Skilled Out? Why Your Degree, Network, and Bank Account All Matter (And Fight Each Other)

How three types of capital shape your life chances—and why Marx and Weber were both right

Alt text: Abstract composition showing three overlapping zones in blue, orange, and light grey, representing economic, human, and social capital with small silhouettes at intersection points, visualizing how different forms of capital create friction and opportunity in class structures

You’re sitting in a graduate seminar, coffee growing cold, watching your classmate—the one whose parents funded an unpaid internship at the UN—casually mention their “summer research” in Geneva. Meanwhile, you’re calculating whether you can afford both textbooks and rent this month. You both have sociology degrees. You’re both “highly educated.” So why does your future look so different?

Welcome to the friction zone where three types of capital collide: the money in your bank account (economic capital), the credentials on your CV (human capital), and the people in your phone (social capital). Each promises mobility. Each creates barriers. And understanding how they interact might be the most valuable sociological insight for navigating your own career—and diagnosing why inequality persists despite rising education levels.

Theoretical Framing: From Marx vs. Weber to Sørensen’s Synthesis

The battle over how to understand social class has divided sociology for over a century. Karl Marx (1818-1883) saw class as exploitation: capitalists own the means of production, workers sell their labor, and the surplus value generated becomes profit that workers never see. Class positions are antagonistic—what benefits owners harms workers. Your class is your destiny.

Max Weber (1864-1920) rejected this determinism. For Weber, class was about life chances—the opportunities and constraints created by your “market situation.” Yes, resources are unequally distributed, but this doesn’t automatically produce class consciousness or inevitable conflict. A skilled worker and an unskilled worker are both “proletariat” to Marx, but Weber saw them as having fundamentally different life chances based on their qualifications.

Danish sociologist Aage B. Sørensen (1941-2001) spent his career trying to reconcile these positions through rent theory. His breakthrough: both Marx and Weber were right, but they were looking at different mechanisms. Inequality isn’t just about unequal distribution (Weber)—it’s about rent extraction (Marx’s exploitation, reframed). A rent is an income above what you’d earn in a perfectly competitive market. When you can extract rents, you have structural power. When you can’t, you’re vulnerable to others’ rent-seeking.

But here’s where Sørensen got really interesting: rents don’t just come from owning factories. They come from closure mechanisms—barriers that let some people extract value while excluding others. Professional credentials create rents (doctors charge more because of licensing barriers). Social networks create rents (who you know determines whether you even hear about the job). And yes, financial capital still creates rents (compound interest works while you sleep).

Enter the 3K-Model of Total Wealth: your life chances depend not on one type of capital, but on your ökonomisches Kapital (economic capital), Humankapital (human capital), and Sozialkapital (social capital)—and crucially, on how these three forms interact, convert, and conflict.

But we need to globalize this conversation. While Sørensen synthesized European thought, Brazilian sociologist Jessé Souza challenges the entire Northern framework. In his book A Ralé Brasileira (2009), Souza argues that class analysis built on European industrialization misses how colonial capitalism creates different forms of exploitation. The Brazilian underclass isn’t “unskilled”—they’re systemically excluded from the very institutions that would let them convert any capital form into mobility. Similarly, Indian sociologist Satish Deshpande shows how caste creates inheritance patterns of capital that Western class theory renders invisible. Your network isn’t just about “weak ties”—it’s about whether your social identity even allows you to form certain ties.

The Three Capitals: Properties, Investments, and Rents

Economic Capital: Money Reproduces Itself

Properties: Economic capital is liquid, transferable, and self-reproducing. A thousand euros invested at 5% annually becomes €1,050 next year without you lifting a finger. It’s “portable”—you can take it anywhere. It’s inheritable—your children start where you end.

Investment dynamics: You need money to make money. Buying a home requires a down payment. Starting a business requires seed capital. Even getting educated often requires loans or family support. This creates a Matthew effect: those who have, get more.

Rents from economic capital: In perfect competition, capital earns only its “normal return”—what any equally risky investment would earn. But market imperfections create opportunities for rent extraction:

Monopoly rents: If you own the only grocery store in a small town, you can charge more than competitive prices. Tech platforms extract monopoly rents through network effects (everyone’s on Instagram because everyone’s on Instagram).
Property rents: Real estate in desirable locations generates returns above the construction cost. Berlin’s housing crisis isn’t about building costs—it’s about positional goods: only so many apartments can be “near good schools and public transport.”
Financial rents: Information asymmetry lets insiders profit. High-frequency traders make millions exploiting microsecond advantages. This isn’t “skill”—it’s structural position.

Contemporary update: Since 2002, Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014) showed that r > g—the return on capital exceeds economic growth. This means wealth inequality accelerates automatically. Meanwhile, Mariana Mazzucato (The Value of Everything, 2018) demonstrates how financial capital increasingly extracts value rather than creating it, turning rent-seeking from an exception into the system’s core dynamic.

Human Capital: Your Brain as an Asset

Properties: Human capital is embodied (you can’t separate it from yourself), partially transferable (you can teach others, but slowly), and depreciates (skills become obsolete). Unlike financial capital, you can’t sell it directly—you rent out your labor time that embodies it.

Investment dynamics – individual perspective: You invest time and money in education, expecting higher future earnings. A sociology MA costs €20,000 in opportunity costs and fees. Is it worth it? That depends on the skill premium—how much more you’ll earn than with just a BA.

But here’s the friction: education is both an absolute good (more skills = more productivity) and a positional good (what matters is having more education than competitors). When everyone gets a BA, the BA becomes the new baseline. This is the credential inflation trap.

Investment dynamics – relational perspective: Human capital investment isn’t just individual. Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) showed that families invest differently based on their cultural capital—the habitus, tastes, and competencies passed down generationally. Upper-class families don’t just pay for education; they provide the cultural toolkit to navigate elite institutions.

Contemporary update: Raj Chetty’s Opportunity Atlas (2018) maps how geography determines human capital returns. The same degree earns vastly different returns in San Francisco vs. rural Mississippi. Meanwhile, the gig economy fragments human capital—your Uber rating becomes as important as your education, and algorithmic management extracts rents by controlling access to work.

Rents from human capital: This is where it gets controversial. Sørensen argued that credential barriers create rents. Doctors earn more than the free market would pay because licensing restricts supply. You can’t just learn medicine and start practicing—you need the credential, which requires getting through gatekeepers (medical schools, exam boards).

Similarly, internal labor markets create rents. Once you’re inside a company, you have advantages over external candidates—firm-specific knowledge, relationships, insider information. This creates insider-outsider dynamics: those with jobs defend their positions (unions negotiating seniority rules), making it harder for outsiders (especially youth) to enter.

But is this exploitation? Not in Marx’s sense—there’s no capitalist appropriating your surplus value. But there’s still closure: you benefit from excluding others. Graduate students teach undergrad classes for low pay, effectively subsidizing universities’ research missions. Is this exploitation or apprenticeship? The answer depends on whether it leads to positions where you can recoup those losses.

Global perspective: Sunita Parikh and Devesh Kapur (Defying the Odds, 2010) show how caste in India determines human capital accumulation across generations. Dalits (formerly “untouchables”) face discrimination even with identical qualifications. This isn’t “cultural capital”—it’s social exclusion that prevents capital conversion. Your human capital’s value depends on whether dominant groups recognize it as legitimate.

Social Capital: Networks as Resources

Properties: Social capital is relational (exists between people, not within them), contextual (valuable networks in academia are different from business), and multiplicative (your network’s value depends on their networks). It’s the least portable—moving cities means rebuilding it.

Investment dynamics – individual: You invest time in relationships, expecting future returns. Going to conferences isn’t just about learning—it’s about networking. Having coffee with a professor isn’t social; it’s strategic.

But social capital requires reciprocity. You can’t just take—you need to give. This creates opportunity costs: time spent networking is time not spent researching. And returns are uncertain—your network might never help you, or they might become crucial for landing your dream job.

Investment dynamics – structural: Social capital isn’t just individual; it’s embedded in structures. James Coleman (1926-1995) showed that closure (dense, interconnected networks) facilitates trust and norm enforcement, while Ronald Burt demonstrated that structural holes (bridging disconnected groups) create information advantages.

The friction: Which is better? Closure helps you mobilize your existing network’s resources. Structural holes give you access to diverse information. The answer depends on your goal. Lawyers need closure (trust matters). Entrepreneurs need structural holes (novelty matters).

Rents from social capital: This is where class becomes really insidious. Social capital creates labor market segmentation. Jobs are allocated through networks, not just merit. The best positions are often never advertised—they’re filled through recommendations.

Granovetter’s strength of weak ties (1973) showed that acquaintances (weak ties) are more valuable for job searches than close friends (strong ties) because they connect you to different information pools. But here’s the class angle: weak ties are unevenly distributed. Upper-class families have weak ties to CEOs and professors. Working-class families have weak ties to other working-class people.

Trade unions are institutionalized social capital that can extract rents for workers—but at the cost of excluding outsiders. Unions negotiate contracts that benefit members (insiders) while making it harder for unemployed youth (outsiders) to enter. This creates intergenerational conflict disguised as class solidarity.

Contemporary update: Angus Deaton and Anne Case (Deaths of Despair, 2020) show how collapsing social capital in post-industrial communities drives health crises. It’s not just lost jobs—it’s lost belonging. Meanwhile, danah boyd (It’s Complicated, 2014) reveals how digital social capital reproduces offline inequality: wealthy teens use social media to enhance mobility, poor teens use it for “digital drama” that reinforces constraints.

Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong already identified in 1947 how differential mode of association shapes social capital differently than Western individualism. In Chinese society, network obligations follow concentric circles from family outward, creating different rent-extraction dynamics than Western class-based solidarity. You can’t simply import Western social capital theory—culture shapes how networks create opportunity and constraint.

Theoretical Tensions: Where the Schools Clash

Here’s where it gets good—and messy. The 3K-Model doesn’t resolve theoretical tensions; it reveals them.

Micro vs. Macro: Is class an individual attribute (your capital portfolio) or a structural position (your role in exploitation relations)? The 3K-Model says both. Your individual capitals are real, but their value depends on market structures you don’t control. You can invest in education, but whether it pays off depends on labor market closure mechanisms.

Agency vs. Structure: Can you escape your class origin through smart capital investment, or are conversion rates rigged against you? Both. Social mobility is possible (contra Marx) but systematically constrained (contra liberal meritocracy). The question isn’t whether mobility exists—it’s whether it’s random (a lottery) or structured (some groups face steeper slopes).

Rational Choice vs. Cultural Reproduction: Do actors strategically invest in capital forms (Becker, Coleman), or do class backgrounds determine what investments feel “natural” (Bourdieu)? Again, both. Upper-class children don’t just have more capital to invest—they’ve internalized dispositions that make elite institutions feel like home. Working-class students at elite universities experience symbolic violence—the subtle message that they don’t belong, which erodes their ability to activate social capital even when they have it.

Conflict vs. Functionalism: Do rents represent exploitation (Marx), or do they incentivize investment (neoclassical economics)? Sørensen’s answer: sometimes both. Patent protections create temporary monopoly rents, which reward innovation (functional) but also allow pharmaceutical companies to charge exploitative prices for life-saving drugs (conflict). The question isn’t whether rents exist—it’s whether they’re productive (incentivizing value creation) or extractive (pure redistribution upward).

Why This Matters Now: The Contemporary Stakes

If you’re reading this in 2025, you’re watching these dynamics play out in real time:

The Great Resignation / Lie Flat Movement: After COVID, workers worldwide—from American professionals to Chinese youth—are refusing low-paying, high-exploitation jobs. This isn’t laziness; it’s a rent strike. When human capital’s returns fall below living costs, why invest?

Credential Inflation: A PhD is the new MA, an MA is the new BA. But wages haven’t risen proportionally. You’re running faster to stay in place. This is positional good competition gone mad—everyone invests more but aggregate returns stay constant.

Platform Capitalism: Uber, DoorDash, and Deliveroo extract rents by controlling access to customers. Drivers own their cars (capital) and have skills (human capital), but platforms capture most value by controlling the network (social capital). This is 21st-century rent extraction.

Housing Crisis: In Berlin, Munich, London, San Francisco—real estate has become the primary site of rent extraction. Homeownership divides generations: boomers extract rents from millennials through property ownership, creating intergenerational class conflict that crosscuts traditional worker-owner divides.

ESG and Stakeholder Capitalism: Corporations now claim to serve all stakeholders, not just shareholders. Is this genuine transformation or rent-seeking through reputation? When companies benefit from “ethical” branding while extracting rents through market power, it’s exploitation with a progressive face.

Arbeitsmarktrelevanz: Why This Makes You More Employable

Let’s be honest: “I studied class theory” doesn’t land jobs. But “I can diagnose why organizational change initiatives fail by analyzing social capital networks” absolutely does.

Transferable Skills from This Analysis

1. Stakeholder Analysis: You now understand that people’s interests aren’t determined by their job titles but by their capital portfolios and network positions. When you join a consulting firm and they ask you to analyze resistance to change, you won’t just categorize people as “pro” or “anti.” You’ll map:

Who extracts rents from the current system (and thus resists change)?
Who has capital to invest in transition (and thus supports change)?
Who has the social capital to mobilize others?

This is what consultants charge €2000/day to do. You just learned the theoretical foundation.

2. Rent-Seeking Detection: You can spot when “skills shortage” narratives are really about defending rents. Tech companies claim they can’t find qualified workers—but they also lobby against making it easier for foreign workers to enter (protecting insider rents). You can see through this. In marketing, product management, or policy work, being able to identify when “expert” narratives are self-serving rent protection is incredibly valuable.

3. Network Strategy: You know that networking isn’t schmoozing—it’s strategic capital investment. In HR, you can design onboarding that builds bridging social capital. In sales, you can identify structural holes where your company can add value. In entrepreneurship, you know when to build closure (trust) vs. reach (diversity).

4. Data-Driven Inequality Analysis: Every organization has internal labor markets, credential requirements, and network effects. You can analyze promotion patterns and identify where rents are being extracted unfairly. This is what DEI consultants do—but you understand the theoretical mechanism, not just the symptoms.

Professional Applications Across Fields

Human Resources: You understand why “hire for culture fit” reproduces homogeneity (it’s social capital closure). You can design recruitment that breaks rent-seeking insider networks without destroying beneficial trust relationships.

Product Management: You recognize when user adoption depends on network effects (social capital) vs. actual utility (product quality). This shapes your growth strategy—do you seed early adopters with bridging ties or build closed communities?

Policy Analysis: You can diagnose why well-intentioned policies fail. Minimum wage increases benefit insiders (those with jobs) but might exclude outsiders (those seeking entry). You can anticipate unintended consequences because you think structurally.

Consulting: Your value is pattern recognition. Clients describe unique problems. You recognize: “This is a rent-extraction dynamic.” “This is credential inflation.” “This is social capital closure.” You’re not smarter than clients—you have theoretical frameworks they lack.

Nonprofit/NGO Work: Understanding capital conversion is crucial for anti-poverty work. Why doesn’t more education reduce inequality? Because without social capital to activate it, human capital has low returns. Effective programs must build multiple capitals simultaneously.

Journalism: You can investigate how inequality reproduces, not just that it exists. Why do refugees struggle despite high education? Because their social capital (networks) and cultural capital (credential recognition) don’t transfer.

Your Competitive Advantage

Most business school graduates learn finance and strategy. They understand how markets work. You understand why markets are structured the way they are—and who benefits. That’s not a soft skill; it’s seeing the game board while others only see their pieces.

When a company launches a new internal market (gig work platforms, internal consulting models), most employees adapt. You can predict who will thrive (those with bridging social capital) and who will suffer (those dependent on relationship-based trust). That foresight is valuable.

Practical Methodological Task: Mapping Your Own Capital Portfolio

Time required: 90-120 minutes
Goal: Apply the 3K-Model to analyze your own life chances and identify strategic investment opportunities

Option A: Quantitative Capital Audit

Step 1: Data Collection (40 minutes)

Create a spreadsheet with three sheets: Economic, Human, Social Capital.

Economic Capital Inventory:

Liquid assets (savings, stocks)
Productive assets (computer, car if used for work)
Debt (student loans, credit cards)
Family resources you could access in crisis
Calculate net economic capital

Human Capital Inventory:

Credentials (degrees, certificates, licenses)
Years of work experience by field
Languages spoken (proficiency level)
Technical skills (rate proficiency 1-5)
For each credential/skill, estimate: Time invested (hours), Money invested (€), Market value (annual salary premium)

Social Capital Inventory: Survey your network:

Core ties (speak to weekly): List 5-10 people
Significant ties (speak to monthly): Count
Weak ties (could contact for advice): Estimate number
For core ties, note: Their occupation, Your relationship strength (1-5), Their potential to provide: job leads, expert advice, emotional support, financial help

Step 2: Analysis (30 minutes)

Calculate:

Capital ratio: What % of your total wealth is economic vs. human vs. social? (Use proxy measures: economic = actual €; human = estimated salary premium × 10 years; social = number of high-value ties × €10,000 estimated value)
Conversion efficiency: Do you have credentials (human capital) but no network to activate them (social capital)? Do you have networks but no credentials to leverage?
Rent exposure: Are you earning rents (credential barriers protecting your income)? Are others extracting rents from you (paying rent for housing that exceeds building costs)?

Step 3: Interpretation (15 minutes)

Write 2 paragraphs:

Which capital form is your strength? Your weakness?
What does this imply for your career strategy? Should you invest in credentials, network-building, or income generation?

Step 4: Reflection (15 minutes)

Consider:

How much of your capital portfolio is inherited vs. self-generated?
If you swapped capital portfolios with a classmate from a different background, would your life trajectory change?
What structural barriers prevent you from converting one capital form to another?

Deliverable: Submit your spreadsheet + 1-page analysis showing your capital profile and strategic recommendations

Option B: Qualitative Network Ethnography

Step 1: Field Observation (60 minutes)

Conduct a “capital conversion observation” in one of these settings:

University career fair (how do students with different capitals access recruiters?)
Professional networking event (who connects with whom, and why?)
Your own workplace (how do people navigate internal job postings?)
Online professional network (LinkedIn: who gets responses to cold messages?)

Take field notes documenting:

Who has access? (economic barriers: entry fees? human capital barriers: invitation-only? social capital barriers: existing relationships?)
Conversion moments: When does one capital form get activated to generate another? (Someone uses a weak tie to get an introduction [social → social], which leads to a job [social → economic])
Closure mechanisms: What prevents certain people from participating? (dress codes, jargon, implicit rules)

Step 2: Pattern Identification (20 minutes)

Review your field notes. Code for:

Instances of rent extraction (someone’s position allows them to extract value)
Capital conversion (economic → human, human → social, etc.)
Closure (barriers excluding outsiders)
Bridging (someone spanning structural holes)

Step 3: Theoretical Interpretation (25 minutes)

Write 2-3 pages analyzing:

What types of capital were most valuable in this context?
What closure mechanisms operated? Who did they benefit/harm?
How did social capital mediate human and economic capital? (Did credentials matter, or only networks? Or both?)
Connect your observations to at least two theorists from the post (Sørensen, Bourdieu, Coleman, Granovetter, etc.)

Step 4: Reflexive Memo (15 minutes)

Write 1 paragraph on:

What was your own capital position in this setting?
What capitals did you activate (or fail to activate)?
If you conducted this observation again with a different capital portfolio, what would you notice differently?

Deliverable: Submit field notes + 2-3 page analysis connecting observations to theory + reflexive memo

Why This Task Matters Professionally

The quantitative version? That’s financial planning and career capital assessment—skills used by career coaches and financial advisors who charge €100-200/hour.

The qualitative version? That’s organizational ethnography and user research—skills used by UX researchers, management consultants, and market researchers earning €50,000-80,000+ annually.

You’re not just learning theory—you’re practicing methods that have market value. And you’re learning to see your own position structurally, which is the first step toward strategic agency.

Contradictive Brain Teaser: The Anti-Meritocracy Paradox

Here’s where things get uncomfortable.

We’ve just argued that success depends on three capitals—economic, human, and social. And we’ve shown that these capitals are unequally distributed, with upper-class families passing down advantages in all three forms. This suggests that meritocracy is a myth: success isn’t about talent; it’s about inherited capital portfolios.

But wait.

If success is entirely determined by capital inheritance, why do we advocate for education (human capital investment)? Why do we tell working-class students “get your degree—it’s your ticket out”? Aren’t we selling them a false promise?

And here’s the deeper tension: If credential inflation means that everyone needs more education just to maintain their position, then education is a Red Queen race—you run faster just to stay in place. But the aggregate outcome is zero-sum: we all have more credentials, but the same proportion of us end up in good jobs. So education doesn’t reduce inequality; it just legitimizes it. Those who succeed can claim they “earned it” through hard work, while those who fail internalized the idea that they deserved to fail.

The paradox: Human capital investment is both individually rational (you need it to compete) and collectively wasteful (it doesn’t increase total opportunity—just redistributes it). It’s like standing up at a concert to see better: rational for you, but if everyone stands, no one sees better and everyone’s uncomfortable.

So should we tell students not to invest in education? That sounds absurd. But if we tell them to invest, aren’t we perpetuating the system that exploits them?

Push it further: Sørensen argued that rents create antagonistic interests. Union members (insiders) have interests opposed to unemployed youth (outsiders). But we celebrate unions as worker solidarity! Are unions working-class organization or rent-seeking cartels? Can they be both?

And what about you, reading this blog post? You’re investing in cultural capital right now—learning sophisticated theory that distinguishes you from “less educated” people. You’re building distinction (Bourdieu’s term). But distinction requires someone to be distinguished from. Your capital only has value if others lack it. So your education requires others’ exclusion.

The ultimate friction: Can you use capital theory to achieve personal mobility without perpetuating the system that made mobility necessary? Or does understanding how the game works make you complicit in playing it?

I don’t have an answer. But sitting with this discomfort—this cognitive friction—is what sociological thinking requires. We can’t just analyze inequality from outside. We’re embedded in it. Your degree is both a tool for understanding exploitation and a mechanism of exclusion.

What do you do with that?

Questions for Reflection

Map your own capital portfolio. Which form is your strength? Your vulnerability? How did family background shape this distribution?
Identify one rent you currently extract (credential barriers protecting your income, insider networks giving you opportunities). Now identify one rent extracted from you. Are you simultaneously exploiter and exploited?
If credential inflation means more people need degrees for the same jobs, who benefits from expanding higher education? Universities? Students? Employers? Society?
The 3K-Model argues that social capital mediates human and economic capital conversion. Can you think of a case where strong economic and human capital failed because social capital was absent? What about the reverse—social capital compensating for economic/human capital deficits?
Sørensen tried to reconcile Marx and Weber. Do you think he succeeded? Or does his rent theory simply split the difference without resolving the fundamental tension between agency and structure?

Remember This

Your life chances aren’t determined by one type of capital—they depend on economic (money), human (credentials/skills), and social (networks) capital, and crucially, on your ability to convert between them.
Rents are income above competitive market levels, created by closure mechanisms that exclude others. Credentials, networks, and property all generate rents—which means mobility often requires extracting value from those below you.
Capital forms are interdependent: human capital without social capital to activate it is dormant; social capital without human capital to back it up is fragile; economic capital can compensate for both but can’t fully replace them.
The 3K-Model reveals that everyone is embedded in multiple class positions: you might be an insider in one market (benefiting from credential rents) and an outsider in another (excluded from property ownership).
Understanding class isn’t just academic—it’s about seeing the structural forces shaping your career, your earnings, and your life trajectory. And once you see them, you can’t unsee them.

Let’s Keep This Conversation Going

Did you complete one of the practical tasks? I’d love to hear what you discovered about your capital portfolio or your ethnographic observations. Drop your findings in the comments—remember, this blog is a training ground for sociological thinking, and your human input is invaluable.

If this analysis sparked questions or disagreements, even better. The friction between perspectives is where real learning happens. Which theorist resonated most with your experience? Where did the 3K-Model feel insufficient?

And if you’re thinking about career applications: Have you used capital theory to diagnose organizational dynamics? How did it change your understanding?

This post was developed in dialogue with Claude AI, but it’s your feedback—your lived experience, your critical questions, your empirical observations—that makes sociological knowledge meaningful. Theory without practice is speculation. Practice without theory is blind.

Let’s think together.

This post was developed in dialogue with Claude AI as part of the Social Friction project. The theoretical analysis is human-directed; the AI serves as research assistant and thinking partner. All final interpretations and any errors remain mine.—Stephan Pflaum

Used Literature

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.

Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of despair and the future of capitalism. Princeton University Press.

Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hendren, N., Jones, M. R., & Porter, S. R. (2018). The Opportunity Atlas: Mapping the childhood roots of social mobility. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 25147.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement), S95-S120.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press.

Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Polity Press.

Cottom, T. M. (2017). Lower ed: The troubling rise of for-profit colleges in the new economy. The New Press.

Deshpande, S. (2011). The grammar of caste: Economic discrimination in contemporary India. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(41/42), 29-35.

boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.

Fei, X. (1992). From the soil: The foundations of Chinese society (G. G. Hamilton & W. Zheng, Trans.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1947)

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.

Kapur, D., & Parikh, S. (2010). Defying the odds: The rise of Dalit entrepreneurs. Random House India.

Marx, K. (1849/1933). Wage labour and capital. International Publishers.

Mazzucato, M. (2018). The value of everything: Making and taking in the global economy. PublicAffairs.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Rivera, L. A. (2015). Pedigree: How elite students get elite jobs. Princeton University Press.

Sørensen, A. B. (2000). Toward a sounder basis for class analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 105(6), 1523-1558.

Souza, J. (2009). A ralé brasileira: Quem é e como vive [The Brazilian underclass: Who they are and how they live]. Editora UFMG.

Weber, M. (1922/1978). Class, status, party. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (pp. 926-940). University of California Press.

Wright, E. O. (2015). Understanding class. Verso.

Sociology…!