there can be countertrends and 2) that there can be different trends in different societal groups. Instead of describing the postmodern changes as a linear process of society the concept of waves is better to use. A wave sees events not as deterministic but as passing through networks and social institutions. “The extend of the spread of the wave depends on external circumstances, the connectedness of its networks, resources available to participants and the energy generated by endogenous processes” (Walby, 2009). Speaking in waves gives the possibility to speak of global developments while in the same time distinguishing in time, space (nations, regions) and different societal groups.
2.5 Inglehart and culture: generalization and particularization
Inglehart’s research is mainly placed within the generalization strand, but he is also aware of the different trajectories societies can follow (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). The work of Inglehart developed over time. In his early work he saw a single pathway of modernity. As societies become more prosperous the postindustrial and the postmodern shift will occur, Inglehart (1977) expected. In his later work Inglehart (1997; Inglehart & Norris, 2003) does make some refinements of this singular path. In his work with Baker (Inglehart & Baker, 2000) he attempted to link his work with the work of Huntington (1993). By doing he found a middle ground between generalization and particularization. Inglehart and Baker (2000) argue that dominance of either traditional, secular-rational or self expression values correspond with global cultures. These cultures are similar to the categories of Huntington’s (1993) civilizations. This classification is shown in figure 1.
Source: Inglehart & Baker (2000, p. 19).
The value dimensions as shown in figure 1 do not reflect the cultures itself. The traditional, material and post-material dimensions are rather predictors for a society’s culture. According to Inglehart and Baker (2000) they are even strong predictors. Scores on these values can for example predict the value to freedom, the tolerance towards out-groups and the level of interpersonal trust. These scores all correlated strongly with the level of economic modernization in a country. Countries with a higher GDP per capita have a Protestant, ex-Communist, Confucian, Catholic or English speaking culture. Although economic developments do play an important role, these cultures are not simply economic determined. They also reflect historical and cultural differences. Inglehart and Baker (2000) point for example to the impact of religion, communism and interpersonal trust. These cultural factors also affect the dominant values or even the polity and the economy. Here they point to work of Fukuyama and Putnam. Fukuyama (1995) argues that societies with low levels of trust are less able to create social institutions. Thereby these societies are disadvantaged in the global market. Putnam (1993) points to historical cultural traits in civil society that affect the level of interpersonal and institutional trust.
In conclusion one can see that Inglehart’s work dominantly focuses on the way modernization processes influence the dominant values held by citizens. He does however not neglect the role of historical traits, religion and culture. After the above, more broad, discussion of different conceptions of modernity, the following paragraphs zooms in the distinction between modernism and post-materialism.
2.6 Postmodern vs postmaterial: two distinct concepts?
As the above discussion showed; post-modernism encompasses a broad range of issues. A lot of these issues are linked with each other. When citizens are more postmodern they usually not only care for freedom of speech but also are more tolerant towards out-groups, care about gender equality, care about the environment and have more interpersonal trust. The causal logic of Inglehart’s argument differs however for the different postmodern subjects. Therefore it is important to make a clear distinction between different postmodern subjects and to discuss the causal logics separately.
An important distinction which has to be made is between postmodern and postmaterial values. Most of the times these concepts are used interchangeably, even by Inglehart (1977, 1999). They do have a different meaning, though. Postmaterial values form “only one aspect of a much broader shift from modern to postmodern values” (Inglehart, 1999). Postmaterial values are humanistic and downplay economic values. Postmodern values include a broader set of values which also include for example tolerance for outer groups and the wish for self-expression. For this reason post material values are postmodern, but not all postmodern values are postmaterial. The criteria for a value to be postmaterial is that it must oppose a material or economic value (Brooks & Manza, 1994). The examples showed in table 3 show that the distinction between postmodern values that are postmaterial and postmodern values that are not is not always easy.
Table 3 Examples of postmodern and post-material values
Postmodern and directly postmaterial
Prioritizing the environment above the economy. Stating that ideas are more important than money.
Postmodern and indirectly postmaterial
Tolerance for foreigners
(link: those who feel more economic save feel less threatened by foreigners ‘steeling’ their jobs)
Postmodern but not postmaterial
Tolerance for homosexuals
Some values, for example prioritizing the environment above economic issues, are directly post-material. They clearly downplay economic values. Other values, like, tolerance towards foreigners can
indirectly be linked with post-materialism. These values have however their bases in non-economic conditions. Some other values, for example tolerance for homosexuals, that are seen as postmodern do not have a clear link with post-materialism. They do not downplay economic values.
The examples show that postmodern issues do not need to be postmaterial. They may however not favor materialism, because this does not fit with the postmodern argument. The postmodern concept has basically two main categories; the wish for self expression and the prioritization of subjective well-being and quality of life issues. When a lot of values, issues, parties and movements are labeled as being ‘postmodern’, it is more likely definition problems occur. This is especially likely in for the second category, the quality of life issues. For some of these themes it can be doubtful whether they are really postmodern. Below an example concerning women’s groups shows these tensions. The example makes clear that postmodern issues do not need to be post-material but they may not favor post-materialism.
Women’s groups, lobbying for women’s rights ,are often labeled as postmodern. On the one hand this
is correct. Lobbying for equal rights, dignity and respect is clearly in line with the postmodern spirit. On the other hand women’s group also lobby frequently for equal payment. It is hard to see equal payment not as a material subject. Therefore it is doubtful to place all women’s groups in the postmodern category.
It is hard to mark the borders of what is postmodern and what is not. For post-materialism this is also the case but less so. Postmaterial values all downplay economic values, this makes it possible to set these values apart. Post-materialism also fits more directly with Ingleharts’ theory. The causal effects predicted by Inglehart refer more directly to postmaterial values than to the broad range of postmodern values. For this reasons this thesis focuses on post-materialism. Even though I use the postmaterial concept, some conceptual difficulties will however remain. This is mainly because in Inglehart’s operationalization not all issues are strictly post-material. Inglehart for example names the issue ‘free speech’ as being postmaterial. Following the above argument it would make more sense to call this postmodern and not postmaterial. In the following paragraphs the causal logic behind Inglehart’s operationalization is explained. Following Inglehart, the word post-materialism is used in this description. The precise operationalization of Inglehart and an alternative operationalization is described in the method chapter.
From the two societal shifts described by Bell (1976) and Inglehart and Baker (2000) it becomes clear that according to Inglehart post-materialism is in dichotomy with materialism. This materialism is formed in a modern world in which life is a “game against fabricated nature” (Bell, 1976, p. 147). In the modern world people have the psychological need to control their surroundings (Inglehart, 1977). These psychological needs can be divided between sustenance and safety needs. Sustenance needs are the needs to have enough means in order to fulfill your livelihood. Safety needs are the need to have a save and ordered country free from external powers and criminals.
Sustenance needs are directly linked to material needs; i.e. citizens wanting material resources. Safety needs do not have this direct link with materialism. They are indirectly linked with materialism. Namely; safety as a condition for gaining material property. This logic holds that citizens would not strive that much to enhance their material belonging in case it is likely that it will be taken away from you. This relationship is however more complex than it seems at first sight. Safety is not only a condition for materialism, materialism can also be a condition for the need of safety. What is for example the need for safety against thieves when there is nothing worth protecting? At the same time physical safety, for example protection from being raped, is equally important no matter how much material belonging one has. Safety and sustenance needs can also get mixed up. The Ebola outbreak in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone is a perfect example of this. Obviously the virus decease affects the physical security of citizens. It does however also have a major impact on the economy of the three countries (International Monetary Fund, 2014a). For Inglehart (1977) the safety and sustenance needs are so close to each other that they are both called materialistic. Here his grounding in Maslowian (1943) thinking can be seen. In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, safety needs encompass both security of body, morality, the family, health and the security of employment, resources and property. So Maslow places safety needs at the same level as sustenance needs. In
figure 2 the total hierarchy of needs according to Maslow is shown.
Source: en.wikepedia.org
Social and self-actualization needs, once again Maslowian language, are according to Inglehart (1977) postmaterial and vice versa. The postmaterial needs can according to Inglehart be divided in two categories. These two categories follow a distinctive mode of reasoning. The need for self expression originates in people being better educated and having a better potential to make autonomous decisions (Bell, 1976). In industrial societies hierarchical organizations had little need for autonomous judgments. In the service economy people deal with concepts and people. Because of this innovation and freedom to exercise individual judgments become important (Inglehart, 1997). When people get used to self expression at the workplace, people also want to express themselves in the political sphere. In that way the need for self-expression becomes important across different domains such as the economy (workplace), civil society (education) and the polity (politics).
The second category of postmodern values emphasizes subjective well-being and quality of life (Inglehart, 1997). Whereas the need for self-expression arose from a higher educated society, the importance of quality of life arose from a more secure environment. The causal logic is, once again, Maslowian (1943); when one’s basic needs are fulfilled other need become dominant. The economic and physical security in many advanced industrialized countries is such, that other subjects become important. Wilkinson and Pickett (2010) show that beyond a certain threshold economic growth does not lead to a further improvement in life expectancy or a higher subjective well being. According to Inglehart (1997) people are aware of this and therefore place more value on non-material subjects. Interpersonal trust, tolerance of out groups, support for gender equality and attention for the environment are subjects are typical quality of life issues.
In other works of Inglehart he uses a different categorization of postmaterial values. Hereby Inglehart (1977) classifies three categories of postmaterial values; belonging and esteem, intellectual needs and aesthetic needs. The three categories partly overlap with the above mentioned two categories. In this thesis the three categories are used. This is done because Inglehart attaches the items measuring postmaterial to these three categories.
Table 4 Material and Postmaterial needs/values
Needs Items
Social and self actualization
needs (Post-materialist)
Aesthetic 1. Beautiful cities/nature Intellectual 2. Ideas count
3. Free speech
Belonging & esteem 4. Less impersonal society 5. More say on job, community 6. More say in Government
Physiological needs
(materialist)
Sustenance 1. Stable economy 2. Economic growth 3. Fight rising prices Safety 4. Strong defense forces
5. Fight crime 6. Maintain order
In the belonging and esteem category items can be placed which focus on appreciation of people. Maslow (1943) names for example confidence, achievement, and mutual respect in his esteem category. The second category Inglehart (1973) names intellectual needs. This category focuses on items like morality, freedom, creativity and the acceptance of facts. The third category includes aesthetic needs, which includes the importance of the environment. In table 4 the material and postmaterial categories and the corresponding items that Inglehart uses to measure post-materialism are shown.
Source: Inglehart (1977, p.42).
Inglehart uses three items to measure belonging and esteem, namely; belonging for a less impersonal society, the wish to have more say in your job and community and the wish to have more say in government. It is however remarkable that Inglehart does not include other Maslowian esteem categories. He does for example not include confidence or achievement items, whereas he does include two items that are about ‘more say’. The intellectual category is measured using two items; the importance of ideas and the importance of free speech. Also here Inglehart could have chosen to include more items. These could for example be items on morality, creativity and the acceptance of facts. In some of his work Inglehart does name some items that are strongly connected to this needs category. These issues, concerning subjective well-being and quality of life, are for example gender equality and interpersonal trust (Inglehart, 1973).Although I think it is wise to include a variety of items I think it is good not to include all of these items while measuring postmaterial values. If one
includes a bunch of different items the operationalization of postmaterialism becomes a melting pot of items. These items are often connected but are also distinctive.
The third category of needs includes aesthetic needs. This is about care for the environment. In the categorization discussed before this item is included as a subjective well being item. Because of the complexity of the item, as is elaborated on in the following paragraphs, it is not surprising that the item does not load enough on Inglehart’s postmaterial scale (Inglehart, 1973, p.45). Although the item does not lead enough he still includes it in his operationalization. He does however calls it an aesthetic need. This leads to his three categories; belonging and esteem, intellectual needs and aesthetic needs.
The environmental issue
As the above shows, Inglehart struggles with the environmental issue. On the one hand he tries to exclude the subject from his battery. In his scoring the score of the environmental item is not counted postmaterial. Inglehart does however still include the issue in the questionnaires of the World Values Survey. On the other hand the environment is often seen as a postmaterial subject. Environmental movements are for example labeled as being postmodern or Green parties are seen as a product of the post-industrial era (Chandler & Siaroff, 1986). Because of the struggle of Inglehart and its prominent place in the postmodern debate the following paragraphs will critically elaborate the complexity of the environmental issue. Although the beneath is critical about Ingleharts measurement it is not so much meant as a critique on Inglehart. It is chiefly meant to show the complexity of the environmental issue.
Inglehart (1977) names his environmental item aesthetic, whereby focus is laid upon the beauty of nature. If seen from this perspective the environmental subject comes close to the intellectual and esteem category. One would, because of this reason, expect the item to load on Inglehart’s postmaterial scale. The fact that it does not could be due to the type of question. The question focuses partly on the beauty of cities. Perhaps this is wrong if you are interested in one’s environmental concerns. Apart from this I think that there is another factor which complicates the environmental issue. That factor is the broadness of the environmental issue. While estimating an opinion on this question respondents might think of other elements of the environmentalism.
Someone might think of environmental groups demonstrating against a new road crossing a forest. In such matters the environmental subject is postmaterial; nature versus economic interests. Still demonstrators could have however different reasons to demonstrate. One might demonstrate to preserve the beauty of nature (aesthetic). One also might demonstrate because she/he always walks with her/his dog in this forest. Cutting the forest leads to a situation in which she/he needs to travel
extra miles in order to be able to walk with her/his dog. In the second case the reason is maybe partly aesthetic.
Another issue someone might think of while examining the environmental item are concerns about the global environment. These issues may include concerns about air pollution, the hole in the ozone layer or CO2 emissions. Suppose someone is really concerned about these issues as a threat to her/his life. For example because smog is threatening a clean breathe. In that case the environment is not just a aesthetic issue but is conceived as a threat to a basic need. In Maslowian terms these basic needs are lower on the hierarchy of needs than the material needs named by Inglehart.
As these examples make clear, the environmental item encompasses different issues and is complex. Sometimes it is postmaterial and sometimes it is not. When it is postmaterial it is not always in line with the causal logic of the intellectual and belonging/esteem needs. Inglehart names the environment an aesthetic need while the examples show that the environment might also be a basic need. For that reason the environment is not directly postmaterial. In the World Values Survey some questions try to overcome the above difficulty by framing the environment in a dichotomy towards material needs. Table 5 shows two of such questions.
Table 5 Environmental question from World Values Survey.
Here are two statements people sometimes make when discussing the environment and economic growth. Which of them comes closer to your own point of view?
1) Protecting the environment should be given priority, even if it causes slower economic growth and some loss of jobs.
2) Economic growth and creating jobs should be the top priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.
Source: World Values Survey (2014, p.6).
Although with this question the environment becomes anti-material in economic sense. It is still possible that respondents see the environment pollution as a threat to their basic needs. For that reason the environment cannot, in my opinion, be perceived as a postmaterial item in the same way as self-expression and subjective well-being are perceived.
2.8 Value change according to Inglehart.
The preceding makes clear what Inglehart sees as postmaterial items. The goal of Inglehart’s research is however not mainly to make a categorization societies based on the dominant values held by citizens. The most important claim Inglehart makes concerns value change. He argues that countries following the path of modernity have become more postmodern (Inglehart, 2008). In modern societies more citizens hold postmaterial values.
