Socioeconomics

[Bolts]

Could someone please explain to me - in very simple words What socioeconomics is and how it works????

Examples would be very appreciated

[Guest]

Have a look here: Wikipedia

Also, try running a Google search on "socioeconomics". Should pull up some more stuff.

[Bolts]

Have a look here: Wikipedia

Also, try running a Google search on "socioeconomics". Should pull up some more stuff.

I've been there - done that. I just don't get it

My assignment is: 'socioeconomic impact on literacy''

HELP!!!!!!

[peaches]

lemme try!

ok, socioeconomics is pretty big. u can talk about really....WHATEVER YOU WANT, as long as u include some sort of economic theory in there. u can talk about, l ike the wiki example said, trade and how thats gonna affect say incomes in third world countries (given how trade theories arent fair to third world countries) which means they wont have enough income generated to fund their social programs including education. you can even go on to say that since trade theories are so crappy to third world countries, it means they work and work and work and most of their time is spent trying to make enough money to sell their tradeble goods and not enough time spent in the classroom. and then u can go on a rant about why this is a contributing factor to why education levels are so low in some of these countries.

orrrrrrrr

you can talk about the economic policies in ur own country. i know in canada, some time ago, our then premier (whacky mike harris) pulled funding from a lot of educational programs and many after school programs had to be closed down. inner cities whose education levels already are low suffered the most cos hte little they had was taken away. another impact this had was that teachers went on strike and this, though short term, affected education/literacy levels.

really, u can pretty much talk about whatever u want here. i am more of a social justice person so the first example appeals to me the most. oh, and its usually better to have a concrete example (and graphs!) to accompany ur arguments. usually two or three arguments that are well expanded make for a good paper.

lemme know were u need me to clarify

[Fraught]

the easiest to understand i've seen as follows - you can see from it how the class one is from may affect how motivated a person is to receive a higher education or any education at all.

Socioeconomics or Socio-economics is the study of the relationship between economic activity and social life. The field is often considered multidisciplinary, using theories and methods from sociology, economics, history, psychology, and many others. It is a relatively new social science that has emerged as a separate field of study in the late twentieth century. Most colleges and university do not have a separate department or degree for socioeconomic studies.

Socioeconomics typically analyze both the social impacts of economic activity and economic impacts of social activity. In many cases, however, socioeconomists focus on the social impact of some sort of economic change. Such changes might include a closing factory, market manipulation, the signing of international trade treaties, new natural gas regulation, etc. Such social effects can be wide-ranging in size, anywhere from local effects on a small community to changes to an entire society.

Examples of causes of socioeconomic impacts include new technologies such as cars or mobile phones, changes in laws (such as the legal right to abortion), changes in the physical environment (such as increasing crowding within cities), and ecological changes (such as prolonged drought or declining fish stocks). These may affect patterns of consumption, the distribution of incomes and wealth, the way in which people behave (both in terms of purchase decisions and the way in which they choose to spend their time), and the overall quality of life. These can further have indirect effects on social attitudes and norms.

The goal of socioeconomic study is generally to bring about socioeconomic development, usually in terms of improvements in metrics such as GDP, life expectancy, literacy, levels of employment, etc.

Although harder to measure, changes in less-tangible factors are also considered, such as personal dignity, freedom of association, personal safety and freedom from fear of physical harm, and the extent of participation in civil society.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...economist"" target=_blank">from http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Socioeconomist

[peaches]

i thought of another simpler way to put it:

think of any economic policy (e.g. increase in taxes), then think of how that affects your educational system and then relate the two.

[Bolts]

Thank you everyone

especially you peaches ... what you wrote is very much on the nose. We only got a one sentence instruction from our tutor and it was: Outcome (iii) 'socioeconomic impact on literacy

My tutor actually lives miles away from where I live and a phone call would have sent my phone bill soaring

Thank you very much

[OneLight]

If I'm not too late, it's the study of the interrelation between economics and social behavior.

OneLight

[BrandonL]

That question sounds a bit like a conspiracy theorist dreamt it up. Peaches was sort of taking it in the right direction. However, I think what they want is a bit more toward the liberal side of the equation. It is becoming more and more wide-spread to believe that there are groups of wealthy people on this planet that are trying to make the world stupid. (Think Masons or Illuminati or some other secret society that allegedly exists to keep the average people down). Now, if I were to get a question like that in a school assignment, I would take it in an entirely different direction. I would set about to prove why there is no socioeconomic impact on literacy. Rather, literacy has an impact on socioeconomics.

The responses that have been given so far aren't too far off the path. None of them is wrong, per se, but the reason I'm responding is that I feel that question to be biased and spun so hard toward the left that it bothers me. I am saying this knowing nothing about your instructor or the bias of his teaching. It could very well be that he is asking the question hoping that someone will catch its fallacy.

Peaches said to consider how something like an increase in taxes could affect the school system. That's pretty much exactly how to answer the question at its face value. Still, that misses much larger socioeconomic realities at play here. I should clarify that I am from the USA so my perspective is narrowed by a familiarity only with the American education system. The state of our schools is far beyond the help of any amount of money. When you have a problematic system, throwing more money into it only creates a larger problematic system. It doesn't fix anything. Now, having said that, I again emphasize that I am coming from an American background. Perhaps in Canada or other countries (I'm not sure where you are from) this is not true.

Back to my response to the question. I hold that there is no socioeconomic impact on literacy and rather that the opposite is true. Why? Well, it's really rather simple. Literacy implies education. Education affects values. Values affect both sociological and economic beliefs. To take that the other direction really makes no sense. Not in the real world anyway. One could say that I am over-simplifying the issue. I would argue that the issue is really just that simple. This is the most common error of liberal economists. They like to try to expand every issue to include every possible scenario. It is a disturbing political game that ends with disaster. If you want to see the true end of that direction, look at the USSR.

Am I being melodramatic? Hardly. I am a fiscal Libertarian. That means I agree agree with the Libertarian party in terms of economics. As a Christian, I cannot completely agree with the Libertarians because of their moral views. I say this to clarify my perspective since perspective alters reality. It is my strong belief that free markets should be kept free. The implications of this question lead toward restricting the free market. It implies that socioeconomic powers can control education. By extension, it is saying that the wealthy control the masses through education since the wealthy are the greatest socioeconomic powers. However, in any society (even non-democratic societies) the power belongs to the masses when they truly begin to understand that. Case in point: the USSR.

In 1917, Lenin led the October Revolution overthrowing the Russian monarchy. The Russian monarchy was infamously cruel and dictatorial. The tsars were known for their arbitrary uses of power to destroy anything that could oppose them. So Lenin was standing on the unfavorable side of the power struggle. But by recruiting enough people to join his side, Lenin was able to overthrow Moscow in a matter of weeks. So, despite the overwhelming disadvantages, the masses overthrew the powerful. But we all know the final outcome of that experiment.

Now take that principle and apply it to a democratic or republican state. Regardless of any wealth, no one holds power over the masses. That is the simple fact of it. I will allow here that the socioeconomically powerful can make a play here over education. They can gain power and alter the education system to disarm the masses. That is possible on paper. It is not, however, likely since no one man or group of men can control everyone.

That is where this question is founded. There is no other way for it to be true than in a circumstance similar to that that I just described. That is why I stated that the question seems to have come from a conspiracy theorist. On a side note, I find it oddly amusing that conspiracy theorists so often miss that it is they who give the alleged power to those that they oppose. The perceived power that they attack is the only power that the allegedly powerful have. In attacking that power and drawing it into the public eye, they are expanding the power that the "powerful" hold.

Now, on the other end of the spectrum. Take the British Empire of the 1700s. This is a classic example of the impotence of socioeconomics over education. The British Empire was similarly dicatorial in their control of education. Things like the African slave trade were taught to be acceptable. Yet, it is that very trade which eventually led to the demise of the Empire. Today, we look back at slavery in disgust and wonder how someone could have ever thought it justifiable. But at the time, Africans were simply not believed to be humans. That may be hard to grasp, but that is how it was at the time. It makes the slave trade more understandable in that aspect. If Africans were viewed in the same way we view horses or cattle today, then ownership of one would have the same implications. It wasn't a conspiracy, though. No one was sediciously trying to lower the state of Africans in order to gain control of the world. It was just basic economics. Slaves were cheap labor. Labor was required to grow the produce of plantations. Plantations were the largest and most powerful industry of the time. The British Empire eventually fell victim to its own spoils.

By demanding the produce of its plantations at inhibitively low costs, the demand for slaves increased. However, the slave trade began to grow unpopular as people discovered the cruelty and unspeakable horrors of its reality. This, in turn, made things difficult on colonist planters who were trying to sell their goods. The planters then began to fight back. The French got involved because they were the Britain's largest competitor in the slave trade. In both Great Britain and the French Republic, slavery began to lose popularity at exponential rates. But in both cases the ruling class was financed by the slave trade. This created a revolution in France. Britain, in fear of having its own revolution or losing its colonies, began to label abolitionists as revolutionaries. This quelled the debate for a few years. But in the end, it only further exposed the weakness of the ruling class. Eventually, Britain lost its colonies and abolished its own slave trade. Both of these started a domino affect on the British colonies throughout the world that, over the course of the next 150 years, led to the demise of the Empire. In the end, the education of the masses was what affected the socioeconomic policies. Not vice-versa.

You can take from this what you will. I am offering the position that eventually education rules over socioencomics in every case. Look at the eventual demise of the USSR, too. Romania revolted due to the reality of what socialism had become (and will always become). After Romania revolted, the USSR lost its perceived influence just like the British Empire did. This, again, started a domino affect throughout that led to the demise of the USSR. There are countless examples throughout history where you find that it is the masses who control the powerful. Socioeconomic policies will always have to bend to education. It only takes one voice to end it all. In the British Empire, it was William Wilberforce who affected the abolishment of the slave trade. One man who went about to educate the masses.

[Bolts]

WoW!!

Blampinen your post is fantastic!!

Now I don't feel so bad about why I didn't GET it

I've copied your material to a microsoft document - would you mind if I used parts in my assignment and referenced to you? (I'm planning on making a start on it tomorrow).

*sigh*. I'll phone up my Tutor as well.