filippo oncini – phd student sociologia e ricerca sociale, università degli studi di trento
TRANSCRIPT
Filippo Oncini – PhD Student
Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, Università degli Studi di Trento
Sitting at the (Inequality) TableClassi sociali e consumo alimentare in Italia
Contributi sociologici: i classici
• ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England’ - Engels (1844)
• Booth (1886-1903), Rowntree (1908), Pember Reeves (1914)
• Bourdieu ‘La distinction’ (1984)
Literature review• Generalmente, le ricerche mostrano che lo status socio-economico è ancora oggi
determinante per indagare il consumo di alcuni alimenti (e.g. Darmon & Drwnoski, 2008);• Rilevanza del tema: obesità (definita la “epidemia globale” dalla WHO);
• Verdura, frutta, cibi biologici, pesce, carni bianche, prodotti integrali: upper Ses• Carne, junk food, fast food, pasta-pane-riso, legumi e patate: lower SeS
• Higher SeS = cibo più salutare, pochi grassi e pochi alimenti con contenuto chilocalorico elevato;
• Lower SeS = carne, grassi aggiunti, zuccheri
Quali problemi?• Variabili socioeconomiche: spesso trattate in modo troppo vago
(Lalluka et al., 2006; Braveman et al., 2003).• Il consumo di cibo deve essere considerato come un insieme di
pratiche (Warde, 2000). Molti dataset…ma informazioni tendenzialmente scarse.
• Quali variabili considerare? Status, classe, istruzione, reddito…
Dati e metodo• Multiscopo: 2003-2012 (Lavoratori: 25-55; N=156,169, 64% del
campione)• Variabili che riguardano il cibo: porzioni alla settimana;
trasformazione da ordinale a metrica per facilitarne l’interpretazione. • Variabili di controllo: classe sociale (6 categorie), livello di istruzione (4
categorie), bmi, stato civile, età, regione, sesso
Variables Original Cat. Transformed Cat.
Pane-pasta-riso, salumi, carne bianca, carne rossa, maiale, latte, formaggio, verdura in foglia, verdura in frutto, frutta, pesce, uova, snack, legumi, patate, dolci
1. Mai2. Meno di una volta a settimana3. Qualche volta alla settimana4. Una volta al giorno 5. Più di una volta al giorno
1. 0 portions2. 0.5 portions3. 4 portions4. 7 portions5. 12 portions
Soft Drinks
1. Mai2. Solo stagionalmente3. Più raramente4. 1-2 bicchieri al giorno5. Da mezzo a un litro al giorno6. Più di un litro al giorno
1. 0 portions2. 0.1 portions3. 0.4 portions4. 2.1 portions5. 3.5 portions6. 7 portions
Table 1. Ordinal to metric transformation. Occasional missing s treated as 0.
Figure 5. Food consumption trends. 2003-2012.
Figure 5. Food consumption trends. 2003-2012.
Costruzione delle variabili dipendenti: PCA
Variable CarniFrutta e verdura Square Dolci e Junk Latticini Base Uniqueness
Carni bianche 0.76 0.45
Carni rosse 0.82 0.37
Maiale 0.68 0.48
Verdure foglia 0.86 0.26
Verdura frutto 0.86 0.27
Frutta 0.60 0.60
Legumi 0.83 0.37
Uova 0.43 0.38 0.51
Patate 0.74 0.43
Snack 0.77 0.39
Dolci 0.71 0.47
Soft Drinks 0.61 0.63
Latte 0.82 0.37
Formaggio 0.71 0.41
Pasta-pane-riso 0.80 0.35
Salumi 0.48 0.52
Pesce -0.40 0.54 Table 5. PCA. Rotated factor loadings (promax). (Blanks represents loadings < 0.35).
Regressione OLS
Meat
Veg&Fru
Snack&Sweets
Square
Dairy
Essential
Fish
Controls
2005 0.01 (0.05) 0.15* (0.08) 0.07* (0.04) 0.05 (0.04) 0.03 (0.05) -0.11** (0.04) 0.03 (0.02)
2006 -0.08* (0.05) 2.55*** (0.08) 0.17*** (0.04) -0.10** (0.04) -0.15*** (0.05) -0.17*** (0.04) 0.04** (0.02)
2007 0.08 (0.05) 0.21*** (0.08) 0.17*** (0.04) -0.32*** (0.04) -0.24*** (0.05) -0.30*** (0.04) 0.06*** (0.02)
2008 0.07 (0.05) 0.18** (0.08) 0.20*** (0.04) -0.22*** (0.04) -0.23*** (0.05) -0.31*** (0.04) 0.00 (0.02)
2009 0.21*** (0.05) -0.17** (0.08) 0.32*** (0.04) 0.02 (0.04) -0.28*** (0.05) -0.32*** (0.04) 0.04* (0.02)
2010 0.18*** (0.05) -0.00 (0.08) 0.39*** (0.04) -0.07* (0.04) -0.20*** (0.05) -0.43*** (0.04) 0.06*** (0.02)
2011 0.13*** (0.05) -0.05 (0.08) 0.42*** (0.04) -0.09** (0.04) -0.33*** (0.05) -0.49*** (0.04) 0.05*** (0.02)
2012 0.10** (0.05) -0.21** (0.08) 0.19*** (0.04) -0.11** (0.04) -0.48*** (0.05) -0.72*** (0.04) -0.02 (0.02)
White Coll. 0.04 (0.04) 0.04 (0.06) 0.09*** (0.03) 0.13*** (0.03) 0.12*** (0.04) 0.12*** (0.03) -0.04** (0.02)
Pet. Agri. 0.60*** (0.10) 0.79*** (0.16) -0.04 (0.09) 0.72*** (0.09) 0.87*** (0.11) 1.12*** (0.08) -0.19*** (0.04)
Pet. Urban 0.25*** (0.05) 0.06 (0.08) 0.25*** (0.04) 0.30*** (0.04) 0.05 (0.05) 0.32*** (0.04) -0.01 (0.02)
W.C. Agri 0.12 (0.08) -0.16 (0.13) 0.08 (0.07) 0.80*** (0.07) 0.07 (0.09) 0.63*** (0.07) -0.20*** (0.03)
W.C. Urban 0.45*** (0.04) -0.12* (0.07) 0.47*** (0.04) 0.63*** (0.04) 0.21*** (0.05) 0.42*** (0.04) -0.07*** (0.02)
Low. Sec. 0.11** (0.05) 0.40*** (0.09) 0.30*** (0.05) -0.46*** (0.05) 0.42*** (0.06) 0.08 (0.05) 0.06*** (0.02)
Upper Sec. -0.05 (0.06) 0.83*** (0.10) 0.19*** (0.05) -0.61*** (0.05) 0.43*** (0.06) -0.05 (0.05) 0.19*** (0.03)
Tert. or high. -0.45*** (0.06) 1.53*** (0.11) -0.09 (0.06) -0.82*** (0.06) 0.54*** (0.07) -0.17*** (0.06) 0.26*** (0.03)
Married 0.45*** (0.03) 0.36*** (0.05) -0.17*** (0.03) 0.26*** (0.03) 0.29*** (0.03) 0.34*** (0.03) 0.05*** (0.01)
Div. or widow. 0.14*** (0.05) -0.33*** (0.08) -0.09** (0.04) 0.18*** (0.04) 0.16*** (0.05) -0.27*** (0.04) 0.03 (0.02)
Centre 1.14*** (0.03) 0.21*** (0.05) -0.49*** (0.03) 0.64*** (0.03) -0.12*** (0.04) 0.20*** (0.03) 0.43*** (0.01)
South 0.55*** (0.03) -1.09*** (0.04) -0.50*** (0.02) 1.42*** (0.02) -0.55*** (0.03) 0.07*** (0.02) 0.52*** (0.01)
Normal 18.5-24 0.30*** (0.06) 0.19** (0.10) -0.35*** (0.05) -0.02 (0.05) 0.24*** (0.06) -0.14*** (0.05) -0.02 (0.03)
Overweight 25-30 0.55*** (0.06) 0.11 (0.10) -0.44*** (0.05) -0.04 (0.06) 0.13* (0.07) -0.15*** (0.05) -0.02 (0.03)
Obese 31- 1.00*** (0.07) 0.12 (0.12) -0.34*** (0.06) -0.06 (0.06) -0.02 (0.08) -0.03 (0.06) -0.03 (0.03)
35-44 -0.56*** (0.03) 0.78*** (0.05) -0.88*** (0.03) -0.04 (0.03) -0.20*** (0.03) -0.27*** (0.03) 0.08*** (0.01)
45-55 -0.87*** (0.03) 1.72*** (0.06) -1.58*** (0.03) -0.02 (0.03) -0.48*** (0.04) -0.33*** (0.03) 0.13*** (0.01)
Female -0.66*** (0.03) 2.16*** (0.04) -0.40*** (0.02) -0.16*** (0.02) 0.87*** (0.03) -1.15*** (0.02) 0.01 (0.01)
Constant 8.70*** (0.09) 16.82*** (0.16) 5.74*** (0.08) 7.46*** (0.08) 8.70*** (0.11) 12.05*** (0.08) 2.15*** (0.04)
Observations 156,169 156,169 156,169 156,169 156,169 156,169 156,169
R-squared 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.02
Risultati: classe e istruzione• Effetto classe sociale ≠ istruzione;• Tendenzialmente c’è coerenza con i risultati trovati in altri
paesi;• Effetto classe rimarrebbe al netto del reddito o dello status?• Ambiente rurale vs ambiente urbano?
Bourg.
White Coll.
Pet-Agri
Pet-Urb
Work-Agri
Work-Urb
0 .2 .4 .6 .8Meat Portions
primary or none
lower secondary
upper secondary
tertiary or higher
-.6 -.4 -.2 0 .2Meat Portions
Bourg.
White Coll.
Pet-Agri
Pet-Urb
Work-Agri
Work-Urb
-.5 0 .5 1Veg&Fru Portions
primary or none
lower secondary
upper secondary
tertiary or higher
0 .5 1 1.5 2Veg&Fru Portions
Carne Frutta e verdura
Fig. 1 Effetto Istruzione su Carne Fig. 2 Effetto Istruzione su Frutta e Verdura
Fig. 3 Effetto classe sociale su Carne Fig. 4 Effetto classe sociale su Frutta e verdura
Square Base
Bourg.
White Coll.
Pet-Agri
Pet-Urb
Work-Agri
Work-Urb
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Square Portions
primary or none
lower secondary
upper secondary
tertiary or higher
-1 -.8 -.6 -.4 -.2 0Square Portions
Bourg.
White Coll.
Pet-Agri
Pet-Urb
Work-Agri
Work-Urb
0 .5 1 1.5Dairy Portions
primary or none
lower secondary
upper secondary
tertiary or higher
-.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 0 .1Dairy Portions
Fig. 5 Effetto Istruzione su Square Fig. 6 Effetto Istruzione su Base
Fig. 7. Effetto Classe sociale su Square Fig. 8. Effetto Classe sociale su Base
Bourg.
White Coll.
Pet-Agri
Pet-Urb
Work-Agri
Work-Urb
-.3 -.2 -.1 0 .1Fish Portions
primary or none
lower secondary
upper secondary
tertiary or higher
0 .1 .2 .3Fish Portions
Pesce
Bourg.
White Coll.
Pet-Agri
Pet-Urb
Work-Agri
Work-Urb
-.2 0 .2 .4 .6Snack&Sweets Portions
primary or none
lower secondary
upper secondary
tertiary or higher
-.2 0 .2 .4Snack&Sweets Portions
Dolci e junkEducation Education
Fig. 9 Effetto Istruzione su Pesce Fig. 10 Effetto Istruzione su Dolci e Junk
Fig. 11 Effetto Classe sociale su Pesce Fig. 11 Effetto Classe sociale su Dolci e Junk
E la spesa?
• Bisognerebbe considerare anche la spesa, non solo la quantità;
• Prezzo della carne: dipende da molti fattori (origine, taglio, etc.)
• E’ possibile ottenere una panoramica più dettagliata confrontando l’indagine Multiscopo con quella sui Consumi delle famiglie (2009);
• Dati e metodi: spesa mensile pro capite; adulti lavoratori 25-55 (N=9,619 - 42%). Confronto tra regressioni OLS: Bourgeoisie vs Working Class
Multiscopo vs Consumi delle famiglie (2009)
Variables Multiscopo Consumi
Freq. % Freq. %
Social Class
Bourgeoisie 2,811 16.5 1,652 17.2
White Collar 5,446 32.0 3,153 32.8
Agri. Pet-Bourg. 280 1.7 114 1.2
Urban Pet-Bourg. 2,189 12.9 1,116 11.6
Agri. Work. Class 462 2.7 185 1.9
Urb. Work. Class 5,823 34.2 3,399 35.3
Education
Primary or none 800 4.7 402 4.2
Lower secondary 7,217 42.4 4,249 44.2
Upper secondary 6,215 36.5 3,518 36.6
Tertiary or higher 2,779 16.3 1,450 15.1
Marital StatusSingle 5,096 30.0 1,914 19.9
Married 10,252 60.3 6,657 69.2
Divorced/Widowed 1,663 9.8 1,048 10.9
Region
North 7,899 46.4 4,557 47.4
Centre 3,160 18.6 1,668 17.3
South and Island 5,952 35.0 3,394 35.3
Age
24-34 4,651 27.3 1,463 15.2
35-44 6,408 37.7 3,830 39.8
45-55 5,952 35.0 4,326 45.0
Gender
Male 9,036 53.1 7,429 77.2
Female 7,975 46.9 2,190 22.8
Total 17,011 100.0 9,619 100
Table 8. Independent variables. Multiscopo 2009 and Indagine sui consumi delle famiglie 2009.
Figure 1. Bourgeoisie and Urban Working Class differentials in expenditure and quantity. Black=expenditure; Blue=quantity.
28
30
32
34
Exp
end
iture
35
36
37
38
39
Qu
antit
y
Bourg. Work-Urb
Meat
14
15
16
17
18
Exp
end
iture
16
17
18
19
20
Qu
antit
y
Bourg. Work-Urb
Snack&Sweets
22
23
24
25
26
Exp
end
iture
35.
53
63
6.5
37
37.
53
8Q
uan
tity
Bourg. Work-Urb
Dairy
28
29
30
31
32
33
Exp
end
iture
43
44
45
46
47
Qu
antit
y
Bourg. Work-Urb
Essential
1. Spesa e quantità differiscono
2. Solo una dimensione differisce
Figure 1. Bourgeoisie and Urban Working Class differentials in expenditure and quantity. Black=expenditure; Blue=quantity.
24
26
28
30
Exp
end
iture
76
77
78
79
Qu
an
tity
Bourg. Work-Urb
Veg&Fruits
91
01
11
21
31
4E
xpe
nd
iture
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3Q
uan
tity
Bourg. Work-Urb
Wine
3.6
3.8
44
.24
.4E
xpe
nd
iture
29
30
31
32
33
34
Qu
an
tity
Bourg. Work-Urb
Square
14
15
16
17
18
19
Exp
end
iture
10.2
10.4
10.6
10.8
11
Qu
an
tity
Bourg. Work-Urb
Fish
Discussione (1)
• Taste of luxury and taste of necessity? (Bourdieu, 1983);• Brand of luxury and of necessity?
e.g. cibo biologico in UK (Wier et al., 2008)
Possibile spiegazione:
• Hard Discount: 0.7 to 1.2 incremento nei multinomial log-odds per la working class (Dove compri di solito pane, pasta, carne, verdura, pesce etc.?)
• Negozi tradizionali e mercato: -0.2 punti per la working class
Discussione (2)
• Pattern culturali di disuguaglianze sono ancora radicati nello status socio-economico; necessario capire meglio quali dimensioni siano più importanti;
• Necessarie variabili più dettagliate, sia nelle variabili dipendenti che in quelle indipendenti; considerare «l’intreccio» tra le pratiche alimentari:
1. Quantità e spesa nello stesso dataset; 2. Condimenti, tipi di cottura; 3. Food-styles (etnico, fast-food, vegano, macrobiotico…); 4. Trasmissione del gusto: ‘indelible mark of infant learning’ [Bourdieu, p.76]); 5. Mangiar fuori (Warde, 2000).
Grazie!
Bibliografia• Bourdieu, (1983). La distinzione. Critica sociale del gusto. Il Mulino.• Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, Chideya S, Marchi KS, Metzler M et al. (2005). Socioeconomic
status in health research: one size does not fit all. Journal of American Medical Association 294, 2879–2888.
• Darmon, N., & Drewnowski, A. (2008). Does social class predict diet quality? The American journal of clinical nutrition, 87(5), 1107-1117.
• Lallukka, T., Laaksonen, M., Rahkonen, O., Roos, E., & Lahelma, E. (2006). Multiple socio-economic circumstances and healthy food habits. European journal of clinical nutrition, 61(6), 701-710.
• Warde, A., & Martens, L. (2000). Eating out: Social differentiation, consumption and pleasure. Cambridge University Press.
• Warde, A. (2004). La normalità del mangiar fuori. Rassegna italiana di sociologia, 45(4), 493-518.• World Health Organization. (2000). Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic (No.
894). • Wier, M., O’Doherty Jensen, K., Andersen, L. M., & Millock, K. (2008). The character of demand in
mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared. Food Policy, 33(5), 406-421.