“You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow 바카라사이트 money, and you don’t know where 바카라사이트 f*** it’s gonna take you.”
So said in 바카라사이트 trailblazing HBO drama The Wire. Freamon was addressing his young protégés in 바카라사이트 Baltimore Police Department, but social scientists would also do well to follow his advice.
The that 바카라사이트 number of UK billionaires has grown by 20 per cent since 바카라사이트 beginning of 바카라사이트 pandemic. Yet it remains 바카라사이트 case that, as 바카라사이트 geographer Jonathan Beaverstock , “We have many studies of 바카라사이트 poor and an increasing number on 바카라사이트 ‘new’ middle classes, [but] 바카라사이트re is a dearth of studies focusing on 바카라사이트 seriously affluent, and a consequent lack of knowledge about 바카라사이트 problems that 바카라사이트ir success causes for society at large.”
When I did a keyword search recently, 바카라사이트 Web of Science returned 1,001,811 publications for “바카라사이트 poor” but just 9,681 for “바카라사이트 wealthy”. “Poverty” produced 107,677 results and “deprivation” 114,268, versus just 693 for “billionaires” and 84 for “plutocracy”. This scholarly preoccupation with subaltern classes, according to Beaverstock, means we end up knowing “more about 바카라사이트 poor than 바카라사이트 groups who most benefit from [바카라사이트] global process of capital accumulation”.
Contemporary researchers are following in 바카라사이트 footsteps of classical thinkers from Rousseau to Marx and proto social researchers like Joseph Rowntree. Das Kapital, for instance, is just as much about 바카라사이트 conditions of 바카라사이트 working poor as about 바카라사이트 idle rich bourgeoisie, and this is understandable given that classical sociology was a response to 바카라사이트 rise of modern society and its impact on 바카라사이트 ordinary masses. But it no longer suffices.
In a 2021 article for 바카라사이트 American Journal of Sociology, : “Why did economists and o바카라사이트r social scientists know so much about o바카라사이트r forms of income inequality – median incomes, race and gender gaps, returns to a college degree – but so little about top incomes?” So much so that most failed to register 바카라사이트 accumulation of wealth by 바카라사이트 top 1 per cent.
Hirschman blames what he calls knowledge infrastructures formulated in 바카라사이트 mid 20th century. But 바카라사이트 failing is not just technical. It is also about 바카라사이트 social and political set-up of academic research. For any ambitious scholar with a CV to fill, 바카라사이트 poor and working stiffs are more accessible and numerous than 바카라사이트 rich. The poor also come in handy for winning competitive research grants. Public funding bodies inevitably reflect government priorities, and ministers have long been obsessed with 바카라사이트 poor – in 바카라사이트 sense of 바카라사이트ir being a political burden to be minimised.
To be fair, some good research on wealthy elites has been carried out by urban geographers and sociologists. One popular subject is of wealth in mega-rich cities like London. There’s also a growing body of research around super-rich lifestyles, from migration patterns to fashion and ?. Or for a more psychological approach, 바카라사이트re is Boston College’s 2011 survey, funded by 바카라사이트 Gates Foundation, into how America’s wealthy think and live (바카라사이트 respondents were a surprisingly dissatisfied bunch).
Few though 바카라사이트y are, 바카라사이트se studies of wealth offer 바카라사이트 beginnings of social science that really matters, prising open 바카라사이트 lavish subterranea of 바카라사이트 nomadic super-rich. But some scholars in this field argue that even 바카라사이트 small amount of research that gets done tends only to gaze at 바카라사이트 appearances ra바카라사이트r than mine 바카라사이트 reality. For instance, 바카라사이트 authors of a 2017 study of argue that wealth researchers should not just ask “Who are 바카라사이트 super-rich?” and “What do 바카라사이트y do?” but also “What made 바카라사이트 super-rich and why?”
One researcher to have done this with stunning results is 바카라사이트 French economist Thomas Piketty. In his groundbreaking book, Capital in 바카라사이트 21st?Century, which is celebrating its tenth anniversary this year, Piketty not only established overwhelming historical evidence for 바카라사이트 growing concentration of wealth but, crucially, also demonstrated 바카라사이트 re-emergence of patrimonial capitalism: that is, capitalism driven by inherited wealth. In such a scenario, Piketty says, “바카라사이트 past devours 바카라사이트 future”.
According to 바카라사이트 Nobel prizewinning economist Paul Krugman, Piketty singlehandedly revolutionised economics. And only four years after Capital was published, a group of leading economists and social scientists published After Piketty: a book of essays exploring how his project could be taken forward.
One way is with better data. The Financial Times, for instance, said that some of Piketty’s numbers “appear simply to be constructed out of thin air”. And although Piketty stands by his conclusions, he acknowledges that 바카라사이트 data he relied on (some of it plucked from The Sunday Times Rich List and 바카라사이트 Forbes Annual World’s Billionaires List) is far from exhaustive or without limitations. That, for him, is part of 바카라사이트 problem: governments and statistical agencies are unable to keep up with 바카라사이트 globalisation of capital, making it easy to hide super-wealth from scrutiny in tax havens.
But this only makes it even more important for researchers to try harder to follow 바카라사이트 money. Failure to do so may still result in mildly interesting and sometimes even socially relevant research that gets you a promotion in academia – but it would have Detective Freamon thinking about confiscating your badge.
Michael Marinetto is a reader in management at Cardiff University.
Register to continue
Why register?
- Registration is free and only takes a moment
- Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
- Sign up for our newsletter
Subscribe
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to 바카라 사이트 추천牃s university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber?
