Inequality, Elites and Counter-Elites (Verification of Some Provisions of the Structural-Dynamic Theory)

The structural-dynamic theory is a modern, rapidly evolving approach to the analysis of social and politico-economic processes. It is based on the idea of the interaction between three macro-social actors: the population, the elites, and the state. In an ideal state, economic growth is accompanied by the maintenance of certain proportions between the incomes of all these actors; however, in reality, such a state is rarely observed. Generally, an increase in income is accompanied by a rise in social differentiation and the “expansion” (overproduction) of the elite. Nevertheless, the number of elite socio-political positions in any society during any historical period is limited. As a result, some individuals who cannot occupy these positions, under certain conditions, transform into a counter-elite and attempt to radically change the political regime. In agrarian societies, the privileged layer of the nobility played the role of the elite and counter-elite, while in industrial societies, determining both the number of elite social positions and the number of contenders for them becomes much more complex. The study employs criteria proposed by P. Turchin and T. Piketty, examining the incomes of the upper decile – the top 1% and the top 9% (it is assumed that individuals from the top 9% are contenders who can become part of the counter-elite). The social distance metric is calculated – the number of annual incomes required to enter the top 1%. The functioning of the education system is analyzed, revealing that in the 21st century, it stops acting as a “social filter.” It is demonstrated that the greatest social distance occurs in Russia, while income differentiation in the USA is comparable to similar indicators in China. The conclusion is drawn that the indicators of social differentiation are insufficient grounds for predictions about the likelihood of revolutions, prompting the consideration of other factors identified by J. Goldstone. Social and economic indicators of Russia, China, India, USA, UK, Germany, and France are compared.