SN Soc Sci (2021) 1:116

https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00134-5

COMMENTARY

Social inequalities: theories, concepts and problematics

Renato Miguel Carmo1 

Received: 11 April 2021 / Accepted: 16 April 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Abstract
This article aims to present a concise perusal of the different approaches developed
in the study of social inequalities and in the relationships that they establish with
manifold social processes and problems. The text does not intend to be exhaustive
from the theoretical point of view, but rather to present an overview of the analytical
complexity of the inequalities systems and demonstrate that they should be tackled
in a multidimensional, systemic and multiscale perspective.

Keywords  Inequalities · Social theory · Public policy

Introduction

In the late 1970s, Amartya Sen delivered a lecture entitled “Equality of What?” in
which he argued for the need to reshape the contemporary approaches to the pro-
cesses of production of inequalities, towards the conceptualisation of a multidimen-
sional vision that considers other aspects and variables which, at that time, were not
incorporated in the majority of the analyses (Sen, 1980). It is along these lines that
he put forward the concept of capability in the perspective of human development,
and which underlies the annual reports published since 1990 by the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP).
The central idea substantiating the reports and various composite indices that
have been constructed in this context over the past three decades is that of consid-
ering development and inequalities as multidimensional processes, where it is not
analytically satisfactory to focus only on the economic dimension nor on conven-
tional economic indicators, such as Gross Domestic Product per capita. Indeed, the
challenge posed by Sen triggered great debate and discussion not only within the
scientific milieu, but also in the political field and in the public space in general.
This raises various questions on how we should analytically envisage and work on
the topic of social inequalities and equality policies. This brief article endeavours to

* Renato Miguel Carmo

[email protected]
1
ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Vol.:(0123456789)
 116   Page 2 of 11 SN Soc Sci (2021) 1:116

make a concise perusal of the different approaches developed in the study of social
inequalities.

Multidimensional and systemic inequalities

One of the sociologists who has most explored the concept of multidimensional-
ity from the theoretical point of view is Göran Therborn who, in a book published
in 2006, defines social inequalities as follows: «inequalities are differences that we
consider unjust. Inequality is a negation of equality. Behind a perception of inequal-
ity there is a notion of injustice, a violation of some equality» (Therborn 2006, p. 4).
Thus, in the author’s understanding, inequalities are by nature multidimensional
and, for this reason, are not circumscribed merely to a sector of society (such as the
economy, education, health, etc.), nor to a single resource or type of capital, fol-
lowing the conception by Pierre Bourdieu (2010 [1979]). According to this French
sociologist, social actors unequally and more or less strategically mobilise an array
of capital at their disposal: economic capital (wealth, income, property), cultural
capital (educational qualifications, cultural practices, domination/mastery of the
symbolic) and social capital (social networks and the belonging to certain clubs and
associations). In this perspective, the social space is notoriously unequal as it is con-
stituted and reconfigured based on the dynamics of social conflict and struggle in
access to, possession and strategic mobilisation of distinct resources. Thus, we are
dealing with a space of structured relationships leveraged by dominant and subaltern
social positions according to the type and magnitude of the appropriated and acti-
vated capital.
The two sociologists share the idea that inequalities intercept in a relational way
with respect to the causes and their effects. Along these lines, Therborn (2006, 2013)
proposes that there are three major types of inequalities. Vital inequalities generally
taken to mean the inequalities regarding life, health and death. These are expressed
in indicators such as life expectancy at birth or infant mortality rate, which are used
to comparatively analyse inequalities between populations or to analyse evolutions
over time. This type of inequality is not circumscribed to a merely biological dimen-
sion as the very notion of vital or vitality incorporates factors of social, economic
and even cultural order, that vary according to the geographic context and the level
of human development unequally distributed between and within countries and
regions (Costa 2012). In any case, in Therborn’s understanding, this type of inequal-
ity refers to human beings as living organisms who experience a differentiated set
of vulnerabilities in terms of their health and physical and mental well-being that,
in turn, depend on a set of socially produced conditions with starkly unequal insti-
tutional and organisational responses (for example, in terms of the quality and com-
prehensiveness of the public health services, among others).
Another major type is resource inequalities that identify the unequal distribu-
tion of resources (social, economic and cultural). More specifically, they include
dimensions such as inequalities of income and wealth, schooling and professional
qualification, cognitive and cultural skills, hierarchical position in organisations and
access to social networks (Costa 2012). Human individuals are viewed and framed
SN Soc Sci (2021) 1:116 Page 3 of 11  116

as social actors who, according to Bourdieu’s conception, strategically and relation-

ally appropriate and mobilise a differentiated set of varied capital in the social space.
The last type refers to existential inequalities, meaning the unequal recognition
of human individuals as persons. In this case, the focus is on the inequalities arising
from oppressions and restrictions to individual and/or collective freedom, discrimi-
nations, stigmatisations and humiliations, illustrated by phenomena such as patriar-
chy, slavery or racism (Costa 2012). These embody an objective nature, in that they
can be examined based on certain indicators, but, at the same time, they point to
elements linked to the social construction of subjectivities and to the way that indi-
viduals perceive and experience a series of discriminations and injustices to which
they are subjected.
As is evident, reciprocal relationships are established between these three major
types of inequalities and, accordingly, it could be said that this approach is harmo-
nious with the idea of Intersectionality. According to Sofia Aboim, “the theory of
intersectionality, currently dominant in the analyses of gender relations, proposes, as
advanced by Hill Collins (2019, p. 151), an analysis that affirms that systems based
on race, social class, gender, sexuality, ethnic identity, nation and age mutually form
the constructive features of social organisation” (Aboim 2020, p. 131). In this soci-
ologist’s thinking, Therborn’s approach establishes theoretical and analytical con-
nections with the perspective of Intersectionality.
The dynamics of interception tend to form systems (Bhir and Pfefferkorn 2008)
or regimes of inequality (Piketty 2020) that are reproduced and perpetuated in the
social space (Bourdieu 2010 [1979]). As Frederico Cantante states, “the systematic-
ity of inequalities also implies that various types of inequality (economic, educa-
tional, housing, health) mutually interact and combine according to particular inten-
sities and chain reactions, where certain inequalities tend to hierarchically condition
others” (Cantante 2019, p. 36).
Following this same line of reasoning, Piketty (2020) proposes the notion of an
inequality regime which incorporates a necessarily complex process of social con-
struction, but also political and ideological, in which a series of discourses and
institutional arrangements gradually crystallise to structure and justify the level
of economic, social and political inequalities attained in a given society. Thus, the
intersection and the multidimensionality of inequalities generate cycles, more or
less vicious and enduring, of accumulated social vulnerabilities and disadvantages,
that tend to affect social categories differently, particularly incident on the deprived
classes and the more socially discriminated groups, thus further strengthening the
mechanisms of social polarisation.
One of the books that most effectively attempted to give substance to the concept
that inequalities are systemic and related to a series of social problems, entitled The
Spirit Level (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009). This study correlates income inequality
with the confidence level within societies, life expectancy, child mortality, health
and obesity, the educational performance of children, homicides, among other indi-
cators. The authors construct a composite index of "health and social problems"
compiled using 10 basic indicators and identify a strong relationship between this
index and the existing degree of economic inequality in each country (the analy-
sis focuses on developed countries). The book advocates that the more egalitarian
 116   Page 4 of 11 SN Soc Sci (2021) 1:116

societies almost always operate better. In a certain way, they are more qualified and
able to deal with risks and vulnerabilities in a manner providing enhanced condi-
tions enabling people to achieve their individual aims.

Inequalities: categories and social positions

In view of the approaches referred to above, it is important to consider that inequali-

ties are also associated with the constitution and assignment of social categories. To
a large extent, it is through the reification of these categories that the processes of
production and reproduction of inequalities are conveyed and activated, both at the
individual and at the group level and at the institutional level. According to António
Firmino da Costa, categories are generally constituted “as socially shared cultural
standards”, “as the way to understand the world, in particular the social world”, “as
instruments par excellence of social action” and, finally, “as subject to social trans-
mission”. These are comprehended and internalised through processes of sociali-
sation, in the framework of deemed socialisation institutions, like the family and
school (Costa 1998, pp. 68–69).
Following Charles Tilly (2005), the production of categorisation develops around
four modes or situations fostering social inequality: via encounter among previously
separate social groups that, upon coming into contact, develop symbolic forms of
reciprocal categorisation; by the imposition of categories that discriminate against
sets of individuals, purposely setting them apart from other social groups; by negoti-
ation of boundaries, practices and interpretations, between individuals and groups in
interaction; and by transfer of these categories, boundaries and relationships, from
certain contexts and groups to others (Costa 2012).
The social construction of categories tends to be measured by complex processes
that are difficult to capture through merely quantitative statistical and analytical indi-
cators. Indeed, its analysis requires the simultaneous use of qualitative methods of
intensive nature in order to properly grasp the procedural and relational dynamics
that structure the formation of deeply rooted behavioural patterns (in the form of
prenotions or stereotypes) transmitted from one group to the next or from one gen-
eration to the next.
Once again, we draw on the contribution of Göran Therborn (2006, 2013), who
identifies a set of profound and structural social processes generating a large part
of the inequalities, which have been systematically studied by different theoretical
schools and their research teams. Actually, this boils down to the evincement of four
concepts that are relatively established in the social sciences. Hence, the concept of
exploitation, at least partially reminiscent of the Marxist or neo-Marxist perspective,
that the sociologist takes to refer to the generation of inequalities by virtue of the
asymmetric appropriation of some products and assets to a large extent produced
by others (Costa 2012). In that vein, Erik Olin Wright considers that exploitation is
based on the idea of antagonistic interests occurring when the gain of one actor, or a
set of actors, excludes others from gaining the same advantage (Wright 1994).
SN Soc Sci (2021) 1:116 Page 5 of 11  116

The second process describes the forms of exclusion and refers, according to
Therborn, to the generation of inequalities by the effect of selective restrictions that
certain groups impose on the access of others to resources and opportunities (Costa
2012; Therborn 2013). The neo-Weberian perspective has developed this approach
with a view to identifying processes of social closure that, following Frank Parkin
(1979), aim to keep a firm grip on the control of resources and ensure the distanc-
ing of a particular set of individuals and/or groups from the possibility of benefit-
ing from certain opportunities in life. In turn, this idea of closure is also linked to
the process of distanciation (third) which means the generation of inequalities as a
result of processes of competition or rivalry in systems of interdependence, namely
markets or quasi-markets (Costa 2012; Therborn 2013). Finally, the fourth, hierar-
chisation, signifies the generation of inequalities via the effects of institutionalisa-
tion of positions of superiority and inferiority in formal organisations (Costa 2012;
Therborn 2013).
As noted above, the identified processes and mechanisms have been studied
through various theoretical currents and methodological approaches, but whose
focus of analysis concentrates on the concept of social class and on the modes of
stratification and social reproduction. There are various formulations for the clas-
sification of operationalisation and configuration of class categories (or positions).
In the sociological research carried out in Portugal, particular use is made of the
ACM typology, named after its authors, which consists of a socio-professional indi-
cator of class positions, constructed based on two key variables, “profession” and
“situation in the profession”.1 According to António Firmino da Costa and Rosário
Mauritti, this typology embodies a series of conceptual and operational properties:
“allowing for comparison with other benchmark classifying typologies”; “enabling
the use of empirical data derived both from institutional statistics and research sur-
veys”; “this is a very compact classification, permitting the analysis of large-scale
comparisons, in particular international”; “able to give rise to finer versions of the
typology, applicable to specific analytical problems and empirical contexts” (Costa e
Mauritti 2018, p. 112).
The use of this typology has not only persisted in sociological studies on the
social composition and recomposition of societies, but also framed an elasticity that
can be adjusted to various sociospatial scales (local, regional, national and trans-
national). This is illustrated, for example, by the research on classes and the appro-
priation of social capital at the scale of the European transnational space (Carmo

1
  The most recent configuration of the ACM typology is composed of the following class categories:
“Employers and executives are employers or directors at private companies or in the public administra-
tion. They may be recruited from any of the groups in the occupational structure. Private Professionals
are self-employed and very qualified in certain specialised professions, such as lawyers, architects, and so
on. Professionals and managers are employees in upper or mid-level intellectual, scientific and technical
jobs. They are different from the previous category essentially because they are not self-employed. Self-
employed workers work on their own account without employees in administrative or similar occupations
in services and commerce. They include craftsmen and similar workers, farmers and qualified workers in
agriculture and fishery. Routine employees are administrative and similar personnel, service employees
and salespeople. Industrial workers are manual workers employed in less qualified occupations in con-
struction, industry, transports, agriculture and fishery (Carmo and Nunes 2013, p. 378).
 116   Page 6 of 11 SN Soc Sci (2021) 1:116

and Nunes 2013), where the analysis of the findings of the European Social Survey
(2008 round) revealed dynamics of social closure between the dominant classes in
relation to the subaltern.

Spatial and multiscale inequalities

Although Therborn’s typology does not frame territorial inequalities as a crucial ele-
ment for the study of inequalities, we can consider them in the aforesaid dimen-
sions.2 Sociospatial differentiation is, in many cases, a determinant factor for the
unequal distribution of resources. This is confirmed by the mere comparison of
urban spaces with a large part of the rural zones. Territories can be highly discrimi-
natory, as is the case with the level of segregation to which certain run-down neigh-
bourhoods in the midst of cities are relegated. Likewise, they can be decisive for the
lesser or greater vitality of populations, as demonstrated by the major discrepancies
observed between countries, based on the human development index (UNDP 2019).
It is increasingly more important to consider the territories and their many scales
in the study of social inequalities. In Branko Milanovic’s understanding, the cur-
rent process of globalisation has led to growing inequality between countries and the
continental regions in which they are located. Thus, in his analysis of international
and global income inequalities, Milanovic (2012) distinguishes three fundamental
concepts. Inequality “concept 1”, or international inequality without population-
weighting, and inequality “concept 2” or international inequality with population-
weighting (countries’ population sizes are taken into account). Both refer to ine-
qualities between countries, calculated across GDP or mean incomes obtained from
national household surveys of all countries in the world. Inequality “concept 3”, or
global inequality, where “unlike the first two concepts, this one is individual-based:
each person, regardless of her country, enters in the calculation with her actual
income (Milanovic 2012, p. 4). This, therefore, refers to inequalities between indi-
viduals, at a worldwide scale, with its primary source of information being direct
population surveys (individuals and household groups).
The economist advocates that the direction of the diachronic evolution of ine-
qualities, since the second half of the twentieth century, varies, at a worldwide scale,
according to the concept in question. Thus, if we compare inequalities between
countries (concept 1), it is clear that they have increased consecutively. But if we
take into account the population-weighting (concept 2), a stabilisation of inequali-
ties is observed, due to the positive impact of the increased disposable income in
the Chinese and Indian populations, which has primarily taken place over the last
two decades. However, the increased average income observed in countries such as
China that has contributed to reduce the population in a situation of absolute pov-
erty does not mean that the inequalities within this country are diminishing. To
the contrary, according to the data provided by the actual author (Milanovic 2016,
2012), firmly corroborated by a series of reports (OECD 2011, 2015; ADB 2012),

2
  This section is based on Carmo (2014, pp. 134–138).
SN Soc Sci (2021) 1:116 Page 7 of 11  116

income inequalities between regions in China have grown considerably, especially

between the rural and urban areas. In turn, according to concept 3, the inequalities
are revealed to be at a higher level, which has remained more or less constant over
the last decades.
This analytical and conceptual distinction proposed by Milanovic throws light on
the importance of multiscale approaches for the study of inequalities, in which the
same indicator could, for example, cover different historical evolutions and distinct
orders of magnitude according to the analytical perspective in question. In a book
entitled World City, the geographer Doreen Massey (2007) warned us precisely on
the increased inequalities associated with the impact of economic activity and, most
particularly, the financial activity of the City of London, on the rising regional dis-
parities and imbalances affecting the United Kingdom. According to this author,
social disparities have skyrocketed not only within London metropolitan area, but
have also increased in relation to other cities and regions of England. This two-fac-
eted trend (interregional and intraregional) of growth of inequalities has its epicen-
tre, albeit not exclusively, in the megacities, that have become extremely prominent
in the global economy. Indeed, many of these territories have undergone remarkable
demographic growth that corresponded to an increase of their employment catch-
ment areas and labour supply, in addition to the expansion of increasingly more
complex, diversified and asymmetric job markets.
These trends were captured by a series of approaches carried out in the late
1990s, which pointed to the consequences of globalisation and the development of
new information and communication technology in the social reconfiguration and
dualisation taking place in labour markets (Castells 2000; Sassen 2000). More recent
studies published by international organisations (OECD 2011, 2015; UNDP 2019)
refer to the increased interregional inequalities, namely between rural and urban
zones, in particular in the economies of the emerging countries. These and other
approaches have confirmed the relevance of envisaging what could be considered as
inequality “concept 4”, arising from the interdependence between social inequalities
and territorial inequalities (Carmo 2014). For such, it is fundamental to consider
not only the multidimensionality but also the multiscale nature of inequalities.

Inequalities, social mobility and capabilities

As highlighted above, many of the processes generating inequality persist over time,
but also have a reproductive effect rippling throughout various generations. In this
regard, social reproduction is an objective structural mechanism, where, for exam-
ple, it can be measured that the children of wealthier and more qualified parents
tend to have educational advantages (more academic success and less early school
leaving) over students coming from more deprived families, or where it can be
observed that social mobility depends to a large extent on family social background
which constrains ascending or descending trajectories. A recent report published
by the OECD (2018) studies intergenerational mobility, comparing the social posi-
tion attained by an individual at a given moment with the corresponding position of
the parents (social origin), and demonstrates that the social ladder of a large part of
 116   Page 8 of 11 SN Soc Sci (2021) 1:116

contemporary societies is relatively broken. Nevertheless, the truth is that in socie-

ties such as the Portuguese, the likelihood of a blue-collar worker’s child becoming
a manual labourer is still very strong.
On the other hand, social reproduction is simultaneously incorporated and legiti-
mated subjectively, as clearly demonstrated by Bourdieu, who stressed that life
expectancies are partially determined by the individual’s social position and origin.
For example, in the field of education, ‘winning’ or achieving good grades can have
a very different significance for a student coming from a family with highly qualified
parents compared to another coming from a low-qualification working class environ-
ment. The former could be ‘fighting’ to get into a highly valued university course,
like medicine or aerospace engineering, while the latter ‘fights’ just to have access
to higher education.
Many socioeconomic and sociocultural conditions are, in social terms, partially
inherited and affect the opportunities and expectations of peoples’ lives (playing
in various sectors and spheres of social and economic life). Thus, a relationship is
established between the outset social inequality level (inequality of outcome) and
the real possibilities of upward social mobility (equality of opportunity). The lower
the degree of interference of the inherited factors in the content and mechanism of
this relationship, the higher the individuals’ real possibilities of appropriating the
best opportunities of life irrespective of their social origins (Carmo 2009). As stated
by Anthony Atkinson, “inequality of outcome among today’s generation is the
source of the unfair advantage received by the next generation. If we are concerned
about equality of opportunity tomorrow, we need to be concerned about inequality
of outcome today” (Atkinson 2015, p. 11). This means that if inequalities are repro-
duced generationally, this fact compromises the notion of “equal opportunities as a
meritocratic ideal [and] the idea of the loss of influence of social structures in the
definition of the trajectories of individuals” (Cantante 2019, p. 36).
In order to (re)establish the mechanisms of upward social mobility, it is funda-
mental for States, societies and economies to invest, promote and facilitate access to
(and use of) a differentiated set of social protection and public service systems (edu-
cation, health, justice, social security, etc.) with a view to increasing intra and inter-
generational social justice (Carmo et  al., 2018). In the conception inspired by the
work of John Rawls (2001 [1971]), it is important to assure equitable distribution
based on the overall efficiency of the redistributive and provision system, enabling
the lower income members of society to improve their living conditions (referred to
as “primary goods”).
However, although the redistribution of income and other resources generated
by the economy is a necessary condition to ensure increased social cohesion, it is
not sufficient to strive for full social justice. In order to become a sufficient condi-
tion, the redistributive policy should interact with other polices that affect individual
and collective capabilities (Barata and Carmo 2015). Or, as argued by Amartya Sen,
peoples’ real opportunity to strive towards their goals depends not only on the pri-
mary goods possessed and accessed by each person, but also on the personal char-
acteristics considered relevant that enable converting primary goods into personal
skills that promote the actual goals (Sen 2003 [1999]).
SN Soc Sci (2021) 1:116 Page 9 of 11  116

The Human Development Report of 2019 (UNDP 2019) focused on the topic
of inequalities, puts forward three strong ideas, that we should: (a) envisage ine-
qualities beyond income and wealth, understanding that although these dimen-
sions are relevant, it is crucial to deepen more comprehensive approaches able to
frame other aspects of human development; (b) go beyond mere averages based
only on unidimensional analyses; and (c) project beyond the present time, cover-
ing the evolution and reduction of inequalities up to the twenty-second century.
Along these lines, the report proposes a more complex conception of the forms of
capacity-building, distinguishing basic capabilities associated with the eradica-
tion of extreme deprivation, from enhanced capabilities that increase the modes
of individual and collective agency towards providing people with enhanced
conditions to promote and achieve their own goals. Examples of enhanced capa-
bilities are accessing high-quality health, achieving higher education degrees,
using cutting edge technology and incorporating greater resistance to unexpected
shocks and risks.

Final remarks

The question raised by Amartya Sen “equality of what?” represented and still
represents an enormous theoretical and conceptual challenge, but also empirical.
As we have seen in this brief article, inequalities necessarily imply multidimen-
sional and systemic processes where they cross creating dynamics of intersec-
tionality; they are produced by complex formulations of categorisation generating
mechanisms of social closure and exclusion; they should be framed by territorial
dynamics and in different analytical scales; they have considerable impacts on
social mobility trajectories and on forms of social reproduction; and they con-
stitute regimes that are also produced and reproduced in the realms of ideology
and political struggle. For these reasons, inequalities are neither reduced nor
combated merely through simple and unidimensional measures directed at one
or another sector, or at a specific social group. Indeed, in order to have notable
impacts that are durable over time, equality policies should be of a multidimen-
sional, systemic, multiscale magnitude and foster capacity-building. This is an
immense challenge for countries and for national and international institutions.
But only by facing this enormous challenge with determination will it be possible
to appropriately, and via political action, answer the question posed by Sen.

Acknowledgements  This work was developed within the project EmployALL—The employment crisis
and the Welfare State in Portugal: deterring drivers of social vulnerability and inequality, funded by the
Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (PTDC/SOC-SOC/30543/2017).

Data availability  Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed dur-
ing the current study.

Declarations 
 116   Page 10 of 11 SN Soc Sci (2021) 1:116

Conflict of interest  The author declares no competing interests.

References
Aboim S (2020) Covid-19 e desigualdades de género: uma perspetiva interseccional sobre os efeitos da
pandemia. In: Carmo RM, Tavares I, Cândido AF (eds) Um Olhar Sociológico sobre a Crise Covid-
19 em Livro. Observatório das Desigualdades, CIES-Iscte, Lisbon, pp. 130–148: https://​www.​obser​
vator​io-​das-​desig​ualda​des.​com/​2020/​11/​29/​umolh​arsoc​iolog​icoso​breac​ovid1​9emli​vro
ADB—Asian Development Bank (2012) Outlook 2012. Confronting Rising Inequality in Asia s.1., ADB.
Atkinson AB (2015) Inequality: what can be done? Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Barata A, Carmo RM (2015) O Futuro nas Mãos: de Regresso à Política do Bem-Comum. Tinta-da-
China, Lisbon
Bhir A, Pfefferkorn R (2008) Le system des Inégalités. La Découverte, Paris
Bourdieu P (2010[1979]) A Distinção: uma crítica social da faculdade de juízo. Edições 70, Lisbon.
Cantante F (2019) O Risco da Desigualdade. Almedina, Coimbra
Carmo RM (2009) Coesão e capital social: uma perspetiva para as políticas públicas. In: Veloso L,
Carmo RM (eds) A Constituição Social da Economia. Mundos Sociais, Lisbon, pp 197–230
Carmo RM (2014) Sociologia dos Territórios: Teorias. Estruturas e Deambulações, Mundos Sociais,
Lisbon
Carmo RM, Nunes N (2013) Class and social capital in Europe: a transnational analysis of the European
Social Survey. Eur Soc 15(3):373–387
Carmo RM, Rio C, Medgyesi M (eds) (2018) Reducing inequalities: a challenge for the European Union?
Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Castells, M (2000) The information age. Economy, society and culture. 2ª ed., Blackwell Publishers,
Oxford.
Costa AF (1998) Classificações Sociais. Leituras: Revista da Biblioteca Nacional 3(2):65–75
Costa AF (2012) Desigualdades Sociais Contemporâneas. Mundos Sociais, Lisbon
Costa AF, Mauritti R (2018) Classes sociais e interseções de desigualdades: Portugal e a Europa. In:
Carmo RM et  al (eds) Desigualdades Sociais: Portugal e a Europa. Mundos Sociais, Lisbon, pp
109–129
Hill Collins P (2019) Intersectionality as critical social theory. Duke University Press, Durham
Massey D (2007) World city. Polity Press, Cambridge
Milanovic B (2012) Global income inequality by the numbers: in history and know. World Bank Policy
Research Working Paper 6259: 1–28
Milanovic B (2016) Global inequality. Cambridge, Belknap
OECD (2011) Divided we stand. Why inequality keeps rising. OECD Publications, Paris
OECD (2015) In it together: Why less inequality benefits all. OECD Publications, Paris
OECD (2018) A broken social elevator? How to promote social mobility. OECD Publications, Paris
Parkin F (1979) Marxism and class theory: a bourgeois critique. Tavistock, London
Piketty T (2020) Capital and ideology. Cambridge, Belknap
Rawls J (2001) [1971] Uma Teoria da Justiça, 2nd edn. Editorial Presença, Lisbon
Sassen S (2000) Cities in a world economy. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks
Sen A (1980) Equality of What? In: McMurrin S (ed) Tanner lectures on human values, vol I. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Sen A (2003) Desenvolvimento como Liberdade. Gradiva, Lisbon
Therborn G (ed) (2006) Inequalities of the world new theoretical frameworks: multiple empirical
approaches. Verso, London
Therborn G (2013) The killing fields of inequality. Polity Press, Cambridge
Tilly C (2005) Historical perspectives on inequality. In: Romero M, Margolis E (eds) The Blackwell
Companion to Social Inequalities. Blackwell, Malden, pp 15–30
UNDP (2019) Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: inequalities in human development in the
21st century. Human Development Report 2019.
Wilkinson R, Pickett K (2009) The spirit level. Why more equal societies almost always do better. Allen
Lane, London
SN Soc Sci (2021) 1:116 Page 11 of 11  116

Wright EO (1994) Análises de classes, história e emancipação. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais
40:3–35