Davis and Moore are important for Cambridge OCR A Level Sociology because they give one of the clearest functionalist explanations of social stratification. Their argument is controversial because they do not simply say inequality exists; they argue that some inequality may be necessary for society to work effectively.

For students studying Understanding Social Inequalities, Davis and Moore are useful because their work raises a key debate: is inequality a fair reward for talent, effort and responsibility, or does it protect privilege and make society less equal?

Who were Davis and Moore?

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore were functionalist sociologists. In their classic article “Some Principles of Stratification”, published in 1945, they argued that all societies need some form of social stratification because societies must make sure that the most important roles are filled by the most able people. Their work is often used to explain the functionalist view of meritocracy, role allocation and social inequality.

Functionalists see society as a system made up of connected parts. For society to run smoothly, key jobs need to be done properly. Davis and Moore therefore asked a simple question: how does society make sure that people are motivated to train for, compete for and carry out the most important roles?

Their answer was inequality.

The basic argument

Davis and Moore argued that some positions in society are more functionally important than others. For example, doctors, engineers, judges, teachers, scientists and political leaders may be seen as important because their work affects the running of society.

They also argued that some roles require more skill, talent, training or responsibility. Becoming a surgeon, for example, requires many years of education and training. If society wants people to take on difficult or demanding roles, Davis and Moore argued that there must be rewards attached to them.

These rewards might include:

high income
high status
job security
power
better living standards
social recognition

In their view, unequal rewards are not just random. They act as incentives. People are encouraged to work hard, gain qualifications and compete for the most important positions.

Meritocracy

Davis and Moore’s argument is closely linked to meritocracy. A meritocracy is a system where people are rewarded according to ability, effort and achievement rather than inherited privilege.

In a meritocratic society, the most talented and hardworking people should rise to the top. Education is often seen as central to this process because schools and universities are supposed to identify talent, sort people by ability and prepare them for suitable adult roles.

This is why Davis and Moore are often linked to the idea of role allocation. Education helps allocate people to different jobs in society. Those who perform well gain qualifications and move into higher-status occupations. Those who perform less well enter roles requiring fewer qualifications.

For a functionalist, this is not automatically unfair. It is presented as a way of matching people to the roles they are best suited for.

Why inequality might be seen as functional

Davis and Moore believed that inequality performs several functions.

First, it motivates people to train for difficult roles. If all jobs had the same rewards, fewer people might spend years becoming doctors, lawyers or engineers.

Second, it ensures that the most talented people compete for the most important jobs. High rewards attract people into roles that society depends on.

Third, it encourages effort. People may work harder if they believe they can improve their position through qualifications, commitment and ability.

Fourth, it creates a clear system of ranking. People can see which roles are valued and what they need to do to reach them.

This is why their theory can be attractive. It gives inequality a purpose. It suggests that unequal rewards are not simply about greed or exploitation, but about keeping society organised.

Example: medicine

A simple classroom example is the role of a doctor. Doctors usually require long training, high levels of knowledge and responsibility for people’s health. Davis and Moore would argue that doctors need higher rewards because society needs talented people to commit to this training.

The same could be said for pilots, judges, architects or senior engineers. These roles require specialist knowledge and mistakes can have serious consequences.

However, this immediately raises a sociological problem: who decides which jobs are most important?

Many low-paid jobs are also essential. Care workers, cleaners, delivery drivers, supermarket workers and teaching assistants are all important to everyday social life. The COVID-19 pandemic made this especially clear, because many lower-paid workers were described as “essential”. This creates a major criticism of Davis and Moore: society may reward power and market value more than genuine social importance.

Supporting evidence: qualifications and occupational rewards

There is some evidence that supports part of Davis and Moore’s argument. In general, higher qualifications are associated with better labour market outcomes. Professional jobs usually require longer training and often come with higher pay and status.

The Social Mobility Commission explains that social mobility is concerned with whether the circumstances of someone’s birth determine their outcomes in life. This links directly to the meritocracy debate, because a truly meritocratic society would give people a fair chance to rise regardless of background.

However, the existence of qualifications does not prove society is fully meritocratic. Some groups have better access to educational support, private tutoring, stable housing, cultural capital and social networks. This means that people do not all begin the competition from the same starting point.

Evidence against meritocracy

Davis and Moore’s theory becomes more difficult to defend when we look at wealth and social mobility.

ONS data on household wealth in Great Britain shows very large gaps between the richest and poorest households. In April 2020 to March 2022, the wealthiest 10% of households had wealth of £1,200,500 or more, while the least wealthy 10% had £16,500 or less. The wealthiest 1% had wealth of at least £3,121,500.

This matters because wealth can be passed between generations. Wealthier families can often provide better housing, safer neighbourhoods, private tutoring, unpaid internships, university support and deposits for housing. This makes it difficult to argue that everyone competes equally.

The Social Mobility Commission’s State of the Nation 2024 report also highlights the importance of local inequalities in opportunity, showing that social mobility varies across different areas of the UK.

This challenges a simple meritocratic view. If where you are born affects your opportunities, then success cannot be explained only by talent and effort.

Criticism 1: Are the highest-paid jobs really the most important?

One of the strongest criticisms is that Davis and Moore assume that the most highly rewarded jobs are the most functionally important. This is not always convincing.

For example, some financial roles may be paid far more than nurses, carers or teachers. A functionalist might argue that high pay reflects skill, scarcity and responsibility. A critic might argue that high pay reflects market power, ownership, professional closure or the ability of powerful groups to protect their rewards.

This is a useful AO3 point. Davis and Moore explain why some inequality might motivate people, but they do not fully explain why some socially useful jobs are poorly paid.

Criticism 2: Inequality may waste talent

Davis and Moore suggest that stratification helps the most talented people reach the most important positions. But critics argue that inequality can actually prevent talent from being discovered.

A working-class student may have high ability but lack quiet study space, money for resources, confidence, cultural capital or access to elite networks. A wealthy student with average ability may have more support and better opportunities.

In this sense, inequality may not be functional. It may be dysfunctional because society wastes the potential of people who never get the chance to succeed.

Criticism 3: The theory ignores power

Marxists would argue that Davis and Moore ignore the role of power and exploitation. From a Marxist perspective, inequality does not exist because it benefits everyone. It exists because the ruling class owns wealth and controls major institutions.

A Marxist criticism would be that Davis and Moore make inequality seem fair and necessary, when in reality it may protect the interests of the rich. High rewards at the top may not reflect genuine social importance. They may reflect ownership, inheritance and class power.

This is where Davis and Moore can be contrasted with Marx. Davis and Moore see stratification as a system of role allocation. Marxists see class inequality as a system of exploitation.

Criticism 4: The theory assumes fair competition

Davis and Moore’s theory works best if society is genuinely meritocratic. But if people have unequal starting points, then unequal outcomes cannot simply be seen as fair rewards.

For example, students from wealthier families may have access to better educational resources. Some people may face discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, disability or age. Others may be limited by poverty, caring responsibilities or poor health.

This means that even if society claims to reward merit, the process may not be genuinely fair.

Criticism 5: Motivation is not only about money

Davis and Moore assume that high rewards are needed to motivate people to do difficult jobs. But not everyone is motivated mainly by income or status.

Many people become nurses, teachers, carers, social workers or youth workers because they value helping others. Some jobs are important but not highly paid. Others are highly paid but may not involve the same direct social contribution.

This weakens the idea that unequal financial rewards are always necessary for society to function.

How Davis and Moore link to Cambridge OCR Sociology

For Cambridge OCR Component 2, Davis and Moore are useful because they help students explain a functionalist view of social inequality. Their theory can be applied to social class, education, occupation, income and social mobility.

Key OCR concepts include:

Social stratification: society is divided into layers or ranks.

Meritocracy: people are rewarded according to talent, effort and achievement.

Role allocation: people are sorted into different social roles.

Functionally important roles: some jobs are seen as more important for society.

Differential rewards: some roles receive more pay, status and power.

Social mobility: movement up or down the social hierarchy.

Life chances: opportunities to access valued things such as education, health, income and housing.

Example paragraph for students

Davis and Moore provide a functionalist explanation of social inequality. They argue that stratification is necessary because society needs to ensure that the most important positions are filled by the most talented people. Unequal rewards such as higher pay and status motivate individuals to train for difficult roles, such as doctors or engineers. This supports the idea of meritocracy because people are supposedly rewarded according to effort and ability. However, this view can be criticised because it assumes that everyone has an equal chance to compete. ONS wealth data shows large gaps between the richest and poorest households, meaning that some families can pass on advantages to their children. Therefore, inequality may not simply reward talent; it may also reproduce privilege.

Evaluation summary

Davis and Moore are useful because they explain why inequality may appear fair and necessary in modern societies. Their theory shows how education, qualifications and occupational rewards can be linked to role allocation.

However, their argument is limited because it assumes society is more meritocratic than it may really be. It does not fully explain inherited wealth, class privilege, discrimination or why some essential jobs are low paid.

A balanced judgement would be that Davis and Moore help us understand the ideology of meritocracy: the belief that inequality is fair because rewards are earned. But the evidence on wealth and social mobility suggests that social inequality is not only about talent and effort. It is also about power, background and unequal starting points.

Final judgement

Davis and Moore remain important because their work raises one of the biggest questions in sociology: is inequality necessary, or is it unfair?

Their functionalist theory suggests that inequality motivates people, allocates talent and helps society function. But critics argue that inequality often reflects inherited advantage rather than merit. For Cambridge OCR A Level Sociology students, the strongest answers should explain Davis and Moore clearly, apply their ideas to education and work, then evaluate them using evidence about wealth, social mobility and unequal opportunities.

You can download a PPT of Davis and Moore’s work, with teacher activities from the link below.

Additionally the full lesson pack can be downloaded from the link below: