1. Introduction These days we witness a series of experiments on policy-making over environmental issues throughout Western Europe.

From Finland to Portugal and from the UK to Poland, from landscape preservation to airport extension and from nature development to energy policies, one engages in new styles and new practices of policy-making. The key words of these experiments are participation, legitimacy, shared responsibility, public-private partnership, support etc. Whether labelled interactive, participatory or deliberative, whether based upon a so-called stakeholders approach or on the principles of cooperative management, these experiments explicitly aim at enhancing political participation. At the same time, though, they reflect a more encompassing innovation in environmental politics and in politics in general. Therefore they should be analysed and judged from that perspective as well.

We will start this contribution with explaining what we consider to be major developments in recent environmental politics, particularly in the predominant styles of governance. In order to understand these changes, we need to complement an analysis of strategic conduct with an institutional analysis. The latter leads us to the concept of political modernisation. With this concept we refer to an encompassing change in the political sphere, in particular to a change in the interrelations between state, market and civil society, which also affects the power balances between them, and leads to new styles of governance. Within environmental politics, the concepts of marketisation and societalisation characterise recently institutionalising patterns of governance. These concepts also provide us the institutional context and perspective from which we can understand recent experiments in environmental policy-making. From this perspective, the recent experiments in policy-making raise both theoretical and empirical questions, particularly on their actual contribution to the participation they claim to further. We will conclude by arguing that, while participation recently has been the buzzword, the connected issue of political inequality seems to have been neglected by recent (European) social

aThere are many reasons for economic inequality within societies. "The single most important driver has
been greater inequality in wages and salaries(OECD 2011-12-05)."
[15]

These causes are often inter-

related. Acknowledged factors that impact economic inequality include:

greater inequality in wages and salaries highly skilled workers earn more than low-skilled/no skills

wealth condensation labor markets

[16] [17][18] [19]

globalisation

technological changes policy reforms taxes

[20]

education computerization/growing technology racism

[citation needed] [17]

gender culture
[citation needed] [citation needed] [citation needed]

development patterns

personal preference for work, leisure and risk innate ability

[citation needed]

[edit]The

labor market

A major cause of economic inequality within modern market economies is the determination of wages by the market. Inequality is caused by the differences in the supply and demand for different types of work. In a purely capitalist mode of production (i.e. where professional and labor organizations cannot limit the number of workers) the workers wages will not be controlled by these organizations, nor by the employer, but rather by the market. Wages work in the same way as prices for any other good. Thus, wages can be considered as a function of market price of skill. And therefore, inequality is driven by this price. Under the law of supply and demand, the price of skill is determined by a race between the demand for the skilled worker and the supply of the skilled worker. We would expect the price to rise when demand exceeds supply, and vice versa. Employers who offer a below market wage will find that their business is chronically understaffed. Their competitors will take advantage of the situation by offering a higher wage to snatch up the best of their labor. For a businessman who has the profit motive as the prime interest, it is a losing proposition to offer below or above market wages to workers.
[21]

A job where there are many workers willing to work a large amount of time (high supply) competing for a job that few require (low demand) will result in a low wage for that job. This is because competition between workers drives down the wage. An example of this would be jobs such as dish-washing or customer service. Competition amongst workers tends to drive down wages due to the expendable nature of the worker in relation to his or her particular job. A job where there are few able or

willing workers (low supply), but a large need for the positions (high demand), will result in high wages for that job. This is because competition between employers for employees will drive up the wage. Examples of this would include jobs that require highly developed skills, rare abilities, or a high level of risk. Competition amongst employers tends to drive up wages due to the nature of the job, since there is a relative shortage of workers for the particular position. Professional and labor organizations may limit the supply of workers which results in higher demand and greater incomes for members. Members may also receive higher wages through collective bargaining, political influence, or corruption.
[22]

These supply and demand interactions result in a gradation of wage levels within society that significantly influence economic inequality. [edit]Innate Many people

ability
believe that differences in ability, such as intelligence, motivation, strength, or charisma,

[who?]

are largely innate and play a significant role in determining an individual's wealth. Individuals with higher ability are in greater demand increasing the wage of those who have them. Individuals with high abilities might also operate more effectively within society in general, regardless of the labor market. Various studies have been conducted on the correlation between IQ scores and wealth or income. The book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, written by Dr. Richard Lynn, examines this relationship constructing a correlation of 0.82 between average IQ and GDP. Peer-reviewed research papers on the relationship have been criticised harshly. In his book The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould criticized intelligence testing, claiming that the tests and the statistical models used to evaluate them are inherently flawed. There is also the highly contested study The Bell Curve, which provides analysis that intelligence is substantially influenced by both genetics and environment and plays an increasing role in social stratification. [edit]Taxes Main article: Tax Policy and Economic Inequality in the United States Another cause is the rate at which income is taxed coupled with the progressivity of the tax system. A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases.
[23][24][25][26][27]

In a progressive tax system, the level of the top tax rate will have a direct impact

on the level of inequality within a society, either increasing it or decreasing it. Additionally, a steeper progressivity results in an even more equal distribution of income across the board. The difference between the Gini index for an income distribution before taxation and the Gini index after taxation is an indicator for the effects of such taxation. Overall income tax rates in the United States are below the OECD average.
[28]

There is debate between politicians and economists over the role of tax policy in mitigating or exacerbating wealth inequality. Economists such as Paul Krugman, Peter Orszag, andEmmanuel

Saez have argued that tax policy in the post World War II era has indeed increased income inequality by enabling the wealthiest American workers far greater access to capital than lower-income Americans. Other economists and politicians, such as Paul Ryan, do not believe tax policy has created a chasm of wealth between the wealthy, middle, and lower class Americans.
[29]

Mobility
Entrenched strata of power -- whether economic, political, status, ascribed, or meritocratic -- can lead to decreased mobility by he assertion of that power, and lead to increased inequality.

Gender, race, and culture

The existence of different genders, races and cultures within a society is also thought to contribute to economic inequality. Some psychologists such as Richard Lynn argue that there are innate group differences in ability that are partially responsible for producing race and gender group differences in wealth (see also race and intelligence, sex and intelligence) though this assertion is highly controversial. The concept of the gender gap also tries to explain differences in income between genders. Culture and religion are thought to play a role in creating inequality by either encouraging or discouraging wealth-acquiring behavior, and by providing a basis for discrimination. In many countries individuals belonging to certain racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be poor. Proposed causes include cultural differences amongst different races, an educationalachievement gap, and racism.

Statement on the Study of Political Inequality

Posted on June 22, 2010

Social scientists have long argued that political power is a key dimension of stratification (Weber 1946; Lenski 1966; Dahl 2006), yet few empirically analyze political inequality (Winters and Page 2009). Although attention to global inequality has increased in the social stratification literature, most examine income (Firebaugh 1999; Milanovic 2002; Neckerman and Torche 2007), some examine health (Goselin and Firebaugh 2004), and almost none examine political influence (Anderson and Beramendi 2008). Most discussions of political inequality consist of philosophical debates over whether political equality is possible, or even necessary (Verba 2006; Bohman 1999; Dahl 2006; Ware 1981). The few empirical discussions neither explicitly discuss the methodological implications of their measures of political inequality nor discuss how they can be applied cross-nationally (Winters and Page 2009; Anderson and Beramendi 2008). This is a huge gap in our knowledge of how modern societies work.

This brief statement has three parts. First, I present many definitions of political inequality, and argue each implies a distinct empirical measure. Second, I suggest some empirical measures of political inequality. Third, I offer a sketch of the field of political inequality.

Objectives
Neither theoretical nor empirical studies have sufficiently taken into account democracy's multidimensionality, and previous studies on democracy's effects have mostly relied on problematic aggregate measures. This projects objective is to (re-)assess how democracy affects four important variables; namely economic growth, conflict, inequality, and the stability and consolidation of democratic institutions by using data on detailed indicators of political institutions as well as new indices of democracy. In this regard, another objective of the project is to contribute to the literatures on how to conceptualize democracy, and to the literature on how to validly measure democracy, democracys sub-components, and more specific institutional structures.

In the course of our discussion of inequalities of political voice, certain themes have emerged repeatedly. Most importantly, the level of political inequality in America is quite high. The expression of political voice is distinctly stratified by social class. Those with high levels of income, occupational status and, especially, education are much more likely to be politically articulate -- with unambiguous implications for what policymakers hear. The socioeconomic bias in citizen politics implies as well that the concerns of members of disadvantaged groups -for example, racial and ethnic minorities, women, immigrants, and lower-income groups -- are systematically less likely to make themselves heard. Once again, there are clear consequences for the sorts of messages conveyed to policymakers. The various domains of citizen politics

differ in the extent to which the group of activists -- and the messages they send -- are unrepresentative. Social movement politics has the clearest capacity to bring into politics p