1 Introduction

The Corona crisis made visible which professions are of particular importance for the maintenance of basic functions in society. Thus, people working in the so-called critical infrastructure, such as nurses and shop-assistants, received a great deal of praise from politicians and the public in many European countries. This also led to the demand for a corresponding (higher) remuneration for these occupational groups, which are often among the low-wage earners, and predominantly include women (for Austria see Fritsch et al. 2014). The question of a fair distribution of earnings arises all the more as studies indicate that low wages remained the same, while top wages in some professional sectors increased (Almeida et al. 2021; Briggs et al. 2021, p. 123). But what is a fair wage for a shop assistant or a worker in the eyes of the population in different countries? How much should people in high-status professions, such as managers and cabinet-ministers, earn in comparison? The answers to these questions are related to the historically grown normative notions of social justice in a society, which are shaped by power relations between the state, business, and interest groups in different countries (Esping-Andersen 1990; Schröder 2009).

In today’s capitalist societies, the earned income is determined by the meritocratic principle that people who have higher qualifications, more responsibility and perform better in their job should earn more than people who perform less. However, the level of earnings also depends on wage negotiations between employers and employees, on the organizational and institutional strength of trade unions, and on systems of collectively agreed wages within different welfare state systems (Mosimann and Pontusson 2017). Welfare state systems moreover adopt different levels of income taxation and compensations for the social disadvantages produced by the market economy by means of social benefits, and thus impact the level of disposable income and the living standard of people. Welfare states differ in terms of the underlying ideas of social justice (e.g., concepts of solidarity and balance), which are changeable over time, and might also impact notions of fair market income differentials (Andreß and Heien 2001).

This research note examines how people in 14 European countries assess the earnings of five occupational groups—cabinet ministers, managers, doctors, shop assistants and unskilled workers—and what earnings differential they consider to be fair. These questions were asked as part of the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) on “Social Inequality” in 2009, and most recently in 2019. Comparing these two survey waves provides insight into the extent to which perceptions of pay equity have changed across time. Our research questions are as follows:

  1. 1.

    What differences in earnings between high-status professions and low-status jobs do people in different European countries consider legitimate?

  2. 2.

    To what extent are people’s notions of legitimate differences in earnings related to the type of welfare state-system?

  3. 3.

    Did the notions of fair earnings differentials change from 2009 to 2019 (and if so, how)?

In the following two sections, we will briefly outline the theoretical background of our analysis: a) the principle of meritocracy, and b) the notions of social justice associated with different welfare state-systems. Subsequently, we will explain the data and methods used for the statistical analyses and present our empirical findings. In the final section, the results will be summarized and discussed.

2 The principle of meritocracy

The principle of meritocracy is based on an individualistic, liberal-economic conception of social justice which stipulates that the earned income should correspond to the qualification required for an occupation, and the performance rendered in that occupation (Hoffer 2002, p. 435; Hadjar 2008). Accordingly, differences in earnings between occupational groups are justified if they can be attributed to individual skills and performance. This, however, presupposes that opportunities are equal for all, that performance is rewarded regardless of gender as well as ethnicity, social origin, and other factors, and that capitalist societies evaluate performance objectively based on free market laws (for a detailed analysis on the “hidden dimension” of gender see for instance Sauer et al. 2021).

In the last decades, many societies experienced an increase in precarious, insecure, and poorly paid jobs (Kalleberg 2009; Hürtgen 2021), and rising fears of social decline even among the middle class (Mau 2012; Bude 2014). In addition, technological progress has led to a transformation of occupations and a devaluation of qualifications particularly in low-skilled jobs, while gender segregation of labor markets has remained high in many countries (Krzywdzinski et al. 2015; Mau and Verwiebe 2009, p. 147 ff.; Piasna and Drahokoupil 2017). At the same time, income inequality has been growing considerably since the 1980s in many countries (Fredriksen 2012; Atkinson 2013). In view of this development, many people feel resentments both towards the super-rich and the political elite, who, in the eyes of larger population groups, are co-responsible for the deterioration of the economic situation.

3 The balancing of social inequalities by the welfare state

Norms of social justice are historically grown and incorporated in welfare state institutions shaping the views of the population (Svallfors 2012). Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990) is one of the most widely acclaimed attempts to distinguish different types of welfare state regimes.

In liberal welfare states, such as Great Britain, the state intervenes in the generation and distribution of resources and goods only to a small extent, since the responsibility and freedom of individuals play an important role. The ideal of the “lean state” goes together with tolerance for high differences in earnings. Class conflicts are most pronounced in liberal welfare states (Andreß and Heien 2001, p. 343), especially when social inequality is hierarchically linked to ethnic and gender differences (Esping-Andersen 1990, p. 228). Conservative welfare states, such as Austria and Germany, are characterized by a comparatively high level of social security and protection of the individual by the state. However, the benefits one receives from the state depend on the contributions one has made. The conservative welfare state thus, enhances the maintenance of income and status inequalities. Accordingly, one should expect that people in this type of welfare state also consider larger differences in earnings between high- and low-skilled occupations to be fair.

In social democratic welfare states, such as Sweden, Norway or Denmark, the state collects high taxes and redistributes them through a variety of monetary and non-monetary social benefits. Social democratic welfare states pursue the principle of “equality of highest standards, not an equality of minimal need” (Esping-Andersen 1990, p. 28). Hence, tolerance for differences in earnings among occupational groups should be less pronounced than in the other two types of welfare state.

Esping-Andersen’s typology has been criticized for different reasons, including the concern of neglecting gender relations and inequalities (see Arts and Gelissen 2002, pp. 147–148). In fact, the distribution of paid and unpaid (care) work and the degree of women’s employment largely depends on the welfare state system (e.g., childcare infrastructure, career break models), showing that the call for gender-sensitive welfare state typologies from the 1990s is still relevant. Closely linked to gender and family related issues, Esping-Andersen’s original typology was also extended by the Mediterranean type, characterized by a strong impact of family (basically care from women) and church in addition to the state (Leibfried 1992).

Different typologies have also been suggested for the post-socialist countries of Eastern Europe (Kollmorgen 2009; Fenger 2007). During communism the ideal of far-reaching equalization of salaries was predominant, and differences in earnings between occupations were much smaller than in capitalist countries. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, earnings in the newly privatized economic sectors were determined by the capitalist market mechanism. According to Esping-Andersen (1996), the Visegrád states converged with the Central European welfare state in the 1990s. Kollmorgen’s typology of Eastern European welfare states (2009) distinguishes a neoliberal (Estonia, Lithuania), a state-paternalistic (Russia, Ukraine), and a conservative (Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia) welfare state and, in addition, considers “welfare cultures” and gender aspects (Kollmorgen 2009, p. 82 f.). Given the common heritage of the socialist ideal of equality, the heterogenous transition to capitalism and accompanying techno-economic transformations, as well as the establishment of diverse new welfare state systems, it is difficult to predict which notions of pay equity prevail among people in post-socialist countries today.

While some scholars have provided empirical evidence for the link between Esping-Andersen’s welfare state regimes and attitudes toward social inequality (e.g., Svallfors 1997, 2003), others point to a low explanatory power (e.g., Gelissen 2000). Analyses of attitudes toward social inequality in the post-socialist countries of Eastern Europe show that support for egalitarian ideas of justice continued to be relatively strong after the end of communism (Gijsberts 2002; Örkény and Székelyi 2000); however, acceptance of income inequality has increased over time (Austen 2002; Kelley and Zagorski 2004). Longitudinal analyses indicate that attitudes toward social inequality tend to adjust to the level of actual income inequality over a period of three to four years (Schröder 2014). Austen assumes that “(…) the community will adapt its expectations to the new patterns of wage payments” (Austen 2002, p. 236). Normative adjustments do not only affect the former socialist countries of Central Eastern Europe but also Western capitalist societies, although the changes over time are smaller in the latter (Austen 2002). Analyses of differences between population groups within countries so far have shown a clear pattern, with the economically better off, the older, the politically conservative, and men accepting larger differences in earnings between occupational groups (Kelley and Evans 1993; Hadler 2005; Eder and Höllinger 2022). However, due to space limitations, within-country differences cannot be addressed in this research note.

4 Data and methods

Our analysis is based on survey data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) 2009 and 2019 modules on “Social Inequality” (ISSP Research Group 2017, 2022). In these surveys, the legitimacy of earnings differentials across occupational groups is investigated by the following set of questions: “How much do you think people in the following occupations earn on average per month, before taxes and social security contributions are deducted?” a) a doctor in general practice (in the following referred to as “doctor”), b) a chairman of a large national company (“manager”), c) a shop assistant; d) an unskilled factory worker (“worker”) and e) a cabinet minister (“minister”). Thereafter, respondents are asked to indicate how much people in these occupations should earn per month.

Our analysis covers all European countries included in the first release of the combined ISSP-2019 dataset (available since May 2022) that also participated in ISSP-2009. Due to the COVID-pandemic, several countries had to postpone the fieldwork of ISSP-2019 for more than a year, and it was therefore not possible to integrate the data for these countries into the first release of the combined dataset. This also applies to Austria, which is why we added the Austrian data to the international dataset.

Table 1 attributes the 14 countries to Esping Andersen’s and Kollmorgen’s typologies of welfare state regimes. It also displays the distribution of incomes within the countries in terms of the Gini coefficients before and after taxes and transfers. The Gini coefficients indicate high levels of market income inequality, even in Denmark and Finland, and a significant reduction due to taxation and social transfers. After welfare state intervention, we can see particularly low levels of income inequality in the social democratic welfare states but also in the Eastern European conservative welfare states of the Czech Republic and Slovenia, while most pronounced income gaps can be observed in Eastern European neoliberal welfare states.

Table 1 Characterization of the 14 countries by type of welfare state and income inequality (Gini-coefficients before and after taxes and transfers in parentheses)
Full size table

In the following, respondents’ answers to the question “How much do people working in these professions earn?” will be called perceived earnings; answers to the question “How much should people working in these occupations earn?” will be referred to as legitimate earnings. Low status earnings correspond to the arithmetic mean of “shop assistant” and “worker”; high-status earnings are the mean of “doctor”, “manager” and “minister”.

As earnings cannot be directly compared between countries, earnings ratios between high-status and low-status occupations were calculated. Three coefficients are considered: a) the perceived earnings ratio, b) the legitimate earnings ratio and c) the desired change ratio, which results from dividing the perceived earnings ratio by the legitimate earnings ratio, and indicates by what factor the earnings of high-status jobs should be reduced (or increased) relative to the earnings of low status jobs, in comparison with the perceived difference in earnings between these jobs. The ratios were calculated separately for the three high-status occupations as well as for the high-status occupations together.

$$\text{perceived earnings ratio}=\frac{\text{perceived earnings high status}}{\text{perceived earnings low status}}$$
$$\text{legitimate earnings ratio}=\frac{\text{legitimate earnings high status}}{\text{legitimate earnings low status}}$$
$$\text{desired change ratio}=\frac{\text{perceived earnings ratio}}{\text{legitimate earnings ratio}}$$

A considerable part of respondents seems to have no clear idea of the average monthly earnings of top-managers or politicians. Some respondents refused to answer the question, others specified extremely high values (e.g., 1,000,000,000). In those countries where a larger number of respondents reported such extreme figures, the arithmetic mean is shifted sharply upward. For this reason, for the comparison of country differences (in Figs. 1 and 2 and Table 1) the median was used. Statistical differences between perceived and legitimate earnings between types of welfare state and across time, however, were tested by analyses of variance (ANOVA) and t‑tests of the logarithmized ratios. Findings on statistical significance (p < 0.05) are reported in footnotes and asterisks in figures.

5 Results

5.1 Legitimate earnings by countries

Figure 1 shows a correspondence between the perceived and the legitimate earnings gap between high- and low-status occupations. Across all countries, Spearman-correlation between the perceived and the legitimate earnings ratio for doctors versus low-status jobs, as well as for managers versus low-status jobs amounts to 0.64 respectively 0.61; the correlation for ministers versus low-status jobs is 0.40. A second finding concerns the size of differences between the perceived and the legitimate income for the three high-status occupations: On average of all countriesFootnote 1, respondents think that doctors should earn 2.4-times more than people working in low-status jobs, which is only slightly lower than the perceived earnings ratio between these occupations (that amounts to 2.9). While the earnings of doctors are viewed as rather fair, managers and ministers are considered overpaid. On average, respondents perceive managers to earn 8‑times more than people working in low-status jobs; however, in respondent’s views, managers should earn only 3.6-times more. For ministers the respective ratios are 6.2 for the perceived income versus 3.0 for the legitimate income. Thus, a considerable part of the respondents (around 10%) “grant” ministers only slightly higher or equal earnings than people working in low-status jobs.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Perceived and legitimate earnings ratio for high-status professions in relation to low-status jobs (low-status jobs = 1.0): a Doctor, b Manager, c Minister. Example how to read the numbers: 3.8 = a doctor (manager, minister) earns (should earn) 3.8 times more than people working in low-status jobs. Country abbreviation and number of cases (from to): DK Denmark (975 to 992), IS Iceland (1127 to 1161), Fl Finland (895 to 920), GB Great Britain (1399 to 1474), CH Switzerland (2919 to 2971), DE Germany (1281 to 1297), AT Austria (1257 to 1259), IT Italy (849 to 968), CZ Czech Republic (1885 to 1914), Sl Slovenia (1052 to 1103), HR Croatia (995 to 998), BG Bulgaria (919 to 986), LT Lithuania (805 to 944), RU Russia (1498 to 1567), Total = (18,120 to 18,398). Source: ISSP-2019; weighted data

Full size image

5.2 Perceived and legitimate earnings ratios between high-status and low-status jobs by welfare state and market income inequality

Turning our attention to differences between countries, it becomes obvious (see Fig. 1 and Table 2) that both the perceived and the legitimate earnings ratios are lower in the social democratic welfare states (DK, IS, FI) than in the liberal (GB, CH) and conservative welfare states (AT, DE, IT). However, this pattern is not fully consistent, since, for instance, people in Iceland perceive higher earnings gaps than Fins and Danes, while Fins accept considerably higher differences in earnings than Danes. Divergent results can also be found in Italy; depending on the respective high-status occupation Italians accept rather high or rather low earnings gaps in comparison to other countries. The results for the post-socialist countries can be summarized as follows: Overall, the preferred wage ratio in Eastern Europe is close to that of the social democratic Western European countries. While in most East European countries people accept only small earnings gaps between doctors and low-status jobs as well as between ministers and low-status jobs, people regard considerably higher differences in earnings between managers and low-status jobs as fair. In Bulgaria, Croatia and Lithuania, the ratios for the legitimate earnings of high versus low-status professions are generally low. In contrast, people in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Russia tend to accept somewhat higher differences in earnings, however also this pattern is not consistent.

Table 2 Perceived and legitimate earnings ratio for high- versus low status occupations, by type of welfare state (grouped median)
Full size table

The bottom part of Table 2 shows the desired change ratio, i.e., the factor at which the earning differences between high-status and low-status jobs should be reduced (or increased) compared to the perceived earning differences between these groups. As already shown in Fig. 1, respondents in all societies think that the earnings of doctors should be slightly reduced (by the factor 1.16 on average across all countries), whereas the earnings of managers and ministers should be reduced to a much greater extent (by the factor of 2.03 and 1.88 respectively in the average of all countries). For these two high-status professions we also see considerable differences between types of countries.

Table 3 shows that there are differences between Western and Eastern Europe in terms of the correspondence between the actual level of market income inequality (Gini-coefficients before taxes and transfers for 2019) and the perceived and legitimate earnings ratios. In Western Europe, respondents living in more unequal societies perceive greater income differences and also consider greater differences in earnings as fair than respondents living in more egalitarian countries. For the post-communist Eastern European countries, there is even a negative correlation between Gini-coefficients and the legitimate as well as perceived earnings gap between high and low status jobs. However, in view of the small number of countries these findings must be interpreted cautiously.

Table 3 Relationship between Gini for market income, the perceived and the legitimate earnings ratio for high-status versus low-status occupations, in Western and Eastern Europe (Spearman-Rho)
Full size table

5.3 Changes in the notions of legitimate earnings ratios from 2009 to 2019

Figure 2 shows the changes in perceptions of legitimate earnings for the three high-status professions of doctors, managers and ministers compared to the earnings of low-status jobs from 2009 to 2019 (statistically significant changes are marked with *). Overall, there is a high degree of stability in the notions of legitimate earnings gaps, which is also consistent with the assumption of historically grown values of social justice. Compared to the notions of legitimate earnings of doctors, there are somewhat greater changes in the accepted earnings of ministers and managers. In most countries, a desire for smaller income hierarchies between managers, ministers and low-status jobs can be observed. This tendency is most pronounced in some post-socialist countries and Switzerland, regarding ministers also in Germany and Great Britain. Taking a closer look at the findings, social democratic countries show a particularly high degree of stability, apart from the Fins who, over the course of time, accept greater differences in earnings between ministers and status-low jobs as well as between doctors and status-low jobs. In Russia as well as in Slovenia and Croatia, dissatisfaction with the (high) earnings of ministers has grown particularly strongly (in 2009, Russians accepted the income of ministers to be 5‑times higher than the earnings in low-status jobs; in 2019 this ratio decreased to 3.6; in Slovenia it decreased from 3.4 to 2.5, and in Croatia from 2.9 to 1.9).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Legitimate wage differences between high- and low-status professions, 2009 and 2019: a Doctor versus low-status jobs, b Manager versus low-status jobs, c Minister versus low-status jobs. Number of cases (from to): DK = (956 to 1321); IS = (883 to 1133); Fl = (798 to 895); GB = (810 to 1430); CH = (1091 to 2951); DE = (1204 to 1281); AT = (960 to 1259); IT = (869 to 931); CZ = (1143 to 1914); Sl = (862 to 1077); HR = (965 to 1164); BG = (528 to 986); LT = (918 to 948); RU = (1379 to 1567). Countries with statistically significant differences across time according to 2‑tailed t‑tests (p ≤ 0.05) are marked with * in the respective figures. Source: ISSP-2009 and ISSP-2019 modules on Social Inequality. Weighted data. Number of cases per country (excluding missing values) in 2009: maximum: 1378, minimum: 530; number of cases per country in 2019: see notes to Fig. 2

Full size image

6 Summary & conclusion

In this research note, we investigated attitudes towards legitimate earning differentials between people working in high-status occupations and in low-status jobs in 14 European countries. In view of the increase in social inequality and precarious working conditions since the 1990s in most of these countries, we also examined changes in the notions of social justice in the period from 2009 to 2019 in order to see, whether rising differences in earnings are accepted or rejected by the people.

In line with the principle of meritocracy, most respondents in the surveyed countries consider it fair that jobs requiring high qualifications and a high level of responsibility are paid more than low-status jobs. However, a clear majority of respondents is in favor of a sharp reduction of the earnings gap between top-earners, such as managers and politicians, and low-status occupational groups. A substantial part of respondents in all countries even demands that managers and ministers should not earn more or only slightly more than shop assistants and factory workers. Given the fact that in most countries, only small fractions of the population prefer radical-egalitarian political parties, it is obvious that the demand for a reduction of top salaries does not imply that respondents are calling for an equalization of earnings (see also Kuhn 2011). Rather, these demands are likely to be emotional reactions to the privileges of the ruling political and economic elite, and to their lack of success in solving past and current economic crises.

At the same time, notions of legitimate earnings differentials between high- and low-status occupations vary considerably across types of welfare states: people living in liberal and conservative Western European welfare states are more inclined to consider higher earnings gaps between high-status and low-status jobs to be fair than people from social democratic welfare states. Notions of fair earnings ratios also differ among the post-socialist Eastern European countries, but overall, East Europeans continue to call for flatter earnings hierarchies than people in liberal and conservative Western European welfare states. The findings suggest that the patterns regarding the association between perceived and legitimate earnings differences are similar in Western and Eastern European countries. Considering market income inequality, however, there is a relatively high degree of congruence between the objective situation in a given country and the subjective assessment of social inequality in Western Europe, while no such trends can be observed in Eastern Europe.

The comparison of results from ISSP 2009 and 2019 shows a high level of stability in the notions of legitimate earnings gaps during the last decade. This finding is consistent with the assumption that historically grown norms of social justice are passed on from one generation to the next. In several countries, especially in some post-socialist countries as well as in Switzerland and, to a smaller extent, in Great Britain and Germany, people are calling for a greater reduction in the earnings gap in 2019 than in 2009. Apparently, the multiple economic crises of the last decades seem to have intensified the feeling among the middle and lower social classes of being disadvantaged compared to the privileged, and led people to call for a drastic reduction in the salaries of top earners.