Crime and Social Class in America

Crime and social class in America are connected through mechanisms whose theoretical elaboration and empirical documentation have occupied criminology from its Chicago School origins through the contemporary concentrated disadvantage literature. The relationship is more complex than either popular perception or simple correlation captures: lower-class individuals are more likely to be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated than higher-class individuals, but the relationship between class and actual criminal behavior — as distinct from official processing — is weaker and more variable than the official statistics suggest, because official criminal justice records reflect not only behavior but the differential enforcement patterns that police, prosecutors, and courts apply across social class lines.

Sociology and Criminology treats class and crime through multiple analytical levels simultaneously: the individual level of how class position shapes criminal motivation, opportunity, and behavior; the community level of how class-based residential segregation concentrates crime risk in specific neighborhoods; and the institutional level of how class shapes criminal justice processing independently of behavior. Each level reveals different dimensions of the class-crime relationship, and understanding how these levels interact is essential for both the theoretical account of why class predicts crime and the policy analysis of what addressing class inequality would do to crime rates.

Introduction

The measurement of social class in criminological research has varied substantially across studies and theoretical traditions, creating comparability challenges that complicate the synthesis of the class-crime literature. Researchers have used occupational prestige, income, educational attainment, welfare receipt, poverty status, and composite socioeconomic status measures — each capturing different dimensions of class position and producing different estimates of the class-crime relationship. Research by Tittle, Villemez, and Smith’s influential 1978 meta-analysis found weak and inconsistent associations between class and self-reported delinquency, generating the “class-crime controversy” that dominated the criminological literature for two decades. Subsequent research using better measures and more appropriate analytical methods has found somewhat stronger but still modest individual-level associations between socioeconomic disadvantage and criminal behavior, establishing that the class-crime relationship at the individual level is real but weaker than official statistics suggest — the gap reflecting the class differential in criminal justice processing rather than purely in behavior.

The analytical distinction between class as individual characteristic (a person’s own educational attainment, occupational status, and income) and class as structural position (the class composition of the community and neighborhood in which an individual lives and the structural opportunities and constraints that position entails) is essential for understanding the class-crime relationship. Research consistently finds stronger associations between community-level class indicators (concentrated disadvantage, neighborhood poverty) and crime than between individual-level class measures and individual-level criminal behavior — establishing that the criminologically consequential dimensions of class inequality operate through the ecological and structural mechanisms that community-level research documents rather than through the individual-level mechanisms that individual surveys measure.

Theoretical Frameworks

Strain Theory and Class

Robert Merton’s strain theory — with its focus on the disjunction between the universally prescribed cultural goal of economic success and the structurally unequal distribution of legitimate means — provides the most direct theoretical account of why class position predicts criminal behavior. The theory’s crime prediction is specific: individuals who are most strongly socialized into the cultural prescriptions of economic success while facing the most severe structural barriers to legitimate achievement will show the highest rates of instrumental property crime — the innovation adaptation that substitutes illegitimate for blocked legitimate means.

Research testing this prediction has found modest support at the individual level but stronger support at the aggregate level: communities with higher levels of economic aspiration-achievement gaps and more blocked legitimate opportunities show higher property crime rates, and societies with greater cultural emphasis on economic success alongside more blocked mobility show higher crime rates than societies with less cultural emphasis on achievement or more open mobility structures. This aggregate-level support for strain theory’s structural prediction — alongside the weaker individual-level results — is consistent with the ecological account that class inequality operates primarily through the community-level social disorganization mechanisms that aggregate inequality produces rather than through the individual-level aspirational frustration that Merton’s account emphasizes.

Social Disorganization and Class Ecology

The Chicago School’s social disorganization tradition established the ecological foundation for the class-crime relationship that remains the most empirically productive framework available. Shaw and McKay’s identification of low socioeconomic status as a primary determinant of social disorganization — through the mechanisms of inadequate institutional resources, high residential instability, and the social organizational weakness that poverty and limited resources produce — established the community-level pathway from class to crime that subsequent research has consistently confirmed.

Contemporary research on concentrated disadvantage — reviewed in the urban criminology articles — has refined this ecological account by establishing that it is the spatial concentration of multiple disadvantages rather than poverty alone that most powerfully predicts violent crime rates. Research by Sampson and colleagues documenting that concentrated disadvantage predicts violent crime through its effects on collective efficacy — weakening the community’s capacity for informal social control — established the specific mechanism through which class inequality at the community level translates into elevated crime rates at the individual level.

---

Table 1. Class and Crime: Theoretical Predictions and Evidence

Theory	Class-Crime Mechanism	Level of Analysis	Evidence	Policy Implication
Merton’s strain	Blocked legitimate opportunity motivates illegitimate means	Individual + aggregate	Stronger at aggregate than individual level	Expand legitimate opportunity; reduce aspiration-achievement gap
Social disorganization	Concentrated poverty weakens informal social control	Community	Strong — multilevel ecological studies	Community investment; reduce concentrated poverty
Differential association	Lower-class youth have higher exposure to pro-criminal definitions	Individual	Moderate — consistent with peer effects research	Prosocial peer programs; mentoring
Conflict theory	Lower-class behavior is criminalized; upper-class behavior is not	Institutional	Strong — enforcement disparity research	Reform criminal law; reduce enforcement disparities
Control theory	Lower-class youth have weaker social bonds to conventional institutions	Individual	Moderate — school and family bond research	School quality investment; family support programs
Social capital	Lower-class individuals have less social capital for legitimate opportunities	Individual + community	Strong — social capital and crime research	Community investment; network development

---

Relative Deprivation and Violence

While absolute poverty (the lack of resources to meet basic needs) predicts property crime through the direct economic motivation of need, relative deprivation — having less than others in one’s reference group — predicts violent crime through the status frustration, humiliation, and sense of injustice that status comparisons in unequal societies produce. Research on the inequality-violence relationship — reviewed in the social structure article — consistently finds that income inequality (measured by the Gini coefficient or similar distributional measures) predicts violent crime rates more strongly than absolute poverty, establishing relative deprivation as an independent mechanism in the class-violence relationship.

Research by Wilkinson and Pickett in The Spirit Level (2009) documented the remarkable cross-national correlation between income inequality and multiple social pathologies — including violent crime, imprisonment rates, mental illness, and reduced social mobility — across rich countries, establishing inequality rather than absolute poverty as the primary social determinant of these outcomes. Their analysis has been both influential (in public policy discourse) and contested (in academic research that has questioned the specific causal claims), but the basic finding — that more unequal societies show higher violence rates than less unequal societies at comparable income levels — is well-supported by the broader cross-national comparative literature.

White-Collar Crime and Class

Upper-Class Crime and Its Under-Prosecution

Edwin Sutherland’s foundational insight — that crime is not confined to the lower classes but is committed extensively by “persons of respectability and high social status in the course of their occupations” — remains among the most important challenges to the simple class-crime correlation. White-collar crime — the fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion, environmental violations, and corporate misconduct committed by individuals in privileged occupational positions — causes substantially more aggregate economic and social harm than the street crimes on which official statistics and enforcement resources are concentrated.

Research consistently documents that white-collar offenses produce aggregate harms dwarfing those of street crime: the 2008 financial crisis — driven by the fraudulent mortgage securitization practices that major financial institutions engaged in — produced economic losses estimated in the trillions of dollars, yet prosecutions were minimal. Research by Barak on the sociology of white-collar crime documented how the political power of corporate actors, the complexity of detecting and prosecuting financial fraud, and the cultural normalization of aggressive business practices combine to produce the massive under-enforcement of upper-class crime that makes the official statistics drastically misrepresent the true class distribution of harmful behavior.

The sociological analysis of white-collar crime’s under-enforcement connects directly to the conflict critique of criminal law: if criminal law is selectively enforced against lower-class behavior while upper-class harmful behavior is addressed through civil and administrative mechanisms with far lighter consequences, then the apparent class-crime correlation in official statistics reflects the class politics of criminalization as much as it reflects any real difference in harmful behavior across social classes. A criminology that takes the sociology of law seriously must present the class-crime relationship not only through the lens of street crime enforcement but through the equally important lens of white-collar crime under-enforcement.

Consumer Credit, Debt, and Financial Crime

The specific relationship between consumer credit, financial vulnerability, and crime represents a dimension of the class-crime relationship that traditional criminological frameworks have underemphasized. Research documenting the explosive growth of subprime lending, high-cost consumer credit, and predatory financial products in low-income communities has established a specific economic victimization dimension of class inequality: low-income individuals face systematically worse financial product terms than comparable wealthier individuals, producing debt traps, asset stripping, and financial instability that both constitute crimes against lower-class consumers and create the economic stress that elevates property crime motivation.

The relationship between financial distress and crime operates in both directions: financial predation victimizes lower-class individuals through the specific harms of predatory lending, wage theft, and consumer fraud; and financial distress from any source — predatory lending, job loss, unexpected medical expenses — elevates property crime through the economic strain mechanism that Agnew’s general strain theory specifies. Research on mortgage foreclosure and crime — finding that concentrated foreclosures predict property crime increases in affected neighborhoods — provides specific evidence of the financial distress-crime pathway that the class-crime theoretical framework implies but that traditional criminological measures of class position do not fully capture.

Class, Race, and Intersectionality

The Intersection of Class and Race

The relationship between class and crime in America cannot be adequately analyzed without engaging the intersection of class with race — the specific form of racialized class inequality that American history has produced and that the concentrated disadvantage literature documents as the primary structural context of urban violent crime. Research has consistently found that the class-crime relationship is stronger among Black Americans than among white Americans at the community level — that concentrated poverty predicts elevated crime more strongly in predominantly Black neighborhoods than in comparable white neighborhoods — establishing that the specific combination of racial residential segregation and concentrated poverty produces more criminogenic conditions than either race or class inequality alone would predict.

This interaction effect reflects the specific history of American racial inequality: the deliberate concentration of Black poverty in specific urban neighborhoods through the housing discrimination, public housing siting, and redlining policies that the concentrated disadvantage literature documents has produced a form of class inequality that is spatially more concentrated, institutionally more deficient, and socially more isolated than white poverty at comparable income levels. Research by Massey and Denton on American apartheid and by Wilson on the truly disadvantaged established the specific social structural character of racialized class inequality that accounts for the race-class interaction in crime predictions.

Class and the School-to-Prison Pipeline

The school-to-prison pipeline — the institutional pathway through which school disciplinary practices channel students into the criminal justice system rather than through educational advancement — operates with particular force on lower-class students, who face both higher rates of the behavioral problems that disciplinary responses address and higher rates of the punitive disciplinary responses that elevate criminal justice involvement. Research documenting that school suspension predicts subsequent delinquency independently of the behavior that produced it — and that suspension rates are substantially higher for lower-income students in lower-resourced schools — establishes the school as an institutional site where class inequality is translated into criminal justice inequality through the specific mechanisms of exclusionary discipline and institutional disinvestment.

The intersection of class and race in the school-to-prison pipeline is particularly consequential: Black and Hispanic students from low-income families face the compound disadvantage of racial discipline disparities operating within the class-based context of school quality inequality, producing the compound educational exclusion that the most disadvantaged students face. Research on the crime-prevention consequences of school reform — including investments in school quality, discipline reform, and restorative justice alternatives — establishes the education system as both a primary site of class-based inequality reproduction and a primary site for the policy interventions that could interrupt that reproduction.

Criminal Justice, Class Bias, and the Perpetuation of Inequality

Class Bias in Criminal Justice Processing

The criminal justice system’s differential treatment of individuals across social class lines — in the exercise of police discretion, prosecutorial charging, bail setting, and sentencing — compounds the class-behavior relationship by adding a class-processing relationship that official statistics conflate with the behavior relationship. Research has documented that wealthier defendants receive more favorable treatment at every stage of criminal justice processing: they are more likely to be released pretrial on bail rather than detained; they have access to more experienced legal representation; and they face lighter sentences for comparable offenses.

Research exploiting random assignment of judges with different sentencing tendencies has found that the pre-trial detention of poor defendants — who cannot afford bail while awaiting trial — substantially increases their probability of conviction and reduces their subsequent earnings, establishing pretrial detention as a specific class disadvantage in criminal justice processing that operates independently of the underlying behavior. Research on the plea bargaining process — through which 95% of criminal convictions are produced — has documented that defendants without resources for independent investigation, expert witnesses, and experienced private counsel are systematically disadvantaged relative to wealthier defendants even when represented by appointed counsel, establishing the class gradient in legal process quality as a specific mechanism through which class inequality is reproduced through criminal justice processing.

Poverty Reduction as Crime Prevention

Research on the crime consequences of poverty reduction programs — examined through the natural experiments that changes in EITC generosity, food stamp availability, and direct income transfer programs create — has found consistent evidence that reducing poverty reduces crime, particularly property crime. Research by Dahl and Lochner exploiting variation in EITC payments found significant reductions in violent and property crime associated with income increases for low-income families with children, establishing the causal crime-reduction consequences of poverty reduction alongside its direct welfare benefits. Research by Tuttle on the effects of food stamp access on crime found significant reductions in property crime associated with expanded food stamp availability — establishing a causal poverty-crime relationship that the correlational evidence alone cannot confirm.

These natural experiment findings establish the policy case for poverty reduction as crime prevention that the sociological theory of class and crime has always implied but that policymakers have been reluctant to accept: that addressing the structural inequality that the class-crime relationship reflects is more effective crime prevention than the enforcement investments that have historically dominated crime policy. The convergence of the sociological theory, the ecological evidence, and the natural experiment findings on the class-crime relationship provides the most comprehensive available evidence base for the proposition that reducing economic inequality reduces crime — a proposition whose policy implications remain contested not because the evidence is inadequate but because the political economy of crime policy consistently resists structural explanation in favor of individual attribution.

Wealth, Tax Policy, and Upper-Class Crime

The sociology of upper-class crime extends beyond Sutherland’s foundational analysis of white-collar crime to encompass the specific forms of harm that extreme wealth concentration enables and incentivizes — tax evasion, regulatory capture, financial fraud, and the political corruption that translates economic power into policy influence at the expense of public welfare. Research on tax evasion — using the IRS audit data, leaked offshore financial records, and other sources that provide partial windows into the hidden income of the wealthy — has documented that tax evasion is substantially more prevalent among the highest-income individuals and that enforcement capacity is systematically inadequate relative to the scale of the problem.

Research on the crime consequences of wealth concentration — examining whether more unequal wealth distribution, not only income inequality, predicts higher crime rates — is at an early stage relative to the income inequality literature but has found consistent associations between wealth inequality and crime that income inequality alone does not fully explain. The specific mechanisms through which wealth inequality elevates crime include the relative deprivation effects of extreme wealth visibility in unequal societies, the undermining of institutional legitimacy that concentrated wealth-based political power produces, and the specific resource effects of inadequate public goods — schools, healthcare, infrastructure — in communities that lack the tax base that concentrated wealth removes.

Research on the intergenerational transmission of class and crime — examining how parental class position shapes children’s criminal trajectories through both the economic circumstances it determines and the social environments it produces — has found consistent evidence that class disadvantage is transmitted across generations through multiple simultaneous pathways. Research by Hagan and Palloni documenting the intergenerational transmission of criminal careers — that children of incarcerated parents are substantially more likely to be incarcerated themselves — establishes that the class-crime relationship reproduces itself across generations through the specific mechanisms of parental incarceration, residential instability, and reduced human capital accumulation that class disadvantage generates. Research documenting that neighborhood effects on children’s outcomes are themselves shaped by parental class position — with lower-class parents having less ability to insulate their children from disadvantaged neighborhood effects — establishes the multilevel character of the intergenerational class-crime transmission that single-level analyses cannot capture.

The policy implication of the intergenerational transmission research is direct: addressing class inequality as crime prevention requires not only improving current conditions for individuals in disadvantaged class positions but interrupting the transmission mechanisms that reproduce class disadvantage across generations. Early childhood programs, family support services, school quality improvement, and neighborhood investment all address specific transmission mechanisms in ways that the intergenerational evidence supports — establishing that crime prevention investment in young children from disadvantaged class positions is among the highest-return available, producing not only immediate behavioral benefits but the intergenerational chain-breaking that prevents the next generation’s crime alongside the current generation’s.

Research on the crime consequences of specific class-reducing policies — minimum wage increases, EITC expansion, housing voucher programs, universal pre-K — has produced a growing portfolio of natural experiment evidence establishing that each reduces crime through the mechanisms the theoretical frameworks specify. Research by Agan and Makowsky on minimum wage increases and crime found significant reductions in property and violent crime associated with minimum wage increases, establishing the income-crime pathway causally. Research on the crime consequences of EITC expansion by Dahl and Lochner, and on housing mobility by Chetty, Hendren, and Katz, established the income and residential quality pathways. And research on universal pre-K by Heckman and colleagues established the developmental pathway through which early childhood investment produces long-term crime reductions by building the cognitive and social skills that conventional life success requires.

The portfolio of natural experiment evidence on class-reducing policies’ crime consequences is now sufficiently developed to support a strong empirical claim: reducing class inequality reduces crime, through multiple mechanisms and at multiple levels of analysis, with effect sizes that make class reduction investment competitive with or superior to the enforcement investments that have historically dominated American crime control spending. Communicating this portfolio clearly to the policy audiences that could act on it — making the evidential case for structural crime prevention as vigorously as the criminological research that establishes it — is one of the most important translational challenges facing contemporary criminology. The evidence is now sufficient to support confident policy claims; what remains is the political work of building the coalitions, communicating the research, and maintaining the pressure that structural crime prevention requires from the scholarly community that has established its evidential foundation. Class inequality is not a background condition of American life but a policy outcome whose modification would produce the crime reductions that the research evidence consistently predicts — making the criminology of class one of the most practically consequential research traditions in the discipline’s history.

Research on occupational crime at the intersection of class and organizational context — examining how organizational position, industry culture, and structural opportunity shape the probability of corporate crime — extends the sociology of class and crime from the street crime context where most criminological research operates to the organizational contexts where upper-class harmful behavior occurs. Research by Clinard and Yeager on corporate crime, and by Barnett on organizational crime, documented that corporate crime is substantially shaped by industry-level normative environments and competitive pressures that create opportunity and motivation for fraud, regulatory violation, and consumer harm in ways that conventional individualistic accounts of criminal motivation cannot explain. The organizational sociology of white-collar crime establishes that class position shapes crime not only through the individual-level mechanisms of strain and social learning but through the organizational and institutional contexts that different class positions provide access to — with the most powerful organizational positions providing the largest opportunities for the most consequential crimes.

Research on housing instability and class-related crime has examined the specific criminogenic consequences of the housing insecurity that lower-class individuals face at far higher rates than those with economic security — documenting that eviction, housing instability, and residential transiency elevate crime risk through the social disorganization, social bond disruption, and immediate material stress mechanisms that the social disorganization and strain traditions document. Research by Desmond’s Eviction Lab establishing the geographic concentration of eviction in specific urban neighborhoods demonstrates that housing instability — like concentrated poverty — is not randomly distributed but concentrates in the same communities that bear the heaviest burdens of other forms of class-related disadvantage, creating the compound disadvantage profile that the concentrated disadvantage literature documents as most powerfully criminogenic.

Conclusion

The class analysis of crime is simultaneously the most theoretically developed and the most politically contested in criminological research. Its theoretical development — from Merton’s structural strain through the Chicago School’s ecological analysis through the concentrated disadvantage framework — has produced a comprehensive multi-level account of how class inequality produces crime through the ecological, motivational, and processing mechanisms that decades of research have documented. Its political contestation — the resistance of American political culture to structural explanations that implicate economic inequality as a cause of crime — reflects the same power dynamics that the conflict critique of criminal law identifies as shaping which behaviors are criminalized and whose harmful conduct is addressed. The confluence of theoretical development, empirical accumulation, and natural experiment evidence that now characterizes the class-crime literature creates the strongest available scientific foundation for the claim that structural inequality causes crime — and for the policy corollary that reducing inequality is crime prevention. Whether American political institutions will act on this foundation is a political question whose answer will determine the crime rates of the next generation as surely as any enforcement investment that conventional crime policy makes.

Crime and social class in America are connected through structural mechanisms that criminology has documented across a century of theoretical development and empirical research. The class-crime relationship operates primarily at the community level through the concentrated disadvantage that class inequality spatially produces, not primarily at the individual level through the aspirational frustration that simple strain accounts emphasize. It operates through both the behavioral mechanisms that disadvantaged environments produce and the processing mechanisms that class bias in criminal justice reproduces and amplifies. And it includes the dramatically under-prosecuted crimes of upper-class individuals whose harmful behavior escapes the criminal label that the same behavior would receive from individuals in less powerful social positions.

The policy case that this sociology establishes is clear: reducing the class inequality that concentrated disadvantage reflects, addressing the class bias in criminal justice processing that compounds behavioral inequality with institutional inequality, and reforming the criminal law to reduce the selective criminalization of lower-class behavior while enforcing more vigorously against harmful upper-class behavior would simultaneously advance social justice and reduce crime. That this case remains unimplemented at the scale the evidence supports is a political failure whose explanation the sociology of crime policy must engage alongside the sociology of crime. The class analysis of crime’s causes demands the class analysis of crime policy’s resistance to structural remedies — and the sociology of crime that stops at documenting the class-crime relationship without analyzing the political economy that maintains it remains incomplete at the most consequential level.

References

1. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x
2. Barak, G. (2012). Theft of a nation: Wall Street looting and federal regulatory colluding. Rowman & Littlefield.
3. Clinard, M. B., & Yeager, P. C. (1980). Corporate crime. Free Press.
4. Dahl, G., & Lochner, L. (2012). The impact of family income on child achievement. American Economic Review, 102(5), 1927–1956. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.5.1927
5. Desmond, M. (2016). Evicted: Poverty and profit in the American city. Crown.
6. Dobbie, W., Goldin, J., & Yang, C. S. (2018). The effects of pre-trial detention on conviction, future crime, and employment. American Economic Review, 108(2), 201–240. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20161503
7. Hagan, J., & Palloni, A. (1990). The social reproduction of a criminal class in working-class London. American Journal of Sociology, 96(2), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.1086/229526
8. Hipp, J. R., & Kubrin, C. E. (2017). From the neighborhood to the city: How does the social ecology of a city shape crime rates across neighborhoods? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(3), 431–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816671945
9. Krivo, L. J., Peterson, R. D., & Kuhl, D. C. (2009). Segregation, racial structure, and neighborhood violent crime. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), 1765–1802. https://doi.org/10.1086/597285
10. Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Harvard University Press.
11. Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686
12. Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2013). Crime and the American dream (5th ed.). Wadsworth.
13. Pfaff, J. F. (2017). Locked in: The true causes of mass incarceration and how to achieve real reform. Basic Books.
14. Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2023). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Thinking critically about class and criminal justice (12th ed.). Routledge.
15. Rosenfeld, R., & Messner, S. F. (2021). Crime and the economy. SAGE.
16. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918
17. Shannon, S. K. S., Uggen, C., Schnittker, J., Thompson, M., Wakefield, S., & Massoglia, M. (2017). The growth, scope, and spatial distribution of people with felony records in the United States, 1948–2010. Demography, 54(5), 1795–1818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-0611-1
18. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press.
19. Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White collar crime. Dryden Press.
20. Tittle, C. R., Villemez, W. J., & Smith, D. A. (1978). The myth of social class and criminality. American Sociological Review, 43(5), 643–656. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094541
21. Tuttle, C. (2019). Snapping back: Food stamp bans and criminal recidivism. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(2), 301–327. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170490
22. Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation.
23. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. Allen Lane.
24. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. University of Chicago Press.