SO478: Social Scientific Analysis of Inequalities


These are my notes for SO478 at the London School of Economics for the 2017-2018 school year. I took this module as part of the one-year Inequalities and Social Science MSc program.

The usual disclaimer: all notes are my personal impressions and do not necessarily reflect the view of the lecturer.

This is the core module for my masters program and is taught by a variety of different lecturers associated with the International Inequalities Institute. My seminars are run by Professor Mike Savage in the Department of Sociology at LSE.


Lecture notes

  1. Introduction (September 26)
  2. Global inequalities (October 03)
  3. Global inequalities and migration (October 10)
  4. Inequality dynamics in developing nations since 1980 (October 17)
  5. Marx and beyond (October 24)
  6. Reading week (October 31)
  7. Capabilities, poverty and inequality (November 07)
  8. Social mobility and inequality (November 14)
  9. Algorithmic inequality (November 21)
  10. Capitalism, inequality and conjugated oppression (November 28)
  11. Inequality and Austerity (December 05)
  12. Gender and inequality (January 09)
  13. Race and media (January 16)
  14. Equality and discrimination: legal issues (January 23)
  15. Why spatial inequalities matter (January 30)
  16. Health inequalities and policy (February 06)
  17. Reading week (February 13)
  18. Capitalism, technology and inequality 1 (February 20)
  19. Capitalism, technology and inequality 2 (February 27)
  20. Public Policy and Inequality (March 06)
  21. The New Global Public Good & Inequality (March 13)

Introduction - week 1


What’s wrong with inequality? – The Conversation

In short: we should maximise the well-being of the least well off, just in case that happens to be us one day (mentions Rawls’ theory of justice). We do need some (I assume material?) incentives to ensure that people do the difficult jobs, but they should not result in unmanageable inequalities. The main thing to realise is that inequality can prevent people from making full use of their opportunities, which results in inefficiency. In that vein, a slightly higher rate of growth should not be enough to justify too much inequality.

Defending the One Percent by N. Gregory Mankiw

I hadn’t actually heard of Mankiw before, so I came to the paper with pretty much a blank slate in terms of preconceived notions, and I left absolutely hating it. Reading this paper was a very infuriating experience. Basically, this guy is an economist at Harvard who also happens to have very strongly conservative views, which are extremely evident in this paper. Like the paper is covered in the stains of his centre-right ideology and fetish for the profit motive. I have much worse things to say about the paper but I’ll spare you the bulk of them. I took copious notes while reading this and considered trying to type them up, but I think that would make me too angry. I can’t fight him on his own turf (i.e., by addressing his arguments from an economic angle) because I’d have to first accept his axioms about what is “good” and “fair”, and I don’t.

Instead, I’ll just say that the paper completely ignores the role that cultural hegemony plays in maintaining capitalist realism, and thus ignores the possibility that things can change. I believe it is possible for us to transition to a culture where the profit motive is disregarded and we don’t value things solely based on financial considerations; in fact, we’re already there in some small ways. The Mammon-worshipping world that serves as the context for his arguments not only fails to adequately describe our world today, it is also not the world most of want to live in, and, with any luck, we’ll figure out how to build a much better one, with or without the assistance of Dr. Mankiw.

The 4 biggest reasons why inequality is bad for society –

A much more relaxing read. 1) Wealthy people have power over the poor, which undermines their personal liberty; 2) Political institutions are weakened; 3) Inefficiency stemming from intergenerational inequality which itself suppresses equality of opportunity; 4) Paves the way for a legitimation crisis (the article doesn’t use that specific phrase but it’s a nice Habermasian way of putting it).

Inequality by Anthony B. Atkinson (chapters 1-2)

I’ve read this book before (and saved some passages I found interesting in Bookmarker) but it’s been a while so I figured I’d re-read the first two chapters to refresh my memory. The book is a little too light on the mechanics of capitalism for my liking, but he does a good job of talking about the softer economic and moral arguments against inequality (both of outcome and of opportunity): it prevents merit from being fully realised, and thus destroys social cohesion. He provides a good overview of various methodological approaches to measuring inequality and the caveats associated with each.

Global Inequality by Branko Milanović (chapter 1)

Compared to the Atkinson book above, I thought Milanović went deeper into the larger economic factors that affect inequality, which I appreciated. He talks about neoliberalism and how, as a result, the biggest benefactors of globalisation have been the rich—not necessarily because of anything inherent to globalisation, but because it has been manipulated to protect the interests of the ruling class. Some interesting points on the effects of the financial crisis on the top 1% (many of whom lost money during the crisis but have since managed to gain it all back, roughly speaking) and the consequent rise in global asset prices.

Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty (chapter 5)

The book that everyone who wants to seem erudite has on their bookshelf but that no one has read. (I haven’t read it either.) Covers the economic approach to inequality—the political elements are, for the most part, neglected in favour of expounding on the structural economic features that can lead to greater inequality. This chapter is primarily is about the capital/income ratio (which Piketty defines as β=s/g, savings over growth). In the golden age years, income was growing faster than wealth, but around the mid-70’s, wealth start to outpace income growth and so it began to pile up, which had the predictable consequence of reversing inequality trends. This chapter is a lot more technical and focused than the other readings (which makes sense, considering it’s a 600+ page book). Some topics covered: asset bubbles, dividends being taxed more than capital gains (providing an incentive to reinvest), foreign asset ownership, and financialization (which he defines by the value of assets rising more than net wealth).


Given by Professor John Hills from the Department of Social Policy at LSE.

Various graphs showing economic inequality from different perspectives (mostly income, but a few for wealth). We all already know most of these stats, all of which support a terrifying narrative: that the top 1% own a staggering amount of wealth (and that share is increasing). Hence why we’re all here.

Some topics covered:


For the seminar, we were arbitrarily divided into two groups to facilitate a debate on inequality. I was put in the “inequality is good” camp, and my main contribution consisted of putting my Extremely Capitalist hat on and taking that approach to its logical conclusion. To wit—inequality is good because we need some level of (economic) inequality to enable capitalism to function. We need a reserve army of labour to discipline labour. We need people who are unemployed, or underemployed, in order to keep the system politically stable: workers need to know that there are myriad others who would be happy to take their job should they ever slack off. If we want to ensure that people continue to go to jobs they hate, we have to give them something to fear, in the spectre of homelessness and starvation. They need to remain willing slaves of capital. Any attempts at alleviating inequality through making poverty less brutal are bad for capitalism–anything that might empower labour is bad for capital, and so capitalism itself is undermined. And we should make capitalism the telos of our existence.

This is an argument that I have never heard anyone seriously make but that appears to drive a lot of policy decisions, if only subconsciously. To clarify, I think it’s a stupid argument, with the last line being the crux of my proof by contradiction—the axiom that we should put capitalism first, that we should enshrine a system we have constructed over the very thing that system was constructed to serve, is clearly patently absurd. But it’s (imo) at the root of a lot of defenses of the economic system as it is now, so I think its important to understand.

I was then asked, very sensibly, what I thought of the fact that capitalism is destroying our planet. To which I replied: well, who really cares, we can just invest in space travel and move on to a new planet. I call this the Elon Musk approach to capitalist apologetics.

Some other arguments in favour of inequality included: it drives innovation and growth (a more palatable version of my point); it’s part of human nature and so there’s no a priori reason we need to get rid of it; it’s only fair that people be materially rewarded according to their contributions. The arguments on the other side came down to either the practical (too much of it results in inefficiency or loss of social cohesion) or the moral (appealing to the intrinsic human right to self-determination or principles of equality).

It was a fun exercise, but it soon became clear that the two sides were focused on two very different questions: the “inequality is good” people seized on the downsides of trying to eradicate inequality, whereas the “inequality is bad” people extolled the virtues of reducing inequality. Which, I think, sums up the standard arguments for and against inequality. Those who don’t like the idea of reducing it tend to characterise their opponents as trying to get rid of it entirely, whereas many of them would probably be happy with just a little less of it. Of course, this raises the question of whether there is an acceptable level of inequality, and how you could either define or collectively decide on it. I don’t know. Personally, I like to think of absolute equality as this asymptote we know we’ll never reach but should still keep moving towards. Kind of like how you know that your house will never be completely clean but that doesn’t mean you should stop cleaning it.

If I were on the “inequality is bad” side, but still wanted to frame my argument in economic terms in order to appeal to those who don’t care about inequality for moral reasons, I would take the obverse of my argument from before. Namely: if we want to maintain the legitimacy of capitalism, we need to prevent it from undermining itself via its internal contradictions. Capitalist ideology simultaneously impugns the idea of public services and taking care of the weakest members of society while still benefiting from it, in the provision of willing workers and consumers. All the ostensibly anti-inequality redistribution that goes on now is actually just propping up the capitalist system as such—instead of actively reducing inequality, its goal is to keep it at a safe level such that capitalism can continue along its rails. Those who are pro-capitalism but anti-inequality reduction are suffering from a level of cognitive dissonance: they clearly do not understand the long-term consequences of their actions, not just in terms of infringing on people’s quality of life but in terms of (possibly irreparably) damaging the structure of capitalism as a whole. If you make things bad enough, eventually people will prefer a violent revolution or even just death to the way things are, and if you’re not actively trying to make things better, you are walking a very dangerous tightrope, simply because the tides of capitalism are constantly pushing us toward the shore of greater inequality. So there needs to be a very delicate balance in terms of inequality for capitalism to survive, and the current state of inequality has us in danger of falling off the tightrope. (The real question is whether falling off the tightrope now—by means of pushing inequality to its extreme—is better in the long run if it brings up the social upheaval needed to radically transform the system. I’m not sure how I feel about that yet, but I do know that as a mortal being I find it hard to think about “the long run” when I know that I probably won’t be around to see what happens.)

In the end, I think my ideological opposition to inequality comes from wanting to look at the system from first principles: what is the economy for? What do we want it to accomplish, and how much has the current iteration of it drifted from that original purpose? After all, all the systems (economic and otherwise) that we’ve built are just an attempt at figuring out the best way for us to live our fleeting lives while peacefully coexisting with each other. They are means to an end, not an end in themselves. We would do well to remember that more often.

Global inequalities - week 2


Income inequality in the developing world by Martin Ravallion

Summary: income inequality in developing world less than 30 years ago, but this is mostly due to falling inequality between countries (as those on the bottom, esp China, catch up) whereas inequality within countries is slowly rising (though flat since 2000).

Who are the Global Top 1% by Sudhir Anand and Paul Segal

Global Income Distribution by Christoph Lakner and Branko Milanovic

Published in the The World Bank Economic Review. I have my own feelings on the World Bank but I’ll try to leave them aside when writing this review.


Given by Dr Sudhir Anand, Professor of Economics at Oxford University, who co-authored one of the papers above. The lecture he delivered is primarily a summary of that paper.

Different methodological approaches

The reason we care about national income on its own (not just per capita) is because it has some influence on a country’s authority and power when negotiating trade agreements and the like.

On PPP adjustments: obviously problematic in the sense of reducing a multidimensional vector to a scalar. Takes a typical “basket of goods” but of course the definition of that is subjective and, in the end, politically motivated (whether consciously or not). The same problem that arises when thinking about inflation.

On scaling household size: tricky topic with lots of different approaches and factors to consider (economies of scale, varying consumption patterns, cultural norms, etc). No real way to equalise across households so most research just makes assumptions about what a “household” means and isn’t too worried about how that aligns with reality.

China is an equalising force for concepts 1-3, but disequalising for concept 0 (because its national income is so high, and growing; but of course its national income per capita is still quite low).

For the paper, they looked at three different indices: Gini, MLD (also known as Theil L) and Theil T. The latter two are additively decomposable (not just into two components, but into any number, with weights). Incidentally, you can use variance as a measure of inequality; it’s just going to be an absolute measure, not a relative one.

Global Gini right now is 0.70,, which is much higher than in any individual country (speaks to how high inter-country inequality is right now).


This was the first official seminar with our permanent seminar groups (last week was fairly ad-hoc). Focused on introductions (who we are, where we’re from, and some thoughts on inequality within our own countries). I talked about China (since Canada was taken) and its very unique position within the global inequality hierarchy: on one level, it’s been responsible for reducing worldwide income inequality via the lifting of such a large number of people out of poverty, but on another level income inequality is still staggeringly high. The rural-urban gap (which is responsible for, by some estimates, 10% of economic inequality within the country) is especially worrying, and I could see its consequences when I was living in Beijing—I, along with most of my international school friends, had various housekeepers during my time there, and they tended to be young women from rural areas (mostly Sichuan in my case) who gave up pretty much all their free time to live in someone else’s house and take care of the household while being paid a pittance. Which says something about their economic and social prospects where they came from. Among mainland citizens, 1% of the population controls 1/3 of all the wealth, which is quite scary.

Another thing to consider with China is its tumultuous recent history. During the Great Leap Forward, economic inequality was presumably lower, but a lot of people (especially my parents’ generation) were incredibly poor … It’s kind of obvious, but still deserves to be said: we can’t focus just on inequality measures when trying to understand the health of an economy. Any discussion of inequality ought to be accompanied by its proper geopolitical context, not to mention the level of economic development.

Some interesting statistics on inequality brought up by the other students:

Global inequalities and migration - week 3


Towards a new politics of migration? by Bridget Anderson

Written as a response to Stephen Castle’s 2004 paper Migration Policies Fail, in the context of the EU migration crisis of 2015. I thought this paper was excellent.

Global Inequality by Branko Milanović (chapter 3)

On inequality among countries. basically the same as the paper from last week (mostly methodology)

Strategic Gendering by Saskia Sassen


Mostly facts and figures about migration. This lecture was given by Diane Perrons, Professor of Economic Geography and Gender Studies at LSE.


Discussing Milanovic’s proposal on migration. My own take is that by the point you’re talking about migration in terms of numbers and the policies of an individual nation-state, you’ve already made a mistake. You’re already on the wrong level. It’s equivalent to trying to solve climate change by buying slightly more energy-efficient lightbulbs: an individual (in this case, national) response to a structural problem. What we need is a fundamental rethinking of the global economic system and its inequalities; otherwise, migration will keep happening. Setting quotas or imposing penalties or closing borders is addressing the symptoms, and we can’t let discourse on migration be limited to that, otherwise it’ll distract us from the real problem: global inequality.

(My take is probably heavily inspired by a book that I happened to read just a few days prior to the seminar: Slavoj Žižek’s Against the Double Blackmail.)

Someone else brought up an interesting point about the impact of the automation of labour on migration: as more and more jobs go away (at least in poorer countries), there’s more impetus to move to where the jobs still are.

Inequality dynamics in developing nations since 1980 - week 4


Global Inequality by Branko Milanović (chapter 2)

Falling Inequality in Latin America by Giovanni Andrea Cornia (chapters 1, 3)

No notes yet.


This lecture was given by Rebecca Simson of the International Inequalities Institute.

The project

What drives decreases in inequality?

Inequality decline in Latin America since 2000

On measurement

Some personal thoughts on neoliberalism


(I didn’t take great notes here so these are more scattered than usual. Apologies.)

Marx and beyond - week 5

My favourite week so far.


Class, Status, Party by Max Weber

Chapter 13 of Social Stratification: Class, Race, & Gender in Sociological Perspective. Detailing Weber’s three-component theory of stratification.

The Forms of Capital (scanned PDF) by Pierre Bourdieu

I quite liked this one, but it’s very dense and typically French prose that many will hate.

Capitals, assets, and resources by Mike Savage et al


This lecture was given by Mike Savage, Professor of Sociology at LSE.

The orthodox economic approach

The sociological approach

The interdisciplinary approach


- week 6

Capabilities, poverty and inequality - week 7


The Capability Approach by David A. Clark

On Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach. Wealth as a means of achieving something else & noting differing conversion rates for income/commodities into achievements, based on personal situation + cultural factors. Neither is utility (perceived happiness) a suficient consideration. Formulates a mapping from a “functioning” vector -> set of capability vectors. He refuses to establish an “objective” set of capabilities (could differ between contexts, like poverty vs well-being). Benefit of this approach: treats people as ends in themselves and not just means to an economic end—the goal of development should be expansion of capabilities rather than economic growth (which should be a means, at most). Weaknesses: doesn’t really address the subjectivity factor (people will disagree about what capabilities should be valued); there isn’t always data to assess. Also mentions Martha Nussbaum’s attempts to build on the CA: draws on Aristotle to develop a list of “central human capabilities”, whereas Sen argues for a more democratic approach to building this list.

The idea of “adequate income” which allocates income acc to an individual’s conversion rate, which is ofc difficult to objectively quantify (people are incentivised to lie about it), so you end up giving some people more than they need (which is unfair) + end up spending more overall (though this really only matters in relation to the total quantity of money & how it affects individual capability assessments). This is, incidentally, probably my biggest problem with basic income proposals: you’re trying to extend the reach of quantification (i.e., commodification) when you should really be DECOMMODIFYING by introducing more public services that don’t rely on income. (Longer post on that forthcoming.)

Collective Capabilities, Culture, and Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom by Peter Evans

No notes for this yet.

Assessing global poverty and inequality by Ingrid Robeyns

No notes for this yet.


This lecture was given by Naila Kabeer, Professor of Gender and Development in the Gender Studies & International Development departments at LSE.


Social mobility and inequality - week 8


Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite by Shamus Khan (introduction)

A moving first-person account of upward social mobility. Highlights a trend (that I can personally relate to) where immigrant parents are okay with their own lack of social/cultural capital because they imagine their kids will, in some way, make up for that. Mentions the skewed nature of admittants to elite schools (Harvard’s definition of “middle income” is $110k-$200k which is really the top 5% …). Also briefly touches on the recent trend toward cultural omnivorism, where part of being privileged means being comfortable in any cultural environment.

Great quote:

They may claim otherwise, but colleges are truly “need blind” in the worst possible way. They are ambivalent to the disadvantages of poverty.

He also talks about meritocracy discourse and how there’s been a trend toward greater awareness of inequality & attempts to alleviate it. He isn’t nearly as critical as I would be here—I would treat it as a less of a demonstration of kindness and more of a defense mechanism on the part of the elite class, allowing a small amount of upward mobility from the lower classes in exchange for their consent—and seems to treat any negative consequences of meritocracy as due to drift (because the abilities being measured aren’t the right abilities) instead of as immanent. Piketty’s comments on meritocracy (from an interview with Mike Savage, coincidentally) are relevant here (referencing the founder of Sciences Po):

[…] now that we have universal suffrage, there’s a risk that basically the poor and the majority of the population will try to expropriate us, the elite. We have to display merits and our own standings so that it will be a completely crazy idea to get rid of us. So in a way it’s as if […] modern meritocracy discourse is invented as a way to protect the elite from democracy basically, from the universal suffrage.

Frédéric Lordon says something similar in Willing Slaves of Capital:

[…] With the eras of aristocratic and plutocratic legitimacy gone (at least in their pure forms), the contemporary mythogenesis of the university degree, as Bourdieu repeatedly insisted, struggles to hide its own indifference to content and its only true mission, which is to certify ‘elites’, namely, to provide alibis to the distribution of individuals within the social division of desire.

Immanuel Wallerstein also has an excellent take on this, in Historical Capitalism:

[…] The institutionalized meritocratic system helps a few to gain access to positions they merit and from which they might otherwise be barred. But it allows many more to gain access to positions on the basis of ascribed status under the cover of having gained this access by achievement.

Social Class in the 21st Century by Mike Savage (chapter 6)

I just read the whole book since I happened to have it already. My notes are all in Bookmarker.

There’s a quote from John Hills’ Good Times, Bad Times which is fairly relevant to the discussion of social mobility in chapter 6:

[…] If policy helps increase the chances of someone starting in a less privileged position to go up the social scale, that must mean that someone else’s chance of going down has to rise, which may include their own children, and does not then seem so attractive. While many favour increased upward mobility, few want to mention the increased downward mobility that has to go with it (in terms of relative positions, at least).

The Price of the Ticket (PDF) by Sam Friedman

On the downsides of upward social mobility. Challenges Goldthorphe’s landmark work on this field (which drew on surveys and concluded that upward mobility was a Good Thing) by focusing on the downsides of it (mostly int terms of the negative psychological effects on the subjects). Cites Bourdieu and Durkheim, among others. This paper raised some good points about why we shouldn’t uncritically support the idea of social mobility, but I kept waiting for the obvious conclusion—that we should destroy class hierarchies altogether—that never came …


This lecture was given by Mike Savage, Professor of Sociology at LSE.


This was a pretty unstructured one where we mostly talked about our own personal experiences with social mobility. Some takeaways:

Algorithmic inequality - week 9


Skeggs and Yuill paper on Facebook

This paper was summarised at an LSE public lecture back in September:

You Are Being Tracked, Evaluated and Sold: an analysis of digital inequalities

Weapons of Math Destruction

Read it a while back but don’t have notes for it yet.

Lecture and seminar

This lecture (and subsequent seminar) was given by Beverly Skeggs, Visiting Professor of Sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London. She used the same slides from her LSE public lecture but skipped some of the content due to time constraints + went into some other topics as well. Below is a brief summary of what wasn’t covered in the public lecture (& includes my personal notes).

Capitalism, inequality and conjugated oppression - week 10


Class Racism by Etienne Balibar

From the 1991 Verso book Race, Nation, Class (PDF) which features various essays written by either Etienne Balibar or Immanuel Wallerstein. Chapter 12. No real takeaways tbh

Conjugated Oppression by Philippe Bourgois

On class and ethnicity among Guaymi and Kuna banana workers.

Ground Down by Growth

A forthcoming Pluto Press book by Alpa Shah (lecturer) and co-authors.


This lecture was given by Alpa Shah, Associate Professor of Anthropology at LSE, and Jens Lerche at SOAS. Held at the Behind The Indian Boom exhibition at the Brunei Gallery, SOAS. No seminar.

Focus: on the Dalits (at the bottom of the Hindu caste system) and the Adivasis (indigenous peoples) in India.

Inequality and Austerity - week 11


Can Society be Commodities All the Way Down (PDF) by Nancy Fraser

From 2012. Subtitled “Polanyian reflections on capitalist crisis”.

Rethinking Capitalism by Mariana Mazzucato and Michael Jacobs (introduction)

On the weaknesses of capitalism as revealed through the financial crisis: low growth, rising inequality, insecure labour markets, environmental degradation. Challenges received neoliberal wisdom. Seems decent. Topics covered in the rest of the book:

Austerity Measures in Developing Countries by Isabel Ortiz and Matthew Cummins

The disproportionate impact of austerity policies (worldwide) on vulnerable populations, especially women and children.




how can we solve inequality

Gender and inequality - week 12


I don’t have notes for this week.

Economic Pathways to Women’s Empowerment and Active Citizenship

A paper by Naila Kabeer from 2016.

Closing the gender pay gap (PDF)

A report by the International Labour Organization (ILO, with a weird mismatch of American and British spelling) in 2016.

Defending Equality of Outcome

A paper by Anne Phillips from 2004.


This lecture was given by Diane Perrons.


My seminar was run by John Hills. Question: how has gender inequality been changing lately?

Race and media - week 13


No notes for this week.

Representing Black Britain by Sarita Malik (chapters 1 & 9)

A book from 2002.

Locating the ‘Radical’ in Shoot the Messenger by Sarita Malik

A paper from 2013.

Diversity pie by Clive James Nwonka

A paper from 2015 by the lecturer.


This was an excellent lecture given by Clive James Nwonka, a researcher with the Inequalities Institute, which connected issues of race representation within the media to larger questions of politics, ideology and capitalism. No seminar this time (the lecture started late)

Equality and discrimination: legal issues - week 14


No notes.

Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex (PDF)

by Kimberly Crenshaw in 1989.

Legislation against Sex Discrimination

by Nicola Lacey (the lecturer) in 1987

UK 2010 Equality Act (PDF)

Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution

aka the 14th amendment. 1868.

Prohibition of discrimination in the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 14. 1950/1953.

African (Banjul) Charter on Human and People’s Rights



Given by Nicola Lacey, School Professor of Law, Gender and Social Policy in LSE’s Department of Law


Why spatial inequalities matter - week 15

by Neil Lee. I zoned out this week, sorry (it was the same time as the Notes From Below launch …)

Health inequalities and policy - week 16

Aaron Reeves talking about health inequalities. My notes aren’t great, sorry. No notes from the readings.



- week 17

Capitalism, technology and inequality 1 - week 18

Featuring David Soskice (part 1 of 2). Readings (for this week and next):

i’m not a big fan of his approach but it’s a useful bellwether for mainstream takes on this topic


(no time for seminar)

Capitalism, technology and inequality 2 - week 19


VoC, focus on advanced economies


(my bit, explaining the rise of far-right populism)

Public Policy and Inequality - week 20



John Hills

The New Global Public Good & Inequality - week 21



Laura Bear of the anthropology dept