Wealth inequality research is fragmented across different social science disciplines. This article explores the potential of interdisciplinary perspectives by investigating the thematic overlap between economic and sociological approaches to wealth inequality. To do so, we use the Web of Science citation database to identify pertinent articles on the topic of wealth inequality in each discipline (1990-2017). On the basis of complete bibliographies of these selected articles, we construct co-citation networks and obtain thematic clusters. What becomes evident is a low thematic overlap: Economists explore the causes of wealth inequality based on mathematical models and study the interplay between inequality and economic growth. Sociologists focus mostly on wealth disparities between ethnic groups. The article identifies, however, a few instances of cross-disciplinary borrowing and the French economist Thomas Piketty as a novel advocate of interdisciplinarity in the field. The prospects of an economics-cum-sociology of wealth inequality are discussed in the conclusion.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThe social science literature proposes two competing explanatory frameworks for the existence and longevity of super-fortunes: superstar or winner-take-all mechanisms, suggesting an increased dominance of new self-made billionaires; and mechanisms focusing on inherited advantages, suggesting an enduring importance of old family fortunes. Using panel data from the USA's annual Forbes 400 ranking , this study analyzes factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of remaining listed among the American super-rich. We find initially that the percentages of self-made entrepreneurs among the highest wealth echelons of US society have increased significantly since 1982. Sectors that improved the most are finance (including hedge funds and private equity), new technology and mass retail. The decline of inheritance as a source of wealth and the rise of new tech and finance fortunes suggest low reproduction rates among superrich property owners. Family wealth, however, plays an important role if the longevity of fortunes is considered. While the literature predicts family fortunes to be taxed away, divided among a large number of heirs, or lost through incompetence, we find that scions of inherited great wealth (mostly up to the third generation) are more likely to remain listed in the Forbes 400 roster than self-made entrepreneurs. We conclude that even though entrepreneurship increasingly matters for becoming super-rich, it is first and foremost the ability of rich family dynasties to retain control over corporations and to access sophisticated financial advice that makes fortunes last. Zusammenfassung

This study is the first to systematically identify the most recognized scholars in sociology in the 1970s and 2010s by citation counts. This is achieved on the basis of a newly generated text corpus of approximately 49,000 pages, which encompasses various genres of literature (encyclopedias, handbooks, journals, textbooks). Investigations into common characteristics reveal that, in the 1970s, elites typically received their PhD from Columbia University, Harvard University, or the University of Chicago. The contemporary elite is partly European. In general, eminence is short-lived (<40 years). Over time, the elite has remained socially heterogeneous, but becomes more mobile and increasingly moves between universities. Coverage in specialist and generalist journals suggests that elite status in sociology cannot be achieved simply by dominating multiple communities inside sociology; elite sociologists are typically well received in the discipline's core.

This study examines the importance of gifts and bequests ('wealth transfers') across the distribution of household wealth. Unconditional quantile regression applied to harmonized survey data obtained from 11 European countries reveals that households that receive gifts and bequests own considerably more wealth than non-receiving households, all other things being equal. The wealth gap varies hugely along the distribution of net wealth. At the median, the wealth gap reaches about 119,000 euros and increases to 630,000 euros at the 90th percentile. With regard to the 99th percentile, survey data even indicate differences in wealth levels greater than 2.3 million euros. Further analysis finds evidence that the impact of wealth transfers on household wealth follows an inverted U-shaped pattern: gifts and bequests contribute the most to the stock of private wealth in the broad mid-section and less so at the lower and upper ends of the distribution. Overall, the study provides evidence for a strong nexus between inheritance and household wealth that is not limited to the top.

No abstract