While the majority of scholars believe that there is an indirect link between religion and family income, economists maintain that religiosity has a direct impact on comparative advantage-based economic metrics like the country's GDP and people's per capita income.
Additionally, more globally structured social groupings with a stronger capacity to influence the creation and implementation of economic policies are to blame for the seeming discrepancy between income and anticipated religious welfare increases.
Religious conviction is also known to affect other social indicators including education, gender balance in office, income distribution, and individuals’ attitudes towards formal employment. Undoubtedly, we have come across instances where religious denominations incorporate certain standards and values in most of their social teachings so as to empower their members and ensure that believers have the capacity to improve their incomes. Therefore, it is not strange that denominations have varying approaches to issues of wealth, meaning that individuals’ preferences to income depend on unique religious affiliations. Despite the varying opinions of researchers, economists, and theorists, which seem to revolve around the limited data set, this paper ascertains whether there is a correlation between religious affiliation and annual income.
Literature Review
Existing empirical studies reveal a close link between religious affiliation and annual
income. For example, a study conducted by the “Good Magazine” and Column Five (2010) identified significant variations in annual income among prominent religious groups in the United States. The report ranked believers of Hindu religion among the most affluent Americans.
While close to 80% of Hindus earn at least 50,000 dollars each year as part of their income, only 75% of Jewish believers, who rank second highest earn at least 50,000 dollars per year. The figures, however, put Catholics and Protestants in the 3rd and 4th positions respectively with about
49% of Catholics and 43% of Protestants receiving an annual income above 50,000 dollars. Although Catholics and Protestants are the most popular spiritual groups, they seem to suffer high unemployment rate, thus, the reason behind the low annual income level.
Contrary to the argument about the high unemployment rate, other studies reveal some of
the potential factors that make individuals from specific religions to have more positive wage enhancing characteristics than their counterparts. Lehrer (1999) determined that Jewish people value education and always work harder to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills required for different job positions than believers of other affiliations. Correspondingly, Lehrer (1999) argues that educational achievement among Protestants appears to be lowest, meaning that members of this religious group may not have the opportunity to enjoy some of the rewards that come with education.
Moreover, Lowry (1998) argues that religiosity is characteristically a reflection of
people’s belief about “the good life and wealthy society” (p.226). This according to Lowry (1998, p. 230) means that the effect of religious teachings might, in one way, influence the extent to which people believe in both economic and income policies. In his study of Judeo-Christian believers, he (1998) found out that Protestants hold a positive, yet a significant effect on economic policies that seem to have direct impacts on household income. In another similar study, Glaeser and Glendon (1998) set forth to test Max Weber’s opinion that the level of GDP of Protestant nations is smaller than the income level registered by Catholic nations. Similarly to Max Weber, Glaeser and Glendon (1998) stated that the difference in GDP between Protestants and Catholics revolves around the divergent views of Calvinism and Catholicism, however, this seems to be correlating data that cannot be directly related. While Calvinists believe on the “dogma of predestination,” Catholics support the view of “free will” as the only secret towards economic progress. Every believer according to Judeo-Christians should engage in more socially efficient beliefs, meaning that the threat of hell or the reward of heaven should not be the only things prompting followers to act according to what they are taught. (Glaeser & Glendon, 1998). The provision of incentives should, therefore, not only target those people who consider an “afterlife” to be the foundation of faith but should transcend in a way that convinces each member of the society that their religion is in a better position to solve emerging social issues including poverty.
There are, however, those researchers who believe that the association between religious
affiliation and income is triggered by other factors including attitudes. For example, Guiso, Sapienza, and Zingales (2003) in their study of the “the impact of religion on attitudes towards market economy” indicated that religiosity is a key determinant of people’s per capita income and social progress. Guiso, Sapienza, and Zingales (2003) explained that religious belief is a controlling factor, and on average, influences individual’s attitudes towards social indicators including health status, age, gender, and income. For example, some religions carry a great deal of respect for the elderly for their wisdom and experience. Also, while religions arguably oppress women, other celebrate them, and place them in the highest positions of power. Logically, then, this significant of an impact would also provide opportunities for economic growth. In other words, a country that perceives a common social belief is expected to establish fixed principles and policies that affect people’s contributions to economic development.
Apart from spiritual attachment, researchers argue that the strength of religious connection (or religiosity) affects members’ preferences in different ways. Researchers observe that devout members of religious groups do not reach greater economic and social progress than those individuals who are religiously less active. Dahl and Ransom (1999) in a survey of followers from the “Church of Jesus Christ – Latter Day Saints” on issues of tithing obtained contrary views regarding the link between religious affiliation and wages for tithing reasons. In their study, Dahl and Ransom (1999) revealed that the definition of income from the perspective of fervent members of the church was less likely to be affected by financial self-interest. However, the less active members of the church treated gifts, financial market gains, and self-employment earnings with high significance because some of these factors affect their contribution to the church. Another important reason for the variation in income levels among the religious groups revolves around the relative significance of utility functions (Pitts, Mia, & Henry, 2011). The functions of the individuals’ utilities affect their response to maximize earnings. The members of a religious group may consider the desire to improve income level as more materialistic and lacking moral support to social life.
All the literature seems to point in the direction of a connection between religious affiliation and annual income. Leher (1999) shows that Protestants are less likely to achieve higher education, therefore hampering their ability to have access to higher paying jobs. Furthermore, Lowry (1998) described the relationship between religious beliefs and a larger impact on societies of like-minded people. Guiso, Sapienza, and Zingales (2003) illustrated the relationship between religiosity and attitudes regarding economic systems. These sources lead to a connection between religiosity and annual income, but how exactly they are related, and if that relationship is significant, remains to be seen.
Theories
The researcher expects a statistically significant positive relationship between religious affiliation and annual income. Specifically, it is expected that religiously affiliated people will make a higher annual income than those unaffiliated, due to family demand, expectations of charity, and an installed work ethic that stems from religious texts such as the Bible. Regardless of type or branch, many if not all religions share these core values. Extending from that, it can reasonably be expected that individuals raised in religious environments would be likely to reach higher levels of income that those raised without religious structure in their lives.
One of the primary focuses for many religions, especially christian faiths, is the family. Many religions also focus of large families, stemming back in time to periods when many children died, and were needed to help run farms, ranches, and other subsistence work for the family. This has carried over into the present with churches such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and many branches of Catholicism carrying on the tradition of large families. These large families most likely stem from beliefs against birth control and/or abortions in today’s society. These large families are not immune to the needs of food, shelter, education, and accommodations. These needs in turn require higher levels of income to be filled, which is why it is not uncommon to see both parents of large families working to bring in higher levels of income for the family. This expectation or desire for large families also inspires many to seek higher education or skills in a trade to provide financial stability.
Another religious factor that points to higher income is the expectation or pressure inside many religions to give money or other supplies to the church as a tithe or offering. Knowing that this is required or expected is another motivation for those of religious affiliation to seek higher paying jobs. Willingly giving up portions of their income must prompt religious followers to increase their total income, so that they have more left for themselves after their giving is done. Many also take their giving as a point of pride or satisfaction, wanting to give all they have to a system they believe in. To be able to do this and still support themselves and their families, they must look for higher paying jobs, or risk compromising either their religious dedication or their family’s economic stability.
Finally, many religions preach some form of “work hard and be rewarded.” Countless texts of religious significance speak this in one way or another, and it becomes engrained in the lives and hearts of religious followers. Much like the pressures of family and charity, this thought process prompts those of religious affiliation to seek higher education or proficiency at a trade, leading to larger incomes. This factor, however, is different from the others. Rather than seeking economic success for the necessity of a family or the pressure to give, this work ethic serves as a reward system for many, with the financial success being attributed to blessings from a higher power as a reward for hard work and religious study. With a belief that their god will reward them for their dedication, many set off for university or trade school, and on their way to a higher income.
All three of these examples provide rational support for the positive relationship between religious affiliation and annual income. Whether it be family size, charity, or work ethic, it is reasonable to expect that those who claim to be religiously affiliated will make more than their unaffiliated counterparts.
Hypothesis
Even though the pieces of evidence drawn from the literature review and theories provide sufficient information about the relationship between household income and religious affiliation, it is important to use objective data to determine whether these claims hold ground. The researcher will only be able to determine the strength and direction of the relationship between the two variables through appropriate data analysis techniques. Tentatively, the research hypothesizes a correlation between religious affiliation and annual income.
Operationalization
The researcher used data from the 2014 GSS to test the hypothesis. Data from 2538 participants that had been randomly sampled were collected and analyzed for the purposes of testing the hypothesis. The specific variables of interest included the respondents’ religious affiliations, family income level, and total income for each of the affiliates. Religious affiliation was further subdivided into two categories representing those devoted to religious beliefs and non-believers (Affiliated and No Affiliation). Although 18 individuals did not participate in the study, 2520 respondents had the opportunity to contribute to the research by either filling in the survey questions or responding directly to field interviews. This gave the investigator a response rate of 99.3%. The respondents were asked questions regarding their religious affiliations as well as income level.
Before engaging in data analysis, it was necessary to determine the validity and reliability of the data provided. The researcher noticed some level of consistency in the responses, indicating that the information that was provided by the participants were truthful. The raw data from the field were used to perform regression analysis while income in thirds was used to perform the Chi-square test, and the results recorded in distinct tables as shown under the section of results.
Results
Frequencies
Table 1: Response Rate
Statistics
Does R identify a religious
affiliation?
Total Family
Income
Income in
Thirds
N
Valid
2520
2314
2314
Missing
18
224
224
Mean
.7929
17.12
2.0830
Median
1.0000
18.00
2.0000
Mode
1.00
20
3.00
Std. Deviation
.40534
5.810
.85024
Out of the 2538 people sampled, 2520 gave information regarding their religion. Additionally, 2314 individuals became free to share information regarding their total family income, meaning that 224 respondents decided to ignore this part of the survey. The first task was to use R as a subjective measure to determine whether an individual belonged to any religious affiliation. The second and third tasks involved using the data to determine the total family income and incomes in thirds. According to the results, a mean of 0.7929 indicates that on average, the majority of the respondents identified themselves with specific religious groups while a mean of 17.12 ( the range of $30,000-34,999) reveals that a larger part of the population was employed and receiving regular income. The mode, 1, under religious affiliation shows that the most common response was yes, meaning that the respondent did have a religious affiliation. However, the mode of 20, under total family income means that the most common response was the $60,000-74,999 range of income. With a standard deviation of 0.405 from the mean, the researcher found it easy to classify the majority of the respondents as either religiously affiliated or not religiously affiliated. Furthermore, the .000 r2 supports the view that no percentage change in household income can be explained by religious groupings.
Table 2: Does R identify a religious affiliation?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
No Affiliation
522
20.6
20.7
20.7
Affiliated
1998
78.7
79.3
100.0
Total
2520
99.3
100.0
Missing System
18
.7
Total
2538
100.0
When the 2520 valid respondents were asked to indicate whether they belonged to religious affiliations, 20.7% indicated that they were not affiliated while 79.3% revealed that they were affiliated. The change in percentage between non-affiliates and affiliates is also shown in figure 1 of the appendix.
Table 3: Total Family Income
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
UNDER $1 000
38
1.5
1.6
1.6
$1 000 TO 2 999
29
1.1
1.3
2.9
$3 000 TO 3 999
20
.8
.9
3.8
$4 000 TO 4 999
12
.5
.5
4.3
$5 000 TO 5 999
22
.9
1.0
5.2
$6 000 TO 6 999
18
.7
.8
6.0
$7 000 TO 7 999
16
.6
.7
6.7
$8 000 TO 9 999
51
2.0
2.2
8.9
$10000 TO 12499
84
3.3
3.6
12.5
$12500 TO 14999
64
2.5
2.8
15.3
$15000 TO 17499
66
2.6
2.9
18.2
$17500 TO 19999
50
2.0
2.2
20.3
$20000 TO 22499
69
2.7
3.0
23.3
$22500 TO 24999
86
3.4
3.7
27.0
$25000 TO 29999
123
4.8
5.3
32.3
$30000 TO 34999
141
5.6
6.1
38.4
$35000 TO 39999
104
4.1
4.5
42.9
$40000 TO 49999
173
6.8
7.5
50.4
$50000 TO 59999
208
8.2
9.0
59.4
$60000 TO 74999
227
8.9
9.8
69.2
$75000 TO $89999
172
6.8
7.4
76.6
$90000 TO
$109999
167
6.6
7.2
83.8
$110000 TO
$129999
94
3.7
4.1
87.9
$130000 TO
$149999
73
2.9
3.2
91.1
$150000 OR
OVER
207
8.2
8.9
100.0
Total
2314
91.2
100.0
Missi ng
REFUSED
126
5.0
DK
98
3.9
Total
224
8.8
Total
2538
100.0
Regarding the family total income, the majority of the population (8.9%) earned between 60,000 dollars and 74,000 dollars. 8.2% of the respondents were the highest paid individuals with their annual incomes falling above 149,999 dollars. However, 1.5% of the population obtained annual incomes below 100 dollars. Perhaps, these were the least paid affiliate groups according to the statistics.
Table 4: Income in Thirds
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Up to $29,999
748
29.5
32.3
32.3
$30,000 to
$59,999
626
24.7
27.1
59.4
$60,000 and above
940
37.0
40.6
100.0
Total
2314
91.2
100.0
Missi ng
System
224
8.8
Total
2538
100.0
For easy synthesis, it was necessary to divide the family incomes into three categories including those earning below 29,999 dollars, those making between 30,000 dollars and 59,999 dollars, and finally individuals whose salaries go beyond 60,000 dollars. From Table 4, it is evident that the annual income of the majority of the population (37.0%), falls above 60,000 dollars, 24.7% between 30,000 dollars and 59,999 dollars, and 29.5% earning a maximum of 29,999 dollars.
Another part of analysis involved performing cross tabulation operations to determine income variation (income in thirds) between the two groups. According to the information in Table 5, 32.1% of the non-affiliated individuals earned an annual income of up to 29,999 dollars, 29.6% received between 30,000 dollars and 59,999 dollars while 38.3% received incomes above 60,000 dollars. On the contrary, 32.3% of the affiliate members received up to 29,999 dollars, 26.4% acknowledged between 30,000 dollars and 59,999 dollars while 41.2 recorded income levels above 60,000 dollars.
Table 5: Does R identify a religious affiliation? *Income in Thirds Cross-tabulation
Income in Thirds
Total
Up to
$29,999
$30,000 to
$59,999
$60,000 and above
Does R identify a religious affiliation?
No
Affiliation
Count
155
143
185
483
% within Does R identify a religious affiliation?
32.1%
29.6%
38.3%
100.0%
Affiliated
Count
589
481
751
1821
% within Does R identify a religious affiliation?
32.3%
26.4%
41.2%
100.0%
Total
Count
744
624
936
2304
% within Does R identify a religious affiliation?
32.3%
27.1%
40.6%
100.0%
The Chi-square test allowed the researcher to determine whether there is a significant relationship between the two sets of data (the % count for income thirds and religious affiliation for the two categories). Using the “simple random sampling technique,” the researcher wanted to prove that:
H0: There is no association between religious affiliation and annual income (the variables are independent)
Ha: There is an association between religious affiliation and annual income (the variables are not independent).
Table 6: Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
2.256a
2
.324
Likelihood Ratio
2.236
2
.327
Linear-by-Linear
Association
.381
1
.537
N of Valid Cases
2304
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 130.81.
From table 6, the P-value for the Pearson Chi-square was 0.324 against the 2 degrees of freedom at 90% level of significance. Since the P-value is .324, which is greater than .05, we can see that the relationship is not significant. It was also important to identify the magnitude and direction of the relationship through regression analysis. The results from table 7 show the regression results, which are also not significant, with a p value of .938. In order for this relationship to be significant, the p-value would need to be .05 or less. Furthermore, the .000 r2 supports the view that no percentage change in household income can be explained by religious groupings.
Table 7: Regression Results
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.000a
.000
.000
5.807
a. Predictors: (Constant), Does R identify a religious affiliation?
ANOVA
Model
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Regression
1 Residual
.016
77632.977
1
2302
.016
33.724
.000
.983b
Total
77632.993
2303
a. Dependent Variable: TOTAL FAMILY INCOME
b. Predictors: (Constant), Does R identify a religious affiliation?
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
1 Does R identify a
religious affiliation?
17.128
-.006
.264
.297
.000
64.821
-.022
.000
.983
a. Dependent Variable: TOTAL FAMILY INCOME
Correlation and multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between religious affiliation and annual income. I hypothesized that there would be a direct link between religious affiliation or lack thereof, and the amount of money earned annually. The linear regression model does not support this.
Discussion
The research initial hypothesis was that there is a correlation between religious affiliation and annual income, which appeared to be in line with the economists' views of a direct relationship between religiosity and yearly earnings. However, the data given does not support this hypothesis. From the analysis, we can extract a mode given by the equation, Religious Affiliation = 17.128 + (-0.006)*Annual Income, where "A" is constant at 17.128 and "b" – the intercept of annual income is -0.006. With the values for A and b, the study demonstrates that the model is not significant at 0.000 level . Also, the p-value of .983 indicates that there is no relationship between the two variables. The results, however, contradict the opinions of many researchers who believe that specific religious affiliation can be a good predictor of wealth, and assumes other factors related to religious affiliation such as education, age, gender perception, and attitude to play a major role in determining people’s financial or economic progress.Moreover, the analysis contradicts the theoretical view of a strong positive correlation between religious affiliation and annual income. This means that even though people might decide to become religiously affiliated, we do not expect to see a change in their income levels. In other words, religion alone is not a factor to be used to determine changes in individual's annual earnings.
One fundamental explanation for the inconsistency revolves around the differences in variables used by past researchers and those used in this study. While my research focuses on religion as a single factor, most investigators disintegrate religion into several attributes, thus, rendering a different conclusion about the relationship. Even though data limitation could be an issue to investigate further, it may not bring much difference because the information from the respondents gives a true reflection on matters of religion and income. The method of investigation ranging from the source of data, sampling technique, population and sample size to method of analysis demonstrate that the concept was effectively conceptualize in a way to adequately test the hypothesis.
My research was limited to two variables including religious affiliation and household income. Perhaps, another research splitting religious affiliation into other factors such as attitudes, preferences, education, and gender perception will give a different result. There were no reliability or validity issues recorded during the analysis. With a wider focus on elements of religious affiliation, the researcher may have the opportunity to question the kind of association that exists between religion and household income. Therefore, the future research should focus more on primary sources such as field surveys than using GSS data.
The view of a strong positive correlation between the religious association and annual income is flawed. In other words, religion or social grouping as a single factor does not predict individuals’ annual income, thus cannot be used in policy development. Religious conviction only affects people's perceptions and response to other economic indicators as signaled by the attainment of high education, gender equality in workplaces, and people's attitudes towards economic policies. Wealth is earned through hard work, not religious persuasion. With the current economic changes as characterized by recession and depression, it will be unfair for researchers and renowned philosophers to advice members of religious groups to sit back and wait for manna from heaven.
Conclusion
My research reveals that there is no significant relationship between religious affiliation and annual income. The results contradict the views presented in the literature review section and theories that support a strong positive relationship between religious belief and income. However, the relationship between religious conviction and household income depends on other social indicators including education, gender balance in office, income distribution, and individuals’ attitudes towards formal employment.
References
Glaeser, L., & Glendon, S. (1998). Incentives, predestination and free will. Economic Inquiry,
36(3), 429-443.
Good Magazine, & Column Five. (2010). The almighty dollar: Mapping distribution of income
by religious belief. Retrieved from
https://www.columnfivemedia.com/work-items/infographic-the-almighty-dollar
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2003). People's opium? Religion and economic attitudes.
Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(1), 225-282.
Lehrer, E.L. (1999). Religion as a determinant of educational attainment: An economic
perspective. Social Science Research, 28(4), 358-379.
Lowry, R.C. (1998). Religion and the demand for membership in environmental citizen groups.
Public Choice, 94(3), 223-240.
Mehanna, R.A. (2003). International trade, religion, and political freedom: An empirical
investigation. Global Business and Economics Review, 5(2), 284-296.
Pitts, J.D., Mia, K., & Henry, T. (2011). The wages of religion. International Journal of Business
and Social Science, 2(14).
Tzanakis, M. (2013). Social capital in Bourdieu’s, Coleman’s and Putnam’s theory: Empirical
evidence and emergent measurement issues. Educate~, 13(2), 2-23.
We will email this sample to you with pleasure!
Type your email