INTRODUCTION
Social inequality occurs in society when a specific group of people experiences unequal opportunities, which are mostly influenced by their social class. The emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) exacerbated this issue. Its impact is evident globally with the most explicit one being economic turmoil. Its socio-economic impact is vast, noting that several people have lost jobs. It is worth noting that inequality existed in society even before COVID 19. However, this pandemic aggravated the situation. Mostly, people of low socioeconomic status are vulnerable to the disease’s associated adverse impacts. The overt examples of social inequality worth considering when discussing this topic include gender inequality, health care, and income gap, noting they are pertinent to coronavirus disease effects. Therefore, in this literature review, two articles are considered delving into inequality in society, specifically scrutinizing socioeconomic statuses in society and the coronavirus disease association.
SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLES
Article One: Gender Inequality
In order to investigate the gender inequality as a consequence of coronavirus disease, Czymara, Langenkamp, and Cano (2020) researched the concerns of German residence during the pandemic’s first weeks of the outbreak. The government instigated measures in order to curb the spread of this disease. These methods included staying at home and social distancing, among others, most of which have increased the time at home with family while reducing work time. Therefore, the authors considered whether there is gender variation regarding these personal experiences and worries.
Using a topic modeling approach, authors examined over 1,100 archived reports that were obtained from a survey and documented during the onset period of the pandemic. Firstly, in using this inductive machine learning tactic, authors extracted issues that worried subjects most and then they statistically examined how men and women differ in these concerns. Secondly, using a qualitative approach, the authors analyzed central quotes as gathered from survey questionnaires. Afterward, the outcome of this two-step methodology offered an understanding of the pandemic’s impact on people’s daily experiences, while shedding light on whether this crisis promotes gender inequality.
The result showed that respondents were more generally worried about childcare and social contacts. However, the outcome exhibited an explicit gender disparity regarding these concerns. Men’s worries revolved mostly on the economy, that is work and money, while women were concerned mostly with childcare. In their arguments, the authors noted that this pandemic affected women more than men. Women have decreased the time they spend on paid work and they worry more about childcare. On the other hand, men worry more about paid work, meaning they think more about the economy. On the whole, the authors denote that these developments can widen the gender wage gap in the future, especially during the recovery process.
Article Two: Learning Opportunity Inequality
All schools were closed globally amidst the coronavirus disease pandemic, forcing parents to take charge of homeschooling their children. In their study, Jæger and Blaabæk (2020) investigated whether there is learning inequality among Danish children while examining the digital book takeout rate from public libraries. This comparison arises because parents differ financially, and because of this gap, those of high socioeconomic status, that is families with higher education and income, are more likely to access better libraries and homeschool their children than those of low socioeconomic status. Authors hypothesized that the emergence of coronavirus could heighten this disparity by fostering children’s learning opportunity inequality.
This study utilized the observation method by retrieving data regarding library takeout from new administrative registers in all Denmark’s public libraries inventories, excluding university and school libraries, spanning from February to April. The materials considered for this analysis included books, movies, music, and periodicals. The amassed register data included 55 million observations, all from families who pick books from public libraries across Denmark. Afterward, the authors examined the socioeconomic gradient in library takeout, considering different coronavirus disease initial phases, including before, during, and after.
The result of this study showed that there was an increase in socioeconomic gradient, that is when comparing the value before and after the coronavirus disease lockdown measure. Meaning, families with higher income and education status had more access to study resources than
Order this paper