On good deeds and the reproduction of inequality

• In Event: The Need for Nuance in volunteering

Abstract

This paper analyses social inequality in volunteering in Germany, with a focus on how occupational groups affect the likelihood of volunteering and the types of activities undertaken. The paper argues that purely economic approaches are inadequate in explaining inequality in volunteering, as they fail to consider the nuanced ways in which social and cultural factors influence individual behaviour. Economic models tend to emphasise the availability of resources, such as time and money, as the primary drivers of volunteering.
Following Pierre Bourdieu, this article takes a different perspective and examines how volunteering acts as a social marker for symbolic capital and in this way contributes to the reproduction of social inequality. The study shows that individuals from higher social classes are more likely to volunteer and engage in prestigious voluntary activities, which in turn can increase their personal social prestige (symbolic capital). Using data from the Socio-Economic Panel and the German Survey on Volunteering, differences in volunteering rates and the type of activity between social classes are identified.
Two empirical studies are conducted to analyse these dynamics:
Study 1 examines the overall likelihood of volunteering across different occupational groups is conducted using longitudinal data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), covering the period from 1992 to 2017. Panel analyses techniques are applied to analyse trends in volunteering over time and how occupational class predicts the likelihood of volunteering.
Study 2 examines the types of volunteering activities preferred by various occupational groups using cross-sectional data from the 2014 Survey on Volunteering (FWS). The analysis distinguishes between tasks that confer symbolic capital, such as leadership or representational roles, and more practical activities, which tend to be less prestigious. Multivariate regression modelling was used to assess the correlation between occupational groups and preferences for certain types of volunteering.
Firstly, the analyses show that individuals in higher occupational classes are more likely to volunteer. Additionally, the volunteering gap between higher and lower occupational classes has widened over time, suggesting a correlation between volunteering and the availability of economic and cultural resources.
Secondly, the type of volunteering is significantly linked to the occupational class status. Individuals from higher occupational classes tend to perform managerial or organizational activities, whereas those from lower service classes tend to perform auxiliary tasks.
Social inequality is reproduced in the area of volunteering, which is problematic in democratic societies where civil society action should be equally open to all. Therefore, it is important to protect the voluntary sector from becoming an exclusive domain for more resourced classes. Recommendations are made on how to mitigate social inequality in the area of volunteering.

References

Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100, 464-477.
Bourdieu, P. (2010). Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Routledge, London.
Chan, T.W. and Goldthorpe, J.H. (2007). Class and Status: The Conceptual Distinction and its Empirical Relevance. American Sociological Review, 72, 512-532.
Dean, J. (2020). The Good Glow–Charity and the Symbolic Power of Doing Good. Policy Press, Bristol.
Hirschle, J. (2014). Consumption as a source of social change. Social Forces, 92, 1405-1433.
Hustinx, L., Grubb, A., Rameder, P., and Shachar, I. Y. (2022). Inequality in volunteering: Building a new research front. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 33, 1–17.
Meyer, M., and Rameder, P. (2022). Who is in charge? Social inequality in different fields of volunteering. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 33, 18–32.

Author

• Tuuli-Marja Kleiner, Thuenen Institute of Rural Studies