Gleditsch - Slow Is Beautiful

Slow Is Beautiful.
The Stratification of Personal Mobility, with Special Reference to

International Aviation
Author(s): Nils Petter Gleditsch
Source: Acta Sociologica, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1975), pp. 76-94
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4194048
Accessed: 12-09-2019 03:35 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Acta Sociologica
This content downloaded from 73.162.161.122 on Thu, 12 Sep 2019 03:35:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Slow is beautiful.
The Stratification of Personal Mobility,
with special reference to
international aviation
Nils Petter Gleditsch
International Peace Research Institute, Oslo and

Department of Sociology, University of Oslo
1. The concept of personal mobility
During the negotiations on a Syrian-Israeli agreement in April and May

1974 US foreign minister Henry Kissinger made a recorded number of
at least 18 trips by air between Washington, Damascus, Cairo, and Tel
Aviv for a total of 25,000 kms (Time, 1974.06.10). Half a year later,
a Norwegian newspaper was able to report that old age pensioner and
invalid Haakon Arnold Andersen had left his apartment only once since
1946, on a visit to the dentist in 1971 (Aftenposten, ev.ed., 1975.01.11).
While these two individuals went about their rather different lives, an
unrecorded vast majority of the world's population fell somewhere be-
tween the two extremes in terms of mobility. The object of this article
is to investigate the extent of such differences in personal mobility
and some of their causes and consequences.
While geographical and social mobility in the sense of permanent
moves have been extensively studied from a stratification perspective,
this has not been true of short-term geographical mobility in travel,
with a few exceptions. This is what, borrowing a term from Hillman
et al. (1973), I call personal mobility. This term is used in part because
it points to mobility as a characteristic of individuals, even though data
may not always permit complete disaggregation to this level. We may
characterize the individual in terms of various properties of the distri-
bution of his trips, such as the number of trips taken, the total distance
X This paper was prepared for (but not presented to) a meeting of the Re.
search committee on Social Stratification of the VIllth World Congress of
Sociology, Toronto, August 14-19, 1974. Work on the paper has been sup.
ported by the Department of Sociology, University of Oslo, the Norwegian
Council for Research in Science and the Humanities (NAVF), and the Nordic
Cooperation Committee for International Politics, including Peace and Con-
flict Research (NKIP). I am grateful to Erik Rosenberg and Jan Vehusheia
for research assistance, to various public agencies in Norway - too numerous
to list individually - for information on surveys of communication and to
an anonymous referee for comments. The SAS Head office Region Norway
and Braathen's SAFE gave permission to quote from previously unpublished
surveys. In addition to the two foundations already mentioned, the Depart-
ment of Sociology at the University of Oslo and Aftenposten supported a
small Norwegian survey. The article is PRIO publication no. 21-31.
76
travelled, the maximum distance travelled (action radius), or the aver-
age amount of travel etc. In the subsequent sections these characteristics
will be referred to almost interchangeably. For a more precise theory
of personal mobility, the distinction between the various properties of
the trip-distribution may be of relevance.
2. The growth In personal mobility
The last century is characterized, among other developments, by a tre-

mendous growth in personal mobility. A century ago it was rare to
travel at all, except on foot. This is still the case for a large part of the
world's population, perhaps a majority. But in many countries a mobil-
ity revolution has occurred and for many people rarely a day passes
without the use of some transportation technology. This revolution did
not originate with aviation. But the post-war development in civil
aviation greatly increased the range of transportation. The total pas-
senger-kilometers performed by the member states of the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) increased from 170 million in
1929 over 8 billion in 1945 to 408 billion in 1971 (ICAO, 1972, p. 69).
An English survey found that the average adult spent 80 minutes or
8 % of his waking hours in travel.' The increasing portion of house- 1 Smeed, 1968, p. 33;
hold incomes spent on travel is known from several countries. In Britain, quoted in Hillman et
at., op. cit., p. 20.
the proportion of total consumer expenditure on road and rail trans-
port alone rose from 8.5 % in 1961 to 11.5 % in 1971.2 With 1950 as 2 Department of the
the base year, total consumer expenditure in 1963 was 200 %, whereas Environment, 1973,
Table 48; quoted in
foreign travel expenditure had risen to 550 %. For the US the cor-
Hillman et al., op. cit.,
responding figures were 190 % and 320 %.3 The main causes of this
p. 20.
increased mobility are relatively obvious: The opportunities for travel 3 Grumbridge, 1966,
have become greater as a result of increasing speed, relatively decreasing p. 74.
cost of transportation, and increasing affluence. On the other hand, the
need for travel has also increased. Dispersed patterns of residence in the
cities and the geographical separation of work and residence (suburb-
anization) makes daily travel imperative for almost all members of the
work-force. Increased geographical mobility in the sense of permanent
moves increases the desire to travel for visits. Economically, increased
specialization and geographical division of labour are tied up with in-
creased trade and the movement of persons is an essential element in the
facilitation of trade flows. The increased needs and the improved oppor-
tunities have combined to make the travel industry industries among
the fastest expanding industries in the post-war period. The number of
passenger kilometers of airlines in ICAO member countries has grown
20 % p. a. in the 1929-71 period and 16 % p. a. between 1945 and
1971.
3. Personal mobility is a value
I see personal mobility as a value, both in my own value catalogue and

in the sense that it is a sought-after commodity by many (most?) indi-
viduals.
77
Mobility is obviously not a primary need. Man can survive without
mobility per se. I would not even classify it as an autonomous, or
autotelic, value although to many people it may well be one. Rather,
personal mobility as derived from several other values, mainly:
(a) need satisfaction. Mobility enables the individual to obtain food
and shelter, to avoid approaching danger, etc.
(b) social interaction. Mobility pennits interaction between indi-
viduals and may promote companionship.
(c) diversity of experience. Mobility facilitates encounters with others
over a wider area and thus with a wider range of qualities.
(d) freedom of choice. Mobility gives the individual an opportunity
to choose between alternatives, whether in consumption, in residence,
in employment, etc.
(e) social organization. Mobility permits individuals to get together
to organize for their own ends. If other forms of communication can-
not adequately replace mobility, the result becomes fragmentation.
The first two are values which have to do with an individual's wel-
fare, the next two are liberal values, and the last is related to power.
Thus, mobility is relevant to a broad range of values. Whether these in
turn are autotelic or derived from even more fundamental values, is a
peripheral question in this context.
On the basis of a discussion of the specific mobility needs of school-
age children, working adults, mothers and pre-school-age children, the
elderly, etc. Hillman et al. (op. cit., p. 18) conclude that "everyone
requires an adequate level of mobility in order to lead a full life". They
propose that "mobility deprivation" should be considered "in the same
way as other forms of deprivation, such as housing, education, and
employment", (p. 134). Their conclusion is drawn on the basis of a dis-
cussion of everyday forms of mobility - walking and trips by bicycle,
bus and car. What is the relevance of these points to aviation? For
need satisfaction the mobility of the individual by aviation would seem
irrelevant, although aviation as such is not. Social interaction would re-
fer to the visit to friends and relatives in cities or countries sufficiently
far apart to necessitate this form of travel. No global estimate exists of
the frequency of this particular travel motive, but it seems justified to
say that more than 50 % of world air travel today is personal travel.
A major portion of this, however, is mass tourism which is precisely not
characterized by social interaction.
The two liberal values form the traditional basis of efforts to "demo-
cratize" air travel, i.e. to disperse it as widely as possible in the popula-
tion. I think these two are overrated. Most tourism is extremely superficial
and brings the traveller in contact only with certain, small groups of the
receiving society. Language gaps and other barriers prevent a real under-
standing and the development of empathy. Even so, this is not an argu-
ment against air travel as a necessary condition for a form of tourism
which increases the liberal values, the point that it is not a sufficient
condition. Finally, social organization. Aviation is certainly relevant to
the spread of global organization. I would venture to guess that the
78
spread of "multi-national" enterprises in the post-war period would
have been impossible without the development of aviation. Aviation
has served to organize a world community at the top; in business and
among top decision-makers. So far, aviation has not served to bring
together the underdogs of the world, such as the workers employed in
the various national branches of a multi-nation business enterprise.
However, the potential is there. Underdogs might have been better off,
from a power point of view, if aviation had never been invented. But
once aviation exists - assuming that it cannot be disinvented - it be-
comes desirable for underdogs to make use of it, too.
It should be noted, however, that unlimited mobility is not the value
proposed here. The concept of "overdevelopment" is relevant in this
context. The historical movement in many industrialized countries has
been from undernourishment to excessive caloric intake. Similarly,
mobility may become too high, both from a personal and a social per-
spective.
4. The stratification of mobility
The growth of travel has often been interpreted as a democratic

development. 'The opportunity to travel used to be a privilege for the
few, it is now possible for the common man to travel". There are how-
ever, three qualifications to such statements.
First, the opportunities to travel are unequally distributed. Even in
the leading country in terms of the private car, 28 % of all "spending
units" did not have a car in 1962, the figure had then been stationary
for five years. 8.9 % of the population did not travel by car once in the
same year.4 The skewness in aviation will be examined in more detail 4 Lansing and Blood
in the next section. (1964), p. 61, p. 99.
Second, increased transportation carries social costs. More people
are currently killed in car accidents than in wars. The private car is the
single most important contributor to air pollution in many cities in the
affluent part of the world, and the same probably holds for noise. The
social price of aviation is of the same nature, if not the same magnitude.
ICAO statistics indicate that about 1,000 people are killed in accidents
in scheduled aviation in an average year. The airplane also contribute
heavily to local air pollution and noise and supersonic aircraft will
severely aggravate the problems. For instance, it has been suggested that
a large fleet of SSTs may deplete the ozone content of the atmosphere
and cause an increase in radiation and thus in diseases like cancer of the
skin. All major initiatives in the direction of higher mobility through
aviation whether by increasing speed, or improving extending airfields,
etc., must now count on opposition on the basis of the costs to the com-
munity.
Third, increased mobility may not be voluntary or desired. There is
a great psychological difference between undertaking a short trip in-
volving little or no discomfort and embarking every day on a stressful,
exhausting trip - regardless of its necessity or net profitability. The
79
availability of cheap transportation makes it possible for a firm to
locate its employment opportunities in a centralised manner, thus forc-
ing work-seekers to travel. For the individual, it is impossible to break
this pattern since refusal to travel may mean loss of work. If travel
were impossible, the firm would be faced with the options of decentral-
izing employment opportunities or limiting or closing down its opera-
tions.
Fourth, a great deal of the increased mobility may be socially un-
necessary. Business deals could have been transacted by telecommunica-
tion and vacations could have been held at places closer to home. This
is not to suggest that there is no marginal benefit to the individual
traveller in the extra business or vacation trip. However, since most
countries subsidize aviation, marginal trips of frequent travellers are
subsidized, too. From a resource-conservation point of view many trips
may be unjustified, even if they are profitable. And finally, what from
an individual point of view is a worthwhile trip, may be unprofitable
from the point of view of the collectivity, e.g. if it only serves to in-
crease one firm's market share. The last argument hinges, of course, on
one's degree of belief in a competitive economic system.
In hierarchical societies, new phenomena will tend to be structured
according to the prevalent power ordering. Specific social phenomena
may have their specific ranking systems. But they will also be subject
to the predominant stratification of the social system in which they
exist. In line with this, it is hypothesized that topdogs will obtain more
than their share of the advantages of new phenomenon, and that they
will avoid more than their share of its disadvantages. Applied to the
transportation revolution the conjecture is that topdogs will secure a
disproportionately high share of the advantages and a disproportionately
low share of the disadvantages of any new transportation system.
Of course, some pecularities of each system will remain. Some top-
dogs will be unable or reluctant to drive a car, other topdogs will suffer
from fear of flying. Some underdogs will have high mobility by virtue
of their employment in the transportation industry itself. But these are
minor variations relative to the general and pervasive phenomenon of
the unequal distribution of power and its correlation with mobility; and
these variations may be assumed to decrease in importance as the new
social phenomenon adjusts to the general stratification pattern with
time.
We deliberately say "will obtain" rather than "attempt to obtain".
We need only assume that society works in such a way as to secure
these rewards for its elite. The main mechanism of distribution of these
advantages and costs is the market. With resources such as education
and income, topdogs are in a position to make use of new transporta-
tion technology - and avoid its cost. Owning and driving a private car
was for decades - and still is, for the vast majority of mankind - a
question of affluence. Avoiding the unpleasant social consequences of
the private car is in part a question of being able to relocate one's
residence to a peaceful place. Grossly simplifying, but not distorting:
80
topdogs drive cars and underdogs get run over and get their homes
spoiled by noise and other pollution.5 I CL for instance,
Hillman et al., op. cit.
However, if the disadvantages rise to a point where the problems get
To correct the over-
out of hand, the market alone may not be sufficient to solve the prob-
simplification some-
lems. Societal action may also have to be taken. When the private car what: quite a few top-
becomes so common that the roads are congested, the car defeats its dogs get themselves
own purpose. At this point, a city or a country may impose limits on killed in the process
too. And there is a
parking-spaces or high taxes on private cars. This reinforces the pattern
strong youth factor in
imposed by the market, although what is now rationed is the parking- accidents, associated
space and use of the car, rather than car ownership. If a sufficient num- with recklessness or in-
ber of commuters can be transferred to public transportation, the elite experience or both.
can maintain its transportation privileges. To evaluate the social
"rationality" of this system we may look at it from the perspective of
the distribution of time. In "modern" society, time is scarce (Linder,
1969) and in a stratified society, time varies in value. Topdog time is
more valuable than underdog time, because the topdog is paid more for
his work per unit of time. Thus it "pays" to use underdog labour to cut
topdog time waste. The importance of the stenographer/typist lies in the
reduction of waste time for the executive. As mobility becomes more
frequent, transportation time figures with increasing prominence in the
waste time budget. If this can be reduced by the use of underdog time,
society as a whole has made a "saving". This tendency is so pervasive,
that waiting time can be used as an indicator of power relationships in
society (Schwarz, 1974). Thus the private chauffeur who waits for his
master for the duration of a meeting, the long line in a doctor's waiting-
room, etc. And thus the importance of making underdogs travel by
mass-transit in order to leave the roads free for the more valuable
members of society.
For aviation the social costs are still relatively small, although
they are rising and quite significantly for smaller groups of people.
The main item is airport-noise. Since decision-makers are inter-
ested in maintaining an airport at a reasonable distance from their
own residence, it is problematic to locate the airport too far away.
To the extent that one cannot locate airports where they disturb
few people - or at least few topdogs - the obvious remedy is in-
creased efforts to develop short and vertical take-off and landing
aircraft (STOL and VTOL), and to reduce noise from non-STOL
planes. This is currently taking place to a considerable degree.
Thus, the DC 10 is quieter than its predecessors in the DC series
and the 747 makes less noise than previous, smaller Boeings.
STOL-ports are being opened in some cities and inter-city STOL-
service is available, e.g. between Ottawa and Montreal.
There is also relatively little "forced" aviation. Although a large
(but declining) part of all air trips are business trips, most of these are
probably well spaced out in time. Thus each trip provides some relaxa-
tion and variation from normal routine in addition to the business
"necessities". Many frequent travellers probably see a temporal libera-
tion from family and work-related ties as an advantage rather than as
81
a burden. Finally, many business travellers are able to combine business
trips with vacation and other non-business purposes. The trip as pure
drudgery, a phenomenon so well known to the car driver, is still rare in
aviation. In a Norwegian national survey (see below p. 86) respon-
dents were asked to characterize air trips as "an interesting diversion",
or a "trivial routine". Understandably, 4 % of the sample refused to be
caught in this dichotomy and volunteered other replies, but among those
50 % of the total sample who used the two main alternatives, 82 %
characterized air travel as interesting and only 18 % as routine. As
expected, there is a positive correlation between high amount of flying
in the past year and tendency to answer "routine". However, the fre-
quent fliers are too few in this sample to say anything very general in
relation to the question at what level routinization occurs in air-travel.
With the tremendous development of aviation, this may change. The
supersonic day trip across the Atlantic for the purpose of a single meet-
ing may become the top executive equivalent of the local salesman's
daily car round. The availability of technology is in part a curse - the
technical feasibility of a trans-Atlantic day trip makes an undesirable
social phenomenon harder to avoid.
On the whole, however,, it seems justified to treat more lightly the
social costs of aviation as well as the undesired mobility and focus on
the inequality in the distribution of air services as the main weakness
of the argument about the democratization of air travel.
5. The distribution of mobility In aviation
Social and economic inequalities are as glaring between countries as

within countries. This holds true for aviation-services also. If we look
at passenger-kilometers travelled per inhabitant in domestic scheduled
flights, Table 1 gives an idea of the differences involved. Not sur-
prisingly, the US heads the list. Several rich countries countries such as
Belgium, have a low score because their limited extension makes the
railway and the car better competitors. But the US figure is put in bet-
ter perspective when compared with the figures for the Soviet Union,
Brazil, Zaire and Australia - all countries with vast distances. The
bivariate correlations between GNP, Area and Poptulation with Pass.km
are .95, .72 and .42 (computed for 132 countries). Thus, almost all of
the variation in internal mobility between countries can be accounted
for by the variation in wealth, even in a naive, linear regression model.
The distribution of international travel shows a similar variation
(Table 2, cols. 4-5). The fact that we have data only by the natlonal-
ity of the airline and not of the passenger is a greater weakness than
for the domestic flights (cf. note to Table 1). Several countries have
no national airline in international operations and several large airlines
have extensive operations between third countries ("fifth freedom
traffic"). However, the nationalism in aviation and the bilateral regu-
lation of the network has led to a system in which third country traffic
is much less frequent than in shipping.
82
Table 1. Passenger kilometers in domestic aviation, absolute and per
capita figures and some other national characteristics, selected countries,
1971
Pass.kms. GNP Area Population Pass.kms./

(in billions) (in $ mill.) (in 100.000 kn2) (in millions) per capita
USA 179 1068 93 207 864
Australia 5 36 77 13 431
SU 85 343 232 245 347
Norway 0.8 12 4 4 214
Sweden 0.7 34 4 8 84
Denmark 0.3 17 0.4 5 70
France 3.3 172 5 51 65
Spain 2.0 37 5 34 59
UK 2.1 136 2 56 37
Italy 1.7 100 3 54 32
Brazil 2.6 44 85 95 28
Zaire 0.2 2 23 22 8
Ceylon 0.02 1 0.7 13 1
Belgium 0.0006 29 0.3 10 0.06
Source: Pass.kms.: ICAO, 1972. Other variables: UN sources.
This table, like the next, is based on data for airlines, rather than for passen-
gers of different countries. However, in the case of domestic flights, the seat-
kms flown on the national airline correspond well to the seat-kms flown
domestically by the country's own nationals, although the absolute figure
should be adjusted somewhat downward to take into account foreigners
travelling in the country. - Only airlines of ICAO member countries (in-
cluding the Soviet Union, but not China) are included in the table.
Table 2. Passenger kilometers and international flights by region of the world, 1971-3 (%)
Country No. of No. of Fraction Fraction Pass. km. Fraction Flights

or group countries potential of world of world per cap. of world per pairs
of countries pairs for population total pass. (rel. nos., total of or individ-
int. flights 1967 km. by air- other flights ori- uals be-
originating lines of the west = ginating or tween this
or ending country or 100) ending in group and
in group group of country rest of the
countries or group world
1971 (multiplied
by 1014)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
US 1 202 6 27 97 9 1.3
Other "Northwest"* 28 5656 14 57 100 41 0.9
SU 1 202 7 1 3 1 0.09
Other East 11 2222 26 2 2 3 0.05
Developing countr. 162 32724 48 13 6 44 0.3
203 41006 100 100 100
Sources:
Col. 3: UN Demographic Yearbook, 1969, col. 4: IATA and ICAO statistics.
Col. 6: ABC World Airways Guide data tape.
* Northwest = Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and
Japan.
83
6B
A somewhat different perspective on the same question is provided
by data on the distribution of flights in and out of a country in abso-
lute numbers and by pairs of individuals (Table 2, cols. 6-7). Of
course, aircraft vary considerably in size, and flights vary in length.
However, this measure again gives a rough measure of the interaction
opportunities of different countries, given the 1973 network. To use it
as a measure of traffic, we would have to assume that the load factors
were the same on all flights, which does not strictly hold. In the ab-
sence of international travel statistics, we may at least conclude that
the discrepancies are enormous and that the distribution of flights seems
largely consistent with international social and economic inequalities,
as anticipated. All in all, the picture provided by Table 2 is probably
not too inaccurate as a general picture of average international travel
propensities by nation.
The cross national comparisons rely entirely on aggregate passenger
statistics. There are, as far as we know, no published cross-national
aviation surveys measuring the discrepancy in the individual access to
aviation services between individuals in different countries. When we
now move to comparisons between individuals, we are limited to data
from just a few countries where we have come across travel surveys.
In the United States, questions like "Have you ever flown?" have been
asked in several travel surveys. Figure 1 shows the increase in the pro-
portions of people who respond affirmatively to this question. The rise
appears to have been steady for the past two decades with more than a
doubling of the percentage with flying experience from 1955 to 1973.
100
90 Auto trips
70 Rail trips
80
40ot Bus trips

40--
30 Air trips
20
10
1955 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 8 70 72 1973
Figure 1. Proportion with "flying experience" and experience with other

travel modes according to US travel surveys, 1955-73 (%)
Sources: Lansing and Blood, op. cit., particularly p. 90 and Air Transport
Association of America (1973) for the years 1970-73.
There are no data points between 1963-9 inclusive.
The data for auto, rail and bus trips are also from Lansing and Blood,
op. cit. All the survey questions from Lansing and Blood refer to trips ex-
ceeding 100 miles. The ATA question was: "Have you ever flown on one of
the regular passenger airlines?"
84
For 1972-73 there was no increase, but this may be a coincidence or
due to the fuel shortage and rising pnces.
Although the figure has been rising, only about half of aU US in-
habitants have ever flown. The figures for air trips are much lower than
for rail, car or bus trips. A point which is not answered by this graph
is whether there is a tendency for the curve for air trips to level off
below the saturation points for surface transportation.
The tendency to fly in any given year is, of course, much lower.
This figure has also been rising and was reported to be 25 % in 1973.e 6 However, in a tenta-
Most travellers travel rarely (1-2 times a year) while a small fraction tive comparison of sur-
vey data and travel
of the travellers account for a large portion of the trips. In short, the
statistics, Lansing and
distribution of the trips is extremely skewed. Unfortunately the data Blood found air trips in
are not published in a form which make possible the calculation of a given year to be over-
parameters of the trip distribution curves, such as the Gini index. How- estimated in the survey
by about 40-50 %
ever, the impression is certainly that there has been little change over
(op. cit. p. 186).
time in the inequality of distribution of air trips or of trips in general.7
7 With the aid of the
It is also impossible to compare the inequality in the distribution of air yearly travel surveys
trips to inequalities in the distribution of other goods. However, all the from the Survey Re-
published trip distribution curves in the studies from the Survey Re- search Center (which
were unavailable to the
search Center for air trips as well as other trips exceeding 100 miles,
author at the time of
have an L-shaped form which generally indicates a highly skewed dis- writing) or the punched
tribution. cards from both sets of
For other countries, the material is scarce or not easily available in studies, it should be
any systematic form. We shall report some comparative data for the possible to give a more
conclusive answer to
Scandinavian countries, however. In June 1974 we carried out a modest
this question.
Norwegian survey.8 To our big surprise, the fraction of respondents 8 See footnote to
who had ever flown was found to be as high as 56 %. This is roughly Table 3.
the same level as that found in the US. A part from the possibility of
sampling or other error, a possible methodological explanation lies in
the wording of the question. The US survey refers to "the regular pas-
senger airlines". Only further questioning can indicate whether the high
Norwegian figure is due to the proportion of people who have travelled
by charter flight alone or by private plane, but never on a scheduled
flight. The mass charter flights from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean
have certainly opened up a new market for air service: possibly they
may have reached out into groups previously not in contact with air
service.
A study for the SAS from early 1968 gave 35 %, 33 % and 24 %
flying experience for Sweden, Norway and Denmark respectively.9 9 Coordinated by
Although we have no US figure for this particular year, interpolation SIFO, the Swedish In-
stitute of Public Opin-
in Figure 1 suggests that the US was then still somewhat ahead of the
ion Research, with
Scandinavian countries. It is interesting that although the Swedish and fieldwork by the Gal-
Norwegian figures are quite similar, the greatest contribution in the lup organizations in the
Swedish case is made by foreign charter traffic while the Norwegians three countries. Source:
derive most of their flying experience from scheduled domestic flights. Unpublished tables and
reports from SIFO.
The charter revolution occurred later in Norway than in other Scandi-
navian countries, by now the Norwegians have largely caught up with
the Swedes and Danes in this field, while other Scandinavians have
85
probably not caught up with Norwegians in the dispersion of domestic
scheduled air transport.
On the question about air travel in the past year, Norwegians with
31 % actually score slightly higher than Americans (24 %). The sources
of error in comparing the two figures directly are the same as for the
previous question.
The high Norwegian aviation experience does not mean that air tra-
vel is not to a large extent concentrated among the few. Table 3 gives
the distribution with regard to the number of air trips taken last year.
Table 3. Number of air trips flown by Norwegians "last year"

(1973-74), %
Have never flown 45

Did not fly last year 25
Did fly, no. of trips 1 7
2 10
3 2
4 4
5 1
6 1
7 .3
8 .4
9 or more 4
Total 100 %
Source: Fakta survey for PRIO, June 1974, n = 1406.
That Norwegians rank with Americans in aviation experience, does

not mean that they travel as much. In 1971 the average distance trav-
elled per year in domestic flights was just below 900 kms in the US and
a little above 200 kms in Norway. On the other hand, Norwegian
domestic passenger-kilometers per capita are 2.5 times the Swedish and
3 times the Danish. The wide dispersion of aviation experience in Nor-
way compared to the US must be interpreted as a more egalitarian
distribution of mobility. This is consistent with a general difference in
terms of egalitarian ideology and the distribution of many other goods,
including income. Scandinavia is more egalitarian than most Westem
countries and Norway is probably at the extreme end in Scandinavia
(Galtung, 1974, Galtung and Gleditsch, 1975). However, the wider dis-
persion of aviation in Norway than in the two other Scandinavian
countries, may simply be the result of the higher incidence of flying
generally. The geographical circumstances and the lack of adequate
alternative means of transportation over great distances, must be taken
into account. But this argument should not be exaggerated: Flights to
some geographically peripheral areas will not show up in national
figures on flying experience unless inhabitants in the central areas visit
the periphery by air, since people in the periphery are not all that
numerous. Finally, it might have been thought that Norway had en-
couraged domestic aviation by a low-price policy. Unfortunately, the
86
only systematic study available on fares and distance covers only
international flights (ICAO, 1973). However, a modest sampling of
pairs of cities in Scandinavia and the US indicates that domestic US
fares per km are lower than Scandinavian fares and that prices in
Norway are at the same level as in the rest of Scandinavia.
The inequality in the distribution of air trips is closely linked to
social structure. In American travel surveys, as well as in our own
survey in Norway, "standard" stratification variables correlate with
aviation experience, as shown in Table 4. Generally, the differences are
larger for "have ever flown" than for "flew last year". Some specific
pecularities of aviation show up in the table. First, older people are not
only lower on flying last year, they are also lower on flying experience
at any previous time - in spite of having accumulated more opportu-
nities to fly through a longer life. This would seem to be a transient
generational phenomenon in a period when air travel has increased very
rapidly. Second, people in the West of the US are higher on air travel
than people in the East. This would not seem to be so much a question
of social position, as of geography - US west coast urban agglomera-
tions are further apart than those in the East so that the car and other
surface modes offer less competition.
Table 4. Social stratification and aviation experience in the United

States, (1973) and Norway (1974)
Percentage differences
Have ever Flew last

High Low flown 12 months
Variable position position US Norway US Norway
Sex Man Woman 7 12 4 9

Race White Non-white 24 - 9 -
Age Young Very young,
(25-34) old
(18-24,5 0+) 16 19 6 11
Occupation Professional, Farmer 42 39 32 35
business
Family income High Low
($15.000 +) ($2.500-) 43 n.c. 28 n.c.
Region West South 27 n.c. 15 n.c.
Size of Large Small
community ('? mill. +) (2.500-) 29 36 21 -6
Source: United States ATA survey, 1973, cf. note to Fig. 1.

Norway: June 1974 survey, cf. note to Table 3. - means not applicable,
n.c. means not comparable categories.
Apart from these two exceptions, aviation experience generally is

correlated with the social position of the individual, as anticipated.
Not all percentage differences are large, but all except one are in the
right direction. No composite measure of the overall social status of the
person has been computed in the American surveys. In the Norwegian
case, we computed an additive index of social position (Galtung, 1964).
87
The index ranges from 0 (underdog) to 8 (topdog) and is built from
dichotomies on the following variables: age, sex, occupational position,
occupational sector, education, income, ecological residence, geographi-
cal residence. Aviation experience by social position score is given in
graphical form in Figure 2. We have plotted "flying experience last
year" and "extensive experience" (more than 9 times), as well as "any
experience". The striking thing about the three curves is that they are
relatively flat at lower levels of social position and much steeper at the
high end. In other words, only for really high social position does one
get a marked increase in aviation experience. The various stratification
variables appear to some extent to have multiplicative effects.
so/
, . - - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~100
| //o flew last year- 40

,0/* have ever flown. 70
60
50
30
20
?-/o flew 9 or more times last year*<1

10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Underdog Social position score Topdog

(n) (29) (91) (134) (165) (225) (336) (261) (114) (21)
Figure 2 Aviation experience by social position, Norwegian data, June 1971
Source: See note to Table 5. For details of the index construction, see Galtung
(1964).
Unfortunately, we have not been able to find any travel surveys for
poor countries. However, it is well known that air travel there is
exclusively limited to a tiny elite - much like the situation in in-
dustrialized countries a generation ago. To gain a true perspective on
the unequal distribution of travel opportunities, the national and in-
ternational inequalities would have to be combined. Of course, the
legitimate travel needs of underdog individuals of underdog countries
may a {so be somewhat lower on the average if, for instance, their
relatives are not dispersed and do not create a demand for visits. How-
ever, the same question of legitimate need arises for comparison be-
tween industrialized countries and within countries. To this we turn in
the next section.
88
6. Air travel and personal benefits
The previous section has shown that the distribution of air trips is very
uneven and that the inequality follows the general stratification pat-
tern to a large extent, at least for the few countries we have examined.
Since a large proportion of air trips are made for business purposes,
the question naturally arises if the trip distribution is simply a reflec-
tion of differences between occupations or branches of economic
activity. And does it matter? Is the air trip not just one of many in-
cidental rewards of choosing a particular occupation or a particular
branch of activity?
This question can be answered at two levels. I have already argued
that flying provides a break in the normal pattern of work and as-
sociated fringe benefits. Furthermnore, non-business trips are now ac-
counting for a larger share of air trips. As early as 1962, a US travel
survey reported a ratio of 2:1 between non-business and business air
travellers. 11 years later, the ratio was reported as slightly less than
3:1.10 However, since business travellers make more trips on the aver- 10 Lansing and Blood,
age, the ratio of non-business to business trips must be somewhat lower. op. cit., p. 99 and ATA,
For most countries apart from the US, business travellers are in majority op. cit., p. 6.
on scheduled flights. However, in countries with a mass charter market,
non-business trips may have a majority in overall flying. In US surveys
non-business trips have been found to correlate with "standard"
stratification variables as much as business trips. The relationships are
somewhat weaker, but still substantial. Table 5 give the relationship
between business and non-business travel in the US and the income of
the respondent's family. Two income groups of roughly equal size, the
$15,000 + and above, and the $5,000 - and less groups, each account-
ing for 22-23 % of the sample, were compared with regard to their
share of the fliers and trips, for business and non-business flights
separately.
Table 5. US business and non-business fliers and air trips. Percentage

differences between the share of the high income ($15,000 +) and the
low income ($5,000 -) groups, 1973
Business Non-business
trips trips
Fliers 48 18
Trips 73 25
Source: ATA, op.cit., p. 7. The table should be read as follows: The high in-
come group accounts for 48 % more of the business fliers than does the low
income group, etc. The high and low income groups are of roughly equal size
in the sample (about 22 % each).
Again, in US travel surveys respondents have reported unfulfilled

travel desires and lack of money is taking over from fear as the
1 Cfr. Lansing and
main obstacle to more flying."' With the further expansion on non-
Blood, op. cit., pp.
business travel and the halt (after the oil crisis) in the long-term trend 85 ff, 115.
89
towards lower relative prices on air travel, the importance of having
money for fulfilling the desire to travel, is likely to become more, not
less important.
7. Equal opportunity to travel?
If on a normative basis one holds - as does the present author - that

travel opportunities (at least non-business) should be equalized, what
can be done to change the present situation? We may discuss the prob-
lem of equalization of a "good", such as air trips, along two dimensions:
First, one can either equalize the good directly, or one may try to
equalize other goods (such as money) and leave it to the market to
change the distribution of air trips. If all individuals had identical
money incomes, non-business air trips might still be unequally distrib-
uted, but this would be a question of choice between air trips and
other goods. On the other hand, one might try to affect the number of
air trips directly, without touching the income distribution. This is es-
sentially the idea that governments and airlines pay lip-service to when
they speak of democratization of air travel.
Second, there is the question of the standard of equalization. One
may equalize up, down, or to the middle (average). Equalizing down
seems pointless except in cases where a good is really a "bad" (e.g.
narcotics) and then it is no longer a question of equalization, but of
abolition. Equalizing towards the average has the advantage that it
demands no increased supply of the goods. Hence it can be performed
immediately, provided that there is the political will to do so. Equaliz-
ing up is the reformist politician's first choice, because it means that no
one will receive less, but some will receive more. The idea is that no
one is offended - the definition of an improvement in the sense of
Pareto. In practice, however, this strategy generally arouses opposition
from those who experience relative deprivation.
In choosing between equalization up and to the average, we have to
recall the discussion above (in section 4) about the social costs of avia-
tion. It would probably be technically feasible to provide aviation to
underdog individuals in underdog countries at the same rate as topdog
individuals are now enjoying it. But the social costs would be enormous.
Tentative calculations have indicated that a new big-city airport in-
volves - with direct and indirect employment and dependencies - an
urban agglomeration up to a few hundred thousand people. No major
airport is constructed today in the highly industrialized countries with-
out a series of protests. Aviation is facing the point where it has to con-
sider its "limits to growth". Beyond a certain point the social costs of
expansion outweigh the individual gains, with the airplane as with the
private car. Hence, apart from the problems of relative deprivation,
equalization up may imply conflict with other values. Finally, equali-
zation up to the present top levels is simply not necessary if our argu-
ment above (p. 80) about the social waste of mobility is correct.
90
Whether equalization up is economically feasible is another issue.
Advocates of a stronger consumer orientation in air transport (e.g.
Pillai, 1969; Rosenberg, 1970, 1972) criticize IATA and the scheduled
airlines for not opening up the true potentials -of a mass market. Point-
ing to the expansion in the charter market, these critics maintain that
lower prices on scheduled flights could mean more traffic and eventually
a "democratization of air travel". There seems to be something to the
argument of the critics in this respect, although the potentials for a
mass market of cheap air travel may have been overestimated by the
critics (cf. IATA, 1973). In any case, mass air-travel need not mean
democratization in the sense of equality, as the past few decades have
shown. Inequalities can be maintained at higher average levels, as long
as the top consumers do not reach the saturation level for the good in
question.
Nevertheless, this economic argument - perhaps the most heated
argument between the aviation industry and the public - seems
secondary in the long run in relation to the severe environmental prob-
lems involved in an unlimited or uncontrolled further growth in avia-
tion. Equalization towards the average seems a more desirable solution.
But should the trip distribution be regulated directly or indirectly? -
e.g. through the mark-et? All limits on consumption involve rationing,
but the commodity can be rationed directly or indirectly. The main
mechanisms for indirect rationing are money and time. An air trip
would seem to be a kind of good whose distribution might well be
regulated directly without great negative effects, such as extensive black
marketeering. Air trips are sold through a small number of distributors,
whose operations can easily be overseen by a public agency. The dis-
tance an individual flies can easily be charged to his account, much like
each phone call is charged to a number. The individual might be free
to order air trips until the year's mileage had been used up. The
bureaucracy and expense involved in operating such a system need not
to be very great. Indeed, there might even be a net saving if the com-
peting and rather wasteful sales organizations of different airlines were
taken over by one public or private agency. The main problem would
probably lie in the determination of legitimate exceptions from the
standard quota and the delimitation of business and non-business travel.
In the long run, human ingenuity might also turn to the problem of
overcoming the controls built into the rationing system and setting up
a black market for air travel. Direct rationing in scheduled aviation
would also probably lead to an excessive expansion of charter and taxi
flying and of general aviation.
A common reaction to any proposal for direct rationing is that it
limits "free choice". As is well known, free choice is rather limited in
aviation not only because an air trip is costly, but because the product
is so standardized. But aviation can also be rationed in indirect ways,
through time or money. As we have indicated above, rationing through
time is a well-known method. It is also essentially a democratic one,
even though ways of circumventing it usually exist. Finally, there is
91
the possibility of rationing through the market, i.e. through the cost of
the commodity. If at the same time one equalizes the stratification more
generally, and income specifically, one can leave it to people to make
their individual decisions between aviation.and other consumer items.
The total demand for aviation can then be regulated by the use of the
price mechanism. Part of the problem of finding a solution satisfactory
to everybody is the existence of two separate markets. For the business
traveller, time is the scarce commodity. Most private travellers, on the
other hand, lack money rather than time. Efforts to regulate total
demand thorugh restrictions on either time or money will affect the
two groups differentially. What to one group means rationing, may be
strangulation to the other group. One way of solving this dilemma, is
to have a dual market. In aviation there is what is frequently called a
two-price market, but it might just as well be called a "two-time" market.
Regular scheduled flights have high prices and low load factors, and
low average load means few peaks where demand cannot be satisfied
and little waiting time in general. Charter flights, on the other hand,
have low prices and high load factors. Although the relationship be-
tween the two is not unproblematic, as evidenced by the many public
controversies, they can to some extent be kept separate and they are
kept separate by means of different destinations, different companies
etc. However, even on the scheduled flights there is a "dual economy",
with vacation and other personal travel taking place within specified
time restrictions (e.g. reduced rates across the Atlantic for 14-21 day
and 22-45 day flights). Separation of the two markets is not perfect
by any means, but to some extent the system works.
Achieving egalitarian distributions is notoriously difficult. And not
all equalization is equally important. Hence, a common development
in the "social indicators" movement is to turn towards indicators of a
minimum standard. Hillman, et al. suggest a "minimum mobility"
policy, as a parallel to minimum food, minimum education, etc. While
it seems impossible to relate any minimum air mileage to a specific and
required "need", a government could simply formulate a minimum
mileage as a "human right" of its citizens - coupled perhaps with a
maximum level to eliminate some waste. Of course, no one is to be
forced to fly, the point is that non-flying should be voluntary rather
than a result of non-availability - a point which could perhaps be
checked through surveys. And the minimum mobility position should
be seen as a first step towards a more general equalization.
Even a minimum mobility policy may be rather ambitious, depend-
ing on the level chosen. It may be worthwhile, then, to discuss some
policy choices which will face the public anyway and which are rele-
vant to the issue of the distribution of mobility.
The biggest such issue is probably that of supersonic transport. It is a 12 For the anti-SST case,
big issue both in terms of the economic and the ecological interests in- see e.g. Shurcliffe,
1970. For the case in
volved. We need not go into the various pros and cons of the discussion
favour, see any aviation
here,12 except to note that the main argument in favor of the SST is the journal, e.g. Flight
time saving for the long-distance traveller, and particularly for the l International.
92
frequent long-distance traveller.13 Since those who are "deprived" in 13 See Gleditsch, 1974,
terms of mobility are less likely to want to fly long distances, do not particularly p. 46.
fly frequently and will not be able to afford the higher fares of the
SSTs, a pro-SST policy runs counter to the idea of democratization of
aviation. In general, a "people's policy" should give priority to low-
speed, mass-transportation vehicles. This argument can be carried
further and may to some extent imply that aviation should be given no
priority at all. Hillman et al. argue for primarily strengthening modes
of transportation which are used by the largest number of people. Most
people are pedestrians. Therefore city snow removal should aim at
clearing the snow from pavements first, the exact reverse of present
policy. And better conditions for pedestrians and other low-speed
modes of transportation benefit a larger number of people than im-
provements in aviation. However, we must assume that aviation will
continue to develop and the options are then what kinds of aviation to
promote or discourage. The airship would seem to be ideal from the
point of view of moving a large number of people at low cost and little
ecological distortion. The wide-bodied aircraft serve more people than
current supersonics like the Concorde. STOL aircraft, unpaved airstrips,
and seaplanes represent a kind of technology which may take the small
and isolated community into the air age while a new generation of jets
increases the discrepancy already existing. In aviation, as in many other
areas, it may be argued that "small is beautiful" (Schumacher, 1972)
or - perhaps more appropriately - that "slow is beautiful".14 14 For a book written
from a similar perspect-
ive, see Illich, 1974.
References
(Air Transport Association of America) The incidenice of Air Travel Among

the General Public, 1973. Princeton: Gallup, 1973.
(Department of the Environment) Highway Statistics 1971. London: Her
Majesty's Stationary Office, 1973.
Galtung, Johan: "Foreign Policy Opinion as a Function of Social Position",
Journal of Peace Research, vol. 1, no. 3/4, 1964, pp. 206-31.
- "Norway in the World Community", in Natalie R. Rams0y, ed.: Nor-
wegian Society. Oslo: Norwegian Universities Press, 1974.
- and Nils Petter Gleditsch: "Norge i verdenssamfunnet", i Natalie Rams0y
og Mariken Vaa: Det norske samfunn, 2nd ed., vol. II. Oslo: Gyldendal,
1975 (2nd ed. of the previous reference, in Norwegian).
Gleditsch, Nils Petter: "Time differences and international interaction",
Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 9, no. 1. 1974, pp 35-51.
Hillman, Mayer (with Irwin Henderson and Anne Whalley): "Personal
Mobility and Transport Policy", PEP Broadsheet, no. 542, June 1973.
Illich, Ivan: Energy and Equity, London: Calder and Boyars, 1974 (Danish
Edition: Fartens tyranni. Energi og Fordeling, K0benhavn: Reitzel, 1974.)
(International Air Transport Association) World Air Transport Statistics,
no. 16, 1971. Geneva: IATA, 1972.
- Agreeing Fares and Rates, Geneva: IATA, 1973.
(International Civil Aviation Organization) "Traffic 1961-71", Digest of
Statistics, no. 169. Montreal: ICAO, 1972.
- "Survey of International Air Transport Fares and Rates, September
1973", circular 123-AT/33. Montreal: ICAO, 1974.
93
Lansing, John B. and Dwight M. Blood: The Changing Travel Market. Ann
Arbor: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, 1964.
Linder, Staffan B.: Den rastlosa velflrdsmdinnskan. Tidsbrist i Overflod.
En ekonomisk studic. Stockholm, Bonnier, 1969 (English language version:
The Harried Leisure Class.)
Pillai, K. G. J.: The Air Net: The Case Against the World Aviation Cartel.
NY: Grossman, 1969.
Rosenberg, Arne: Air Travel within Europe. Stockholm: National Swedish
Consumer Council, 1970.
- Air Travel Across the North Atlantic. Stockholm: National Swedish Con-
sumer Council, 1972.
Schwarz, Barry: "Waiting, Exchange and Power: The Distribution of Time
in Social Systems", American Journal of Sociology, vol. 79. no. 4, January
1974, pp. 841-870.
Schumacher, E. F.: Small is Beautiful. A Study of Economics as if People
Mattered. London: Blond and Briggs, 1973
Shurcliffe, William A.: SST and the Sonic Boom Handbook. NY: Ballantine,
1970. -4
Smeed, R. J.: "Traffic Studies and Urban Congestion", Journal of Trans-
portation Economics and Policy, January 1968.
94

Gleditsch - Slow Is Beautiful

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gleditsch - Slow Is Beautiful

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slow Is Beautiful.

The Stratification of Personal Mobility, with Special Reference to

Nils Petter Gleditsch

International Peace Research Institute, Oslo and

1. The concept of personal mobility

During the negotiations on a Syrian-Israeli agreement in April and May

2. The growth In personal mobility

The last century is characterized, among other developments, by a tre-

3. Personal mobility is a value

I see personal mobility as a value, both in my own value catalogue and

4. The stratification of mobility

The growth of travel has often been interpreted as a democratic

5. The distribution of mobility In aviation

Social and economic inequalities are as glaring between countries as

Pass.kms. GNP Area Population Pass.kms./

Source: Pass.kms.: ICAO, 1972. Other variables: UN sources.

Country No. of No. of Fraction Fraction Pass. km. Fraction Flights

203 41006 100 100 100

40ot Bus trips

Figure 1. Proportion with "flying experience" and experience with other

Table 3. Number of air trips flown by Norwegians "last year"

Have never flown 45

Source: Fakta survey for PRIO, June 1974, n = 1406.

That Norwegians rank with Americans in aviation experience, does

Table 4. Social stratification and aviation experience in the United

Have ever Flew last

Sex Man Woman 7 12 4 9

Source: United States ATA survey, 1973, cf. note to Fig. 1.

Apart from these two exceptions, aviation experience generally is

| //o flew last year- 40

?-/o flew 9 or more times last year*<1

Underdog Social position score Topdog

Figure 2 Aviation experience by social position, Norwegian data, June 1971

Table 5. US business and non-business fliers and air trips. Percentage

Again, in US travel surveys respondents have reported unfulfilled

7. Equal opportunity to travel?

If on a normative basis one holds - as does the present author - that

(Air Transport Association of America) The incidenice of Air Travel Among

You might also like