Search

Disparities continue to pose major challenges in various aspects of science. One such aspect is editorial board composition, which has been shown to exhibit racial and geographical disparities. However, the literature on this subject lacks longitudinal studies quantifying the degree to which the racial composition of editors reflects that of scientists. Other aspects that may exhibit racial disparities include the time spent between the submission and acceptance of a manuscript and the number of citations a paper receives relative to textually similar papers, but these have not been studied to date. To fill this gap, we compile a dataset of 1,000,000 papers published between 2001 and 2020 by six publishers, while identifying the handling editor of each paper. Using this dataset, we show that most countries in Asia, Africa, and South America (where the majority of the population is ethnically non-White) have fewer editors than would be expected based on their share of authorship. Focusing on US-based scientists reveals Black as the most underrepresented race. In terms of acceptance delay, we find, again, that papers from Asia, Africa, and South America spend more time compared to other papers published in the same journal and the same year. Regression analysis of US-based papers reveals that Black authors suffer from the greatest delay. Finally, by analyzing citation rates of US-based papers, we find that Black and Hispanic scientists receive significantly fewer citations compared to White ones doing similar research. Taken together, these findings highlight significant challenges facing non-White scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the economic disparities created and augmented by the Pandemic and implores the state to adopt redistribution schemes based on the philosophy of distributive justice. The pandemic created and augmented gaping class inequalities, by pushing some into unemployment and poverty, while catalysing others' prosperity. This may or may not have involved a fault element on the part of those that profited from the pandemic, which is to say, while some may have actively exploited the situation to increase their profits at the cost of general interests, others may have simply gained profits while retaining ethical practices in their conduct of business. This Paper argues that, irrespective of the fault element, States must implement a special financial scheme that necessitates companies that gained enormous profits from the pandemic to contribute towards assisting those who were financially crushed by the pandemic. The paper will build this on the philosophy of distributive justice, examining the 'difference principle' as well as 'luck and responsibility egalitarianism'. Simply put, this means that States must enforce a system that neutralizes the 'luck' element that the pandemic induced in the society, through a financial scheme best suited for its situation. This may be achieved through levying a special tax for a period of time on particular business entities and/or by requiring companies to include a special corporate social responsibility project in line with the quantum of additional profits owing to the pandemic. Arguably, corporate houses that exploited the pandemic must not be placed at par with those that merely happened to profit from it (say, for instance, a pharmaceutical company that may have manipulated the drug market to increase prices and limit supply of an important drug, as opposed to a food/essentials delivery chain that naturally saw an increase in the number of consumers ordering deliveries online). But the obligation to carve out a part of their profits for social redistribution is not founded on whether they are at fault or not. Any fault may, of course, be used as a basis for levying a higher penalty or other legal measure, apart and distinct from the obligation that this paper builds on. The scheme that is proposed by the Paper is not to penalize but is based on the philosophy of distributive justice and thus does not require that the company was ever in violation of laws, but merely that the pandemic that devastated most people happened to be a profitable enterprise for others in contrast. It is in the State's interests to negate the widened gap of economic disparities thus created, and this justifies that the Government would require such corporate houses to carve out a fraction of their fortunes for those who suffered severely. The Paper builds primarily on the philosophical foundations of distributive justice, urging its practical implementation in post-pandemic the economy. States must adopt creative measures to restructure patterns of privileges created or amplified by such unprecedented (at least in recent history) circumstances, as the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People frequently assume that attitudes towards the government's involvement in the economy differentiate left- from right-wing politics. This paper compares this idea to a version of acceptance of inequality theory, where acceptance of inequality is the principal element of left–right competition, but the specific inequality motivating individuals' left–right choice may differ. Using multilevel regression models with survey data from the World Values Survey, as well as two case studies, this paper finds that: (a) acceptance of inequality is a better context-independent predictor of left-right self-placements around the world; and (b) in the Netherlands and Denmark, the correlation between acceptance of an inequality (regarding class or immigration) and right-wing self-placement is stronger when the specific issue dimension is salient to citizens. However, the paper finds no equivalent interaction effect for attitudes towards economic statism. The evidence thus supports the view that the left–right dimension concerns acceptance of inequality, rather than economic interventionism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In its first years in office, the Labour Government set out a wide-ranging and ambitious set of policies aimed at reducing poverty, inequality and social exclusion. A decade on, with the party facing probable catastrophic defeat in the next general election, how far can these ambitions be said to have been met? This article summarises the evidence. It also examines the most recent government White Paper on social mobility, New Opportunities: Fair Chances for the Future, published in January 2009, and asks whether this paper represents a serious last attempt to renew the equal opportunities agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This editorial summarizes the papers published in issue 16(3) (2021) in order to raise the bar in applied spatial economic research and highlight new trends and knowledge. The first paper analyses the economic consequences of the rise and spread of the Covid-19 virus in the Brazilian state of São Paulo. The second paper presents a multi-regional generalized RAS technique to update input–output tables. The third paper investigates which European Union regions are most likely to be exposed to external shocks and which are more resilient. The fourth paper proposes a new neighbourhood inequality index for cities. The fifth paper analyses productivity and profitability using a sophisticated hierarchical model applied to a huge data set of individual firms. The sixth paper contains an empirical analysis on the choice of the national capital city location among 80 potential candidates in China over a period of 2240 years. The seventh paper explains political ideology at the municipality level in Switzerland based on 312 federal referendums between 1981 and 2017. The eighth paper examines the driving forces of business cycle synchronization among the 49 US states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]