1. Inequality and Stratification
Dr. John Bradford

2. Outline
I. Inequality within the US
II. Global Inequality
III. The importance of Equality
IV. Theories of Stratification

3. INEQUALITY IN THE US

4. Income Inequality within the US
Percentage of Total Income Earned by the Top 10 Percent
United States (1970-2009)
50.0
47.1
44.3
Percentage
41.4
38.6
35.7
32.9
30.0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year

6. CEO and Worker Pay
CEOs' pay as a multiple of the average worker's pay, 1960-2007
Source: Domhoff 2011

8. Wealth and Financial Wealth Distribution 2007
Source: Domhoff 2011

9. Social Mobility

15. GLOBAL POVERTY AND INEQUALITY

16. Global Poverty
• World Bank defines two distinct sub-categories:
1. World poverty, in which people live on less than
$365 per year
2. Extreme poverty, in which individuals live on less
than $275 per year.
• 600 million people estimated to live in extreme
poverty

17. Global Poverty: long-term trends
People living on less than $1 per day (millions)
1820-2000

18. Distribution of Global Poverty: 1970
http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/human-development-trends-2005/

19. Distribution of Global Poverty: 1970
http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/human-development-trends-2005/

20. Distribution of Global Poverty: 2000
http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/human-development-trends-2005/

21. Inequality within countries

22. Causes of Global Mortality
2/6/11

23. Life expectancy vs. GDP per person
2010

24. Map of World Happiness
Note: The happiest country on earth is Denmark!

25. III. WHY EQUALITY MATTERS

26. Inequality and Health

27. Inequality and Mental Health

28. Inequality and Drug Abuse

29. Inequality and Education

30. Inequality and Imprisonment

31. Inequality and Obesity

32. Inequality and Social Mobility

33. Inequality and Trust and Community Life

34. Inequality and Violence

35. Inequality and Child Well-Being

36. IV. THEORIES OF STRATIFICATION

37. Social Stratification
• Social Stratification = a social
hierarchy, or evaluation-
ranking-reward system.
– In a hierarchy, those at the top
are not just different, they are
considered better or superior.
– The definition of ‘better’
depends on the criterion of
evaluation: Braver, Smarter,
Stronger, Purer…

38. Social Stratification
• Social Stratification =
– In nearly all societies, people are
evaluated on the basis of some
characteristic and placed into
higher or lower-ranking groups.
– Actors are sorted into social
positions that carry unequal
rewards, obligations, and
expectations

39. How does inequality arise in class-
based societies?
Three possible explanations:
1. Individualist, or Market framework
– Hierarchies are emergent ( = unintended).
– Inequality of individuals’ effort or talent lead to inequality of
status positions (income, power, prestige, etc.)
– Higher ‘rewards’ for some individuals are both i) compensation
for their effort, and ii) incentives to elicit that effort
2. ‘Structural’ framework
– Hierarchies are enacted (= imposed)
– Differences in outcomes (status) not due to intrinsic individual
attributes, but to the social positions they occupy.

40. How does inequality arise in class-
based societies?
3. ‘Rich get richer’ framework:
– Hierarchies are emergent, (i.e. unintended,
spontaneous) but resulting inequalities don’t reflect
the efforts or talents of the individuals.
– People in higher-ranking groups receive
disproportionally more rewards, and those in lower-
ranking groups disproportionally fewer rewards,
– In other words, differences in social rewards are far
greater than the differences in ‘talent’ upon which
these rewards are ostensibly based.

41. ‘Rich get richer’
• Even assuming perfect equality of opportunity, and
assuming everyone desires to live in a society where social
rewards are based on one’s talents and/or hard work, we
should not expect that the differences in the social rewards
received will be proportional to the differences in the
talents/efforts of the individuals!
• Those with a little more ‘talent’ get disproportionately
more rewards, far more than they ‘deserve’, even
assuming perfect equality of opportunity!
Differences in talent
No talent Lots of talent
Differences in social
rewards

42. ‘Rich get richer’
• Do these people have talent?
(acting skill, charisma, beauty,
etc.)
• If so, is the above-average
wealth and fame they receive
proportional to their above-
average talents?
• Why are these people wealthy
and famous and not you!?

43. ‘Rich get richer’
How it works:
• Our evaluations of others are socially influenced: People pay
attention to how everyone else is being evaluated by everyone
else.
• This amplifies underlying differences between individuals and
makes the rewards allotted to them disproportional to their
talents and/or efforts.
– Examples:
i. People who are popular tend to attract more attention than
non-popular people. Why? Because they are already popular!
ii. Children with a reputation for being ‘bad’ are more likely to get
in trouble compared to a ‘good’ kid, for doing the same things.
iii. Some journal articles get cited way more than others, simply
because they are more frequently cited.

44. ‘Rich get richer’
(Summary)
• The ‘rich get richer’ effect is also known as:
winner-take-all effects, cascade effects,
popularity tournaments, the Matthew effect,
and preferential attachment.
• These are all examples of positive (reinforcing)
feedback.
• Conclusion: even if there was total equality of
opportunity, and everyone had identical
talents, you should still expect hierarchies in
class-based societies!

45. Michels’ Iron Law of Oligarchy
• German sociologist Robert Michels
claimed in his 1911 book Political
Parties that “rule by an elite or
"oligarchy" is inevitable, an “iron
law” within any organization.
• Democracy is a façade legitimizing
the rule of a particular elite, and
oligarchy is inevitable.
• Why? Large organizations require
bureaucracies in order to function
effectively; bureaucracy entails
centralization, and centralization
means that power will end up in
the hands of the few.