For Cambridge OCR A Level Sociology students, Rowlingson and Mullineux’s 2013 research is especially useful because it shows that social class inequality is not only about income. It is also about who owns assets, who can avoid debt, who receives family help, and who can pass advantages on to the next generation.

Their report, Sharing Our Good Fortune: Understanding and Responding to Wealth Inequality, was produced for the University of Birmingham’s Policy Commission on the Distribution of Wealth. Although classroom materials often refer to “Rowlingson and Mullineux”, the report itself is formally cited as Mullineux and Rowlingson (2013). It focuses on personal wealth, including housing, pensions, savings and financial assets.

Original report: Read the full University of Birmingham report (PDF)
Repository copy: University repository record and downloadable PDF

Why is wealth important?

It is important to distinguish between income and wealth.

Income is a flow of money received over time, such as wages, benefits, interest or pension payments. Wealth is a stock of assets that people own, such as property, savings, investments, private pensions and valuable possessions. A household may have a relatively ordinary income but substantial wealth if it owns a mortgage-free home or has received an inheritance. Equally, someone may earn a reasonable wage but have little or no wealth because they rent, have debts or cannot save.

This matters because wealth gives people security. It can provide a financial cushion during unemployment, ill health, relationship breakdown or retirement. It can also help parents support children with university costs, driving lessons, rent, a house deposit or unpaid work experience. Wealth therefore affects life chances across more than one generation.

What did the report find?

The central conclusion was that wealth in Britain was distributed far more unequally than income.

Using data available at the time, the Commission reported that the overall wealth share held by the top tenth of the population in 2008–10 was more than 850 times the share held by the bottom tenth. It also reported that people at the 90th percentile of the income distribution received around four times as much income as those at the 10th percentile, whereas the equivalent wealth ratio was around 77 to 1.

The report also highlighted that financial wealth was especially unequally distributed. Around a quarter of the population had negative net financial wealth, meaning that their debts exceeded their financial assets. In contrast, just over one in ten people had net financial wealth above £100,000.

This helps students move beyond the simple idea that inequality is only a gap between high and low wages. Two households may earn similar incomes, but the household with savings, property and family wealth will usually have far greater security and more options.

How does wealth inequality develop?

Rowlingson and Mullineux identified several ways in which wealth can accumulate.

First, people on higher incomes are more able to save, invest and buy property. This means that income inequality can gradually become wealth inequality. The report argues that large rises in top incomes over previous decades had fed through into greater inequality in wealth.

Second, wealth can be built through saving and spending choices. Some people with similar incomes may save more, while others may have to spend more of their income on basic needs, rent or debt repayments. However, this should not be treated simply as a matter of individual responsibility, because people on lower incomes often have much less room to save in the first place.

Third, wealth can be transferred through inheritance and lifetime gifts. Families with property, savings and investments can provide children with substantial advantages. This may include paying university costs, helping with rent, funding a deposit or leaving property and money through inheritance. The Commission noted that higher-income groups were more likely to receive inheritances and lifetime gifts, and more likely to receive gifts of high value.

Finally, some people gain wealth through rising property or asset prices. Those who buy homes or investments before values increase can gain considerably, while those without assets may be excluded from these gains altogether. This is particularly important in a society where home ownership is a major source of personal wealth.

Wealth and unequal life chances

The report argues that wealth matters because it affects people’s opportunities and well-being. Those with substantial wealth can invest in education, access more secure housing, cope with financial shocks and provide support to children. The report links wealth ownership to physical and mental health, education and employment opportunities.

By contrast, those with little, no or negative wealth may be particularly vulnerable. Low income can make it difficult to avoid debt or build savings, leaving households without a buffer when unexpected costs arise. The report argues that people with no assets or net debt have neither a cushion in times of crisis nor a “ladder” to help them move upwards economically.

This is highly relevant to Weberian ideas about life chances. Weber argued that people’s market situation shapes their opportunities in life. Rowlingson and Mullineux provide evidence that class advantage is not only about occupational position or income; it is also about ownership of resources that protect people from risk and open up future opportunities.

Does wealth inequality affect society more widely?

The Commission argued that wealth inequality may have consequences beyond individual households. It suggested that wealthy groups can become socially insulated from those with fewer resources, creating divisions between the rich and poor. It also raised concerns that concentrated wealth may give affluent groups greater political influence, potentially threatening democratic equality.

This point can be developed using Marxist ideas. From a Marxist perspective, wealth inequality is not simply an unfortunate difference between individuals. It reflects a capitalist system in which ownership of property and productive assets is concentrated among a minority. Wealth can then be used to reproduce class power through inheritance, private education, elite networks and political influence.

What policies did the report support?

The report did not argue for one single policy. Instead, it proposed different responses for people at the bottom, middle and top of the wealth distribution.

For those with little or negative wealth, it supported stronger debt advice services, greater support for credit unions, tougher regulation of payday lending and schemes that encouraged saving among low-income households.

For those in the middle, it argued that housing supply and housing finance needed reform. It also considered ways to improve pension saving and reduce the risks faced by people relying on private pension schemes.

For those at the top, the Commission suggested greater attention to high pay, wealth taxation, council tax reform, inheritance taxation and capital gains tax. It argued that inherited wealth should be considered differently from wealth accumulated through employment and saving, because inheritance raises questions about fairness and meritocracy.

Evaluation of Rowlingson and Mullineux

A major strength of the report is that it treats wealth as complex. It does not assume all wealth is created in the same way. It distinguishes between wealth built through earnings and saving, wealth transferred through inheritance, and wealth gained through increases in property or share prices. This makes it particularly useful for evaluating meritocratic explanations of inequality.

The report is also useful because it connects economic inequality to real life chances. Rather than simply presenting figures about wealth, it explains how assets shape housing, education, employment, health and security. This gives students clear material for questions on the effects of social class inequality.

However, it is not a single piece of primary sociological research in the usual sense. It is a policy commission report which drew together existing research, statistical evidence, workshops, expert contributions, public debates and opinion polling. This gives it breadth, but means that it cannot prove that wealth alone causes particular life outcomes.

The report is also now dated. Much of its key evidence concerns wealth distribution in 2008–10, so students should use it as evidence of the long-term importance of wealth inequality rather than as a description of Britain today. The Commission itself acknowledged gaps in knowledge, particularly concerning the “super rich”, whose wealth is difficult to measure accurately.

How to use this study in an exam answer

Rowlingson and Mullineux are ideal for essays on:

• social class and life chances
• wealth and income inequality
• inheritance and meritocracy
• social mobility
• Weberian explanations of inequality
• Marxist explanations of class reproduction

A strong application might read:

Rowlingson and Mullineux’s 2013 Birmingham Policy Commission report shows that class inequality involves unequal ownership of wealth as well as unequal income. Wealthy households are more able to pass on advantages through housing, savings and inheritance, while those with little or negative wealth have less protection from debt and financial insecurity. This reduces equality of opportunity and helps class inequalities continue across generations.

Study snapshot

Study	Main focus	Key finding	Why it matters
Rowlingson and Mullineux / Birmingham Policy Commission (2013)	Wealth inequality in Britain	Wealth was much more unequally distributed than income; the top tenth’s share was over 850 times that of the bottom tenth.	Shows that class advantage is reproduced through assets, inheritance, housing and financial security.
Type of research	Policy commission report	Drew on existing research, statistics, expert evidence, workshops, debates and opinion polling.	Useful evidence, but not a single causal research study.
Sociological relevance	Social class and life chances	Wealth affects housing, education, employment opportunities, well-being and political influence.	Supports Weberian life chances and Marxist arguments about the reproduction of class power.

The key lesson from Rowlingson and Mullineux is that a society cannot be understood simply by comparing people’s wages. To understand inequality properly, sociologists also need to ask who owns property, who has savings, who carries debt, and who can pass wealth on to the next generation.

FOR TEACHERS there is a lesson activity pack available to download below on how to use Rowlingson and Mullineux (2013) in class that allows students to move from identifying wealth evidence to explaining life chances and making an evaluative judgement about class inequality.