The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are two opposing social classes described by Karl Marx.
The fundamental difference is ownership versus non-ownership of the means of production: the bourgeoisie own factories, land, and capital, while the proletariat sell their labor to survive.
This single economic distinction creates a cascade of inequalities, positioning the bourgeoisie as the dominant, powerful ruling class that shapes society’s institutions for its own benefit, and the proletariat as the subordinate, exploited working class.
Key Takeaways
- Ownership: The bourgeoisie own the means of production (factories, land, and capital), while the proletariat lack ownership and must sell their labor to survive.
- Power: Economic control gives the bourgeoisie political and cultural influence, while the proletariat remain largely powerless and exploited (paid less than the value they create).
- Education: Schools reinforce class divisions by privileging the cultural capital of the wealthy (the values and knowledge schools reward) and steering working-class children into lower-paid roles.
- Justice: The legal system often protects bourgeois interests and punishes working-class crime more harshly, masking the greater harms of corporate wrongdoing.
- Conflict: Marx argued that this unequal relationship inevitably produces class struggle, which could lead to revolutionary change and a classless society.
Fundamental Economic and Social Divisions
The bourgeoisie (the capitalist ruling class) are defined by their private ownership of the means of production: factories, companies, land, and capital.
They profit by purchasing and controlling the labour of others. As a minority group, their wealth and dominance derive from exploiting the majority’s labour.
The proletariat (the working class), by contrast, comprises those who do not own the means of production.
To survive, they must sell their labour power for wages.
This relationship is inherently exploitative: the value created by workers is greater than what they are paid, and the surplus is appropriated by the bourgeoisie as profit.
This economic split cascades into wider differences in status, opportunities, and life experiences, underpinning inequality across education, politics, and the justice system.
Marx and Friedrich Engels outlined this struggle in works such as The Communist Manifesto and Capital. They argued that capitalism is built on class conflict. Only a classless society, they claimed, could resolve these inequalities (Marx & Engels, 1967).
Relationship to Power and the State
Economic power translates directly into political and ideological power.
The bourgeoisie use that power in several ways, while the proletariat bear the consequences:
- Control of institutions: The bourgeoisie shape the state, the law, and the criminal justice system to serve their own interests and to maintain the capitalist system and the class inequality that benefits them.
- Base and superstructure: They effectively control the “superstructure” of society (political and ideological institutions) because it rests upon the economic “base” that they own.
- Protection of property: The ruling class can influence laws to protect its private property and profits while criminalising the activities of the powerless.
- Proletarian powerlessness: Lacking ownership of the means of production, the proletariat are subject to the laws and social controls the bourgeoisie create, and are compelled to work under conditions the owners dictate.
- Alienation: This relationship of domination and exploitation leaves workers feeling divorced from their society, their work, and their sense of self.
Education and Class Reproduction
Education plays a key role in maintaining class divisions.
It is not a neutral institution. Marxists argue that it serves the interests of the capitalist class (bourgeoisie) at the expense of the proletariat, reproducing ruling-class culture and legitimising the bourgeoisie’s privileged position. It works in four ways:
- Cultural capital: Children of the bourgeoisie and middle classes possess more cultural capital: the dominant values, attitudes, and knowledge that schools recognise and reward.
- Elite advantage: This gives them a built-in advantage in academic success and in securing future positions of power. Private education, in particular, prepares the children of the capitalist elite for these roles.
- Hidden curriculum: For the working class (proletariat), the hidden curriculum teaches pupils to accept hierarchy, conformity, and future roles as unskilled or semi-skilled workers.
- Myth of merit: The system is not meritocratic. It rewards the dominant culture while blaming working-class individuals for outcomes the structure itself produces.
Marxist theorists add that capitalism requires a supply of unskilled labour, so schooling is structured in ways that reproduce working-class failure.
Interaction with the Criminal Justice System
The criminal justice system operates unequally, systematically favouring the bourgeoisie while criminalising the proletariat.
Marxists point to four patterns:
- White-collar crime: The bourgeoisie commit crime, particularly white-collar and corporate crime, often driven by the same capitalist values of greed and competition that affect all classes.
- Weak regulation: The ruling class shapes the law to protect its own interests, ensuring that laws regulating business are weak and that loopholes exist to avoid taxes.
- Lenient sanctions: Their crimes are often rendered invisible or treated leniently. When members of the higher classes are caught, they are less likely to be prosecuted or imprisoned than street criminals.
- Selective enforcement: The state focuses on the “street crimes” often associated with the poor and working class. This gives the false impression that the proletariat are the primary source of society’s problems.
- Scapegoating: This scapegoating distracts from the harms caused by the ruling class and the inherent inequalities of capitalism.
Working-class crime is often a rational response to poverty, inequality, and alienation generated by the capitalist system itself.
White-Collar Crime: Sutherland’s Study of Corporate Offending
The American criminologist Edwin Sutherland (1949) gave this argument its first systematic empirical test. He was challenging a criminology that assumed crime was concentrated among the poor and caused by poverty.
- Aim: To test whether poverty causes crime by examining the recorded violations of large American corporations and their executives.
- Method: Sutherland compiled regulatory, civil, and criminal violations by seventy of the largest US corporations, such as false advertising and restraint of trade. He compared how these were sanctioned with how street crime was handled.
- Results: The corporations broke the law extensively and repeatedly. Most cases ended in civil suits, regulatory orders, or injunctions with little stigma, and criminal charges rarely led to imprisonment.
- Conclusion: Crime is not concentrated among the poor. Differential handling reflects offenders’ power, not the seriousness of their conduct, and Sutherland coined the term white-collar crime for such high-status offending.
As the founding study of white-collar criminology, it directly supports the claim that ownership shapes how leniently the law treats wrongdoing. Its limits are real, however.
It relied on aggregated regulatory and civil records rather than matched sentencing comparisons. That makes it hard to separate leniency toward the powerful from genuine legal differences between corporate and individual liability.
It also covered only large American corporations in the mid-twentieth century, so it may not generalise to other legal systems or periods.
Bourgeoisie vs Proletariat: Key Differences
| Bourgeoisie | Proletariat | |
|---|---|---|
| Class position | Owns means of production | Works for wages |
| Means of production | Owns factories, land, infrastructure | Operates means of production they don’t own |
| Income source | Profits, investments, rents | Wages, salaries |
| Wealth | Accumulates capital | No capital, lives paycheck to paycheck |
| Political power | Dominant class with great influence | Minimal influence as individuals |
| Lifestyle | Comfortable, even extravagant living | Bare subsistence level living |
| Typical jobs | Factory owners, bankers, executives | Factory workers, clerks, service workers |
| Education | Quality schools, often highly educated | Lower quality public schools, less education |
| Values | Uphold status quo, individual achievement | Seek social change, collective interests |
The Bourgeoisie
The term bourgeoisie is one that dates back centuries, but rose to prominence with Marx’s concept of the class struggle.
In Marxism, the term bourgeoisie refers to a social order dominated by the ruling or capitalist class, those who own property and, thus, the means of production.
According to Marx, the bourgeoisie rules in capitalist societies. Economic power gives access to political power and cultural influence.
The bourgeoisie, sometimes called the capitalists, own the means of production. Their capital lets them acquire the means of creating goods and services, such as natural resources or machinery.
Capital lets the bourgeoisie purchase and exploit labor power. They use the surplus value that their employees generate to accumulate or expand their capital (Resnick & Wolff, 2013).
The key differentiation between the bourgeoisie and other social elites is this ownership of the means of production.
Landlords and state managers, for example, are not bourgeois. Why? Capitalists must be actively involved in capital accumulation. They use money to organize the means of production, and they employ and exploit labor to generate further capital.
Marx believed that the bourgeoisie began in medieval Europe with traders, merchants, craftspeople, industrialists, and manufacturers who could increase wealth through industry. These individuals employed labor to create capital (Resnick & Wolff, 2013).
Petty Bourgeoisie
Petty bourgeoisie is a term derived from French. It is often used, sometimes pejoratively, for a social class of small-size merchants and semi-autonomous producers. Their ideological position reflects that of the high bourgeoisie. They endeavor to emulate its morality.
Various Marxist theorists, including Marx himself, have used the term petty bourgeoisie for those sandwiched between the supposedly wealthy owners of the means of production and the oppressed proletariat.
In Marx’s categorization of social classes, the petty bourgeoisie are self-employed, or those who employ a few laborers in their economic activity.
These are associated with the shop-keeping or independent artisan class, who form a buffer between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
The Modern Bourgeoisie
The bourgeoisie of today includes CEOs, major shareholders, corporate executives, financial elites, and tech billionaires.
Like the 19th-century capitalists Marx observed, they control the means of production – though production today may include factories, digital platforms, global corporations, and vast networks of data.
-
Economic dominance: These individuals and groups command enormous wealth. A small minority owns a disproportionate share of global assets, stocks, and companies.
-
Political and cultural influence: Ownership brings not just money, but power. The bourgeoisie lobby governments, fund political campaigns, and shape laws in their favour. Their interests are often protected through tax loopholes, weak regulation, and corporate-friendly policies.
-
Control of ideology: Beyond politics, the ruling class influences culture and values through control of media, advertising, and education. This makes capitalist systems appear normal, meritocratic, or inevitable, while concealing the structural inequalities on which they rest.
The Proletariat
The second major class in Marxism is the proletariat, who own their labor, but none of the means of production.
Because these workers have no property, they must find employment to obtain an income.
In Marx’s view, the proletariat compose the majority of society. They sell their labor to survive.
Engels portrayed the proletariat as a class in his study of working-class life in Manchester, The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 (Engels, 1845/2010). It was written at the same time as Marx’s discovery of the proletariat on the streets of Paris.
Proletarians literally have nothing to sell but their labor power.
Unlike the bourgeoisie, the proletariat does not own the means of production.
Karl Marx considered this dynamic to be one of exploitation. The Bourgeoisie absorbs the value of the goods and services that the proletariat produce. It never pays this value back.
In a capitalist society, the proletariat are legally free but separated from the means of production. They receive only the cost of subsistence, not the value their labour produces.
Exploitation means the proletariat cannot earn enough to acquire their own means of production.
Without them, workers lack the factors of production. This keeps them in a continual cycle of exploitation by capitalists (Resnick & Wolff, 2013).
Being confined to a component of production also means that workers lose value and are potentially less skilled when seeking other employment (Chiapello, 2013).
The Modern Proletariat
The proletariat has expanded far beyond traditional industrial workers. In modern economies, it includes gig workers, delivery drivers, call centre employees, service staff, and many salaried white-collar professionals who lack control over production.
-
Dependence on wages: Most people today, like Marx’s proletariat, survive by selling their labour for wages or salaries. They do not own significant capital and cannot live off investments or property alone.
-
Exploitation and surplus value: Workers typically generate more value than they are paid. For example, a fast-food worker might generate hundreds of pounds or dollars of profit in a day, while only receiving a fraction as wages. The surplus is captured by the employer.
-
Polarisation of jobs: The modern labour market is “hourglass-shaped”: high-skill, high-pay jobs at the top, and insecure, low-paid jobs at the bottom, with fewer stable mid-level positions. This increases dependence on the bourgeoisie for precarious work.
-
Alienation: Many modern workers experience alienation, feeling disconnected from their labour and its products. A factory worker on an assembly line and a gig worker whose app-based employer controls hours, pay, and conditions both feel it.
Proletariat Revolution
Marxists see capitalism as an unstable system. It will eventually produce a series of crises.
The more that capitalism grows, the more people take advantage of it, and the more oppressed, degraded, and exploited the proletariat will be (Marx & Engels, 1967).
According to Marxists, this will eventually result in a revolt by the proletariat. Capitalism would give way to a socialist or communist state.
In the Communist Manifesto, written in 1848, Marx and Engels proposed that the proletariat revolution was inevitable. They argued that continued exploitation, with increasingly worse working conditions and low wages, would eventually drive workers to revolt (Marx & Engels, 1967).
Marx argued that a social revolution would mean changing the existing social and political system from a capitalist to a communist society. A communist society has no social classes or private property.
Capitalism would be replaced by a classless society in which collective ownership replaces private property. In short, society would become communist.
The bourgeoisie and proletariat remain central categories for understanding inequality.
The bourgeoisie, in both traditional and new forms, continue to own and control wealth, resources, and culture.
The proletariat, though more diverse than in Marx’s time, are still dependent on wages and vulnerable to exploitation.
Challenges and Nuances to the Two-Class Model
Although Marx’s framework highlights structural inequality, modern sociologists emphasise that class divisions are more complex than a simple two-way split.
Rise of a Complex Middle Class
-
The expansion of professionals, managers, and skilled workers complicates Marx’s model.
-
These individuals often have high incomes and status without owning the means of production.
-
Their position relies on educational qualifications and professional expertise, making them distinct from both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
-
This “new middle class” includes doctors, teachers, accountants, and engineers, with internal divisions (upper-middle vs. lower-middle) based on income, lifestyle, and prestige.
Affluent Workers and the Embourgeoisement Thesis
By the 1950s and 1960s, rising wages, home ownership, and consumer goods among manual workers led some commentators to argue that “embourgeoisement” was under way. On this view, the working class was dissolving into an enlarged, comfortable middle class, making Marx’s two-class antagonism obsolete.
Goldthorpe et al. (1969) tested this directly.
- Aim: To test whether affluent manual workers were assimilating into the middle class in outlook, sociability, and political behaviour, or remained a distinct working class despite rising living standards.
- Method: Researchers used structured interviews with workers at three highly paid Luton manufacturing plants, a “most likely” test case for embourgeoisement. They compared them with lower-middle-class white-collar workers in the same town.
- Results: The workers matched white-collar consumption standards but not middle-class social patterns. They socialised mainly with kin and workmates, saw work chiefly as a means to a wage, and voted overwhelmingly Labour.
- Conclusion: The embourgeoisement thesis was not supported. Affluent manual workers formed a “new working class”, home-centred but no less structurally working class than the proletariat it was replacing.
This remains one of the most influential direct tests of whether rising affluence erodes the proletariat as a distinct class. Its central finding has proved durable: consumption convergence is not class convergence.
However, it studied one industry, one town, and one period. Luton was chosen as the case most favourable to the thesis, so a negative result cannot show that embourgeoisement never happens. The study also says nothing about today’s service and gig workforce.
Postmodernism and Decline of Class Identity
-
Postmodernist thinkers argue that class is no longer the main source of identity.
-
Instead, identity is shaped by consumer choices, lifestyle, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality.
-
People may acknowledge inequality exists but are less likely to describe themselves in class terms. For example, many working-class individuals identify as “middle class” based on lifestyle or aspiration.
Pakulski and Waters (1996) made this case most fully. They argued that diffusing property ownership, rising consumer power, and “status conventionalism” had replaced class position with lifestyle-based stratification. Status conventionalism means that people with different jobs but similar spending power and taste differ in status, not class.
Critics disagree. They argue that ownership of productive wealth has, if anything, concentrated since Pakulski and Waters wrote. The affluent-worker research above shows how easily rising consumption can be mistaken for the dissolution of class.
Shift to Postindustrial, Information-Based Economies
-
Economic power today often lies in control of information, technology, and networks, rather than traditional ownership of factories.
-
Figures like tech moguls and media conglomerates represent a new kind of bourgeoisie.
-
The outsourcing of manufacturing and the dominance of service-sector jobs have eroded the traditional blue-collar working class.
-
This transition has created an identity crisis for some groups, particularly working-class men, as stable jobs disappear and communities lose their economic base.
Meritocracy and Cultural Capital
-
Functionalists argue modern societies operate as meritocracies, where success depends on talent and hard work.
-
Conflict theorists, however, view meritocracy as a myth that masks inequality.
-
Access to cultural capital (language, values, and knowledge passed down by middle- and upper-class families) gives the bourgeoisie and upper middle class an enduring advantage.
-
Schools and universities often reproduce these inequalities by rewarding the cultural capital of the privileged, while blaming working-class failure on individuals rather than structures.
Historical Context: The Rise of the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat
The origins of the bourgeoisie and proletariat are tied to the massive social, economic, and technological changes of the Industrial Revolution.
As societies shifted from farming to factory production, new classes emerged that reflected the realities of capitalism.
From Farms to Factories
Before industrialisation, most people lived in agricultural, preindustrial societies.
Life centred on farming, with families working together to produce what they needed.
Social status was largely fixed at birth: the landed nobility owned the fields, while peasants and serfs worked them.
The division of labour was simple: farmers, blacksmiths, and bakers, usually within small, rural communities.
The 18th and 19th centuries brought a dramatic transformation:
-
Technological invention: Innovations like the steam engine allowed goods to be produced faster and more cheaply.
-
Factory system: Production moved from small workshops into large factories, where workers laboured for an employer rather than for themselves.
-
Urbanisation: People left the countryside in huge numbers to find jobs in industrial cities.
The Birth of the Bourgeoisie
This new economic system, capitalism, was based on private ownership of factories, tools, and land, all used for the pursuit of profit.
Out of it rose the bourgeoisie, the capitalist class who owned the means of production.
-
They were the factory owners, industrialists, and entrepreneurs who built vast fortunes by running businesses.
-
Unlike the old feudal aristocracy, this group gained power through wealth earned in their lifetimes, not inherited land. Families like the Rockefellers became symbols of this new elite.
-
Their economic power extended into politics, law, and culture. As Marx argued, those who control the economy shape the whole “superstructure” of society, ensuring that laws and institutions protect their property and interests.
The Birth of the Proletariat
The same forces that created the bourgeoisie also gave rise to the proletariat, or working class.
-
As farming declined, displaced peasants and rural labourers moved into cities to work in factories.
-
They owned no factories or land, only their ability to work. To survive, they had to sell this labour to the bourgeoisie in return for wages.
-
Conditions were harsh: long hours, unsafe environments, and extremely low pay. The workers produced wealth, but most of it flowed upward to the factory owners.
Marx argued this system was fundamentally exploitative.
The bourgeoisie profited by extracting surplus value – the difference between what workers produced and what they were paid.
This left the proletariat alienated: cut off from their labour, from each other, and from a sense of control over their own lives.
Critical Evaluation of the Two-Class Model
The two-class model has real explanatory power. A single, testable criterion, ownership of the means of production, organises a wide range of documented inequalities in political influence, education, and criminal justice. It also lends itself to measurement more readily than vaguer, status-based accounts of inequality.
Much of the criticism targets one simplifying move: reducing a complex, multidimensional social hierarchy to a single binary.
Mixed Evidence on Class Polarisation
The evidence cuts in more than one direction:
- Supports the model: Sutherland’s (1949) finding on differential criminal enforcement supports the prediction that ownership protects against the ordinary force of the law.
- Complicates polarisation: Affluent workers neither dissolved into the bourgeoisie nor became immiserated, as classical theory predicted. They formed a distinct “new working class” (Goldthorpe et al., 1969).
- Warns against overstatement: Some corporate prosecutions do end in imprisonment. The evidence shows a systematic disparity in the probability and severity of sanction, not an exceptionless rule (Garrett, 2014).
Taken together, the studies point to an intermediate outcome that neither the two-class model nor the embourgeoisement thesis fully predicted. The correct reading is one of systematic disparity between the classes, not exceptionless rules. That qualification should stay in view alongside the strong general pattern the earlier sections document.
Rival Theories of Class
Max Weber treated class as one dimension among several. His successors prefer a graded, multi-factor measure to a stark two-class split.
John Goldthorpe’s class scheme is the most influential empirical alternative. It sorts occupations by market situation (pay, security, and prospects for advancement) and work situation (autonomy and authority in the job).
The result is around a dozen class locations, commonly compressed into service, intermediate, and working classes. The scheme has been used across many countries to study social mobility (Erikson & Goldthorpe, 1992).
The scheme captures real gradations of advantage. A senior salaried professional and a routine clerical worker both sit outside Marx’s bourgeoisie, yet they occupy very different positions.
Critics counter that occupational schemes under-weight the tiny but immensely powerful class of large capital owners, who barely register in survey data (Westergaard, 1995). That risks writing the bourgeoisie out of the picture Marx’s ownership criterion was designed to capture.
The two approaches are best read as complementary. Goldthorpe’s scheme suits gradations of advantage and mobility among the employed, while the ownership criterion shows where ultimate economic power resides.
Limits and Lasting Value
The binary says little about how gender and race stratify experience within each class. A wealthy woman’s relationship to patriarchal power differs from a wealthy man’s. Racialised workers have historically faced extra, class-independent exclusion and violence, even within the proletariat. Marxist feminism and intersectional critiques address this directly.
The heaviest historical weight against strong versions of the model is the revolution that never came. In the advanced capitalist economies Marx had most directly in mind, the structural asymmetry has not produced the overthrow of capitalism his theory predicted. The competing explanations are covered in criticisms of Marxism.
Despite these gaps, the core asymmetry endures. Unequal ownership of productive assets translates into unequal power over politics, schooling, and the law.
Even theorists who reject a strict class dichotomy generally accept that ownership is a major axis of stratification, though not the only one.
Contemporary Research
The clearest recent test of whether class boundaries are hardening or dissolving tracks mobility across generations. Can children escape the economic position they were born into?
Chetty et al. (2017) offer the strongest evidence, built on an entire country’s income records rather than a survey sample.
- Aim: To measure how the chance of out-earning one’s parents changed across US birth cohorts from 1940 to 1984. It also tested whether slower growth or less equal sharing of growth explains any decline.
- Method: They combined Census and Current Population Survey data with tax records to compare parents’ and children’s incomes at age thirty, cohort by cohort. They then modelled restoring either 1940s growth or 1940s equality.
- Results: About 90% of children born in 1940 out-earned their parents, against only around 50% of those born in 1984. Restoring more equal growth would revive mobility far more than restoring faster growth.
- Conclusion: The fading American dream stems more from the unequal distribution of growth than from slower growth. Redistribution, not growth alone, is the more promising route to higher mobility.
It is built on income records for a whole national population and published in Science. That makes it among the most rigorous tests of whether class position has become more or less permeable.
Its finding supports a structural reading of class over a functionalist account of an increasingly open society.
It has limits. It covers one country, and absolute mobility (out-earning one’s parents) differs from relative mobility (moving between class ranks), so it cannot show who crosses the owner and non-owner line. Its earliest cohorts also rest on statistical reconstruction.
The hourglass-shaped labour market described above is consistent with the same direction. Economists still debate its causes, including automation, globalisation, and the shift towards services.
References
Callinicos, A. (2003). Anti-capitalist manifesto. Polity.
Chetty, R., Grusky, D., Hell, M., Hendren, N., Manduca, R., & Narang, J. (2017). The fading American dream: Trends in absolute income mobility since 1940. Science, 356(6336), 398-406. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4617
Chiapello, E. (2013). Capitalism and its criticisms. New spirits of capitalism? Crises, justifications, and dynamics, 60-81.
Engels, F. (2010). The condition of the working-class in England in 1844 (F. K. Wischnewetzky, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511792700 (Original work published 1845)
Erikson, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (1992). The constant flux: A study of class mobility in industrial societies. Clarendon Press.
Garrett, B. L. (2014). Too big to jail: How prosecutors compromise with corporations. Harvard University Press.
Goldthorpe, J. H., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F., & Platt, J. (1969). The affluent worker in the class structure. Cambridge University Press.
Jahan, S., & Mahmud, A. S. (2015). What is capitalism. International Monetary Fund, 52(2), 44-45.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1967). The communist manifesto . 1848. Trans. Samuel Moore. London: Penguin, 15.
Mueller, D. C. (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of capitalism. Oxford University Press.
Pakulski, J., & Waters, M. (1996). The reshaping and dissolution of social class in advanced society. Theory and Society, 25(5), 667-691. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00188101
Rand, A. (1967). What is capitalism? (pp. 11-34). Second Renaissance Book Service.
Sagarra, E. (2017). The bourgeoisie. In A Social History of Germany 1648-1914 (pp. 253-262). Routledge.
Siegrist, E. (2007). Bourgeoisie, History of. in Ritzer, G. (Ed.). Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.
Stern, B. J. (1948). Engels on the Family. Science & Society, 42-64.
Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White collar crime. Dryden Press.
Resnick, S. A., & Wolff, R. D. (2013). Marxism. Rethinking Marxism, 25(2), 152-162.
Weber, M. (1921). The City.
Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, NY: Charles Scribner”s Sons (reprint 1958).
Weber, M. (1936). Social actions.
Westergaard, J. (1995). Who gets what? The hardening of class inequality in the late twentieth century. Polity Press.
