What is Structural Inequality?

To understand structural inequality, we need to first understand how the term “inequality” is applied. In the broadest sense, inequality is defined as “both unjust and unequal distributions and outcomes” (“Inequality,” DeVerteuil, 2009). Inequality is a term used to describe the margin of difference between the resources and opportunities available to different individuals or groups of individuals. We can find an effective analogy for the experience of inequality in Karl Marx’s Wage-Labour and Capital:

Marx conveys here that inequality is not merely about a lack of resources or opportunities. It is also about how proportionate or disproportionate they are to those afforded to our peers or fellow citizens. Inequality can affect people on an individual level or on a wider, structural level — when a person’s identity characteristics place them within a social category which is discriminated against. This discrimination can look like an active or passive denial of resources and opportunities. Actively, social systems may be set up intentionally to create this inequality, such as with apartheid in South Africa in the twentieth century. Passively, systems may emerge as a consequence of bias and prejudice that create inequality but were not explicitly implemented with the support of legislation. These systems, both active and passive, constitute what we describe as structural inequality.

Defining structural inequality

Structural inequality can be defined differently in different contexts; some of these more specific definitions emerge from the analysis of more specific forms of inequality, such as economic inequality. For example, in The Crisis Conundrum: How To Reconcile Economy and Society, sociologist Mauro Magatti defines structural inequality through a historical lens when exploring economic inequality: 

In this context, Magatti argues that the foundations for structural inequality are established by events and that the consequences of these events persist and endure through this inequality. Although not inaccurate, we may consider this definition limited. Magatti’s definition’s dependence on events or historical occurrences does not account for the more passive establishment of structures of inequality within a society, which may develop over time as a reflection of other trends of bias and prejudice. 

In looking at other definitions, we can understand structural inequality as contingent on circumstances which have more varied causes. In Inclusive States: Social Policy and Structural Inequalities, we find the following, broader definition:

Dani and de Haan’s definition better highlights the relationship between groups of people as an essential factor in inequality while more loosely defining structural inequality as “a condition” instead of the consequence of an event or occurrence. This definition of structural inequality better accounts for the institutionalization of gender inequality, for example. 

The institutionalization of inequality is a major factor in what separates structural inequality from  “inequality” broadly understood. When we talk about inequality being institutionalized, we are talking about how the opinions of individuals support and proliferate through institutions such as educational, legal, government, business, and healthcare systems disparities in access to resources and opportunities. No single individual can create or perpetuate a structure of inequality, but the maintenance of a structure of inequality is assisted by the actions of many individuals within institutions. As a consequence, even when the actions of individuals may no longer support this inequality, the systems of structural inequality will persist and endure regardless. Structural inequality describes systems which would require dismantling to remove their adverse effects (e.g., removal/rewriting of discriminatory policies). It would not be enough for people to simply stop propagating the beliefs the system is founded on. Sociologist Joan Huber writes in On The Origins of Gender Inequality about the widespread maintenance of gender inequality, stating that:

This vested interest in maintaining gender inequality cannot be attributed to one singular event, social norm, or practice across the entirety of gender inequality’s global history, but its maintenance in various societies can be explained, in part, through the institutionalization of that maldistribution of resources, to the advantage of one social party over another.

We may also notice some parallels between the explanation of structural inequality and the arguments of theories such as Critical Race Theory, which states that racism is structurally embedded in laws, policies, and institutions. Critical Race Theory allows us to envisage what racially-focused structural inequality looks like as well as understand its impact. We also see structural inequality as a key theme in Queer Theory, which postulates that higher societal value is attributed to individuals who align with particular gendered and sexual norms — and that individuals deviating from those norms navigate a world rife with structural barriers to their security and freedom. 

Identifying structural inequality

Structural inequality can affect various aspects of daily life and impact the welfare and wellbeing of many different marginalized groups. Predominantly, structural inequality impacts an individual’s access to education, to healthcare, to capital and employment, and to spaces and geographies. If we return to the example of apartheid in South Africa as a form of actively imposed structural inequality, we can begin to better understand the broad impact one structure of inequality (in this case, racial segregation) can have when maintained by enough institutions within a geographical context. In Race Trouble: Race, Identity and Inequality in Post-Apartheid South Africa, Durrheim, Mtose, and Brown write of the far-reaching effects of apartheid on the quality of life of young black Africans: 

Durrheim, Mtose, and Brown’s examples here convey how a structure of inequality may impact more than one facet of daily life — and how facing structural inequality in one institution may compound the inequality experienced within another in later life. 

Structural inequality also explains how systems of inequality have a power and impact that individual acts of discrimination, or non-structural inequality, do not. In addressing the arguments often used by psychologists to explain racism as an outcome of individual prejudicial views, Durrheim, Mtose, and Brown state the following:

Durrheim, Mtose, and Brown acknowledge here how arguments attributing the perpetuation of inequality to the opinions of individuals en masse allow scholars to “ignore structural factors” and provide “little understanding of the social patterning” that allows inequality to proliferate — inequality with an impact and reach beyond the scope of the actions of disorganized social groups. It is only with structures in place, such as segregation through apartheid, which inform the running of businesses, schools, and healthcare institutions that inequality can disadvantage entire communities so completely. 

Recognizing how an individual can benefit from or be disadvantaged by multiple structures of inequality, we can begin to understand experiences under structural inequality to be intersectional in nature. Through the concept of intersectionality (sometimes referred to as intersectional feminist theory), scholars argue that the lived experience of navigating a world with multiple identity characteristics means often, where two or more of these characteristics intersect in the context of navigating inequality, that intersection can create a unique form of sociopolitical identity which is more than a sum of its parts. We could use intersectionality to describe, for example, the unique struggles faced by African-American women who are structurally disadvantaged both as women and as African-Americans in the US, and face particular hurdles contingent on being African-American women, not just African-American and a woman. Understanding the intersectional nature of structural inequality allows us to grasp how one system of structural inequality can support the maintenance of another, disadvantaging individuals from intersectional backgrounds disproportionately to their peers. You can read our study guide on Intersectionality to learn more about its conception, research applicability, and social impact. 

Significant texts on structural inequality

If you are interested in learning more about the mechanisms behind the emergence and maintenance of structural inequalities, Durable Inequality (1998) by Charles Tilly is essential reading. Tilly, regarded as one of the “founding fathers” of twenty-first century sociology, provides invaluable insight into social inequalities in this manifesto,  written to be applied to the analysis of all cases of inequality between social categories. Tilly also unpacks how social categories are created and what exploitation of these inequalities looks like using various historical examples. Durable Inequality is also indexed so that readers interested in Tilly’s writings on a particular social group, historical period, or fellow scholar of inequality can better find relevant content. 

For scholars interested in learning how we measure the impacts of structural inequality, Intersectional Inequality: Race, Class, Test Scores, and Poverty (2016) by Charles C. Ragin and Peer C. Fiss is a text which narrows the gap between inequality-focused social theory and pragmatic sociological research. Centered around the research methodologies developed over the course of sociologist Ragin’s career, this publication also employs an intersectional approach. Ragin’s approaches to analyzing intersecting structures of inequality are effective, impactful, and contingent on developments in sociological theory in the last decade which have better addressed the complex and subjective nature of inequality as a predictor for other sociopolitical research outcomes. 

Histories of Global Inequality: New Perspectives (2019), edited by Christian Olaf Christiansen and Steven Jensen, is a text more in line with Mauro Magatti’s historically-dependent definition of structural inequality. Focused on the events which established structures of inequality, this collection confronts the socioeconomic aftermath of social phenomena such as colonialism, utilizing historical case studies to better contextualize existing structures of inequality across the globe. For academics approaching structural inequality from a standpoint informed by geography or international relations, this text is a valuable guide.

Understanding structural inequality can allow us to better identify when blame is incorrectly placed on individuals for systems of injustice and discrimination beyond the scope of their influence. Recognizing the historical and sociopolitical contexts of structural inequality empowers academics and activists to confront structural inequality at its source, recontextualizing the actions of individuals as part of larger systems. As a key theme in many interdisciplinary theories of social behavior and political injustice, structural inequality is a crucial component in our comprehension of effective social justice. 

Further resources and reading on Perlego

Inequality: An Entangled Political Economy Perspective (2018) by Mikayla Novak

The Globalization of Inequality (2017) by François Bourguignon and Thomas Scott-Railton

The Economics of Inequality (2015) by Thomas Piketty

Power and Inequality: Critical Readings for a New Era (2021) edited by Levon Chorbajian

Understanding Inequalities: Stratification and Difference (2019) by Lucinda Platt

Globalization, Poverty and Inequality: Between a Rock and a Hard Place (2013) by Raphael Kaplinsky

Bibliography

Christiansen, C. O., and Jensen, S. L. (eds.) (2019) Histories of Global Inequality: New Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3491348/histories-of-global-inequality-new-perspectives-pdf 

Dani, A. A., and de Haan, A. (eds.) (2008) Inclusive States: Social Policy and Structural Inequalities. World Bank Publications.

DeVerteuil, G. (2009) “Inequality,” in Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Elsevier. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00963-9. 

Durrheim, K., Mtose, X., and Brown, L. (2011) Race Trouble: Race, Identity and Inequality in Post-Apartheid South Africa. University of KwaZulu-Natal Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3847616/race-trouble-race-identity-and-inequality-in-postapartheid-south-africa-pdf

Huber, J. (2015) On the Origins of Gender Inequality. Routledge. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1568315/on-the-origins-of-gender-inequality-pdf

Magatti, M. (ed.) (2017) The Crisis Conundrum: How To Reconcile Economy and Society. Springer. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3497754/the-crisis-conundrum-how-to-reconcile-economy-and-society-pdf

Marx, K. (2011) Wage-Labour and Capital. Barnes & Noble. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3714408/wagelabour-and-capital-barnes-noble-digital-library-with-introduction-by-friedrich-engels-pdf

Ragin, C. C. and Fiss, P. C. (2017) Intersectional Inequality: Race, Class, Test Scores, and Poverty. University of Chicago Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1852493/intersectional-inequality-race-class-test-scores-and-poverty-pdf 

Tilly, C. (1998) Durable Inequality. Univ of California Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/552706/durable-inequality-pdf