Comparing Davis And Moore's Theory Of Income Inequality

On the other hand, conflict theorists argue that income inequality is part of a socio-structural force lead by elites to increase their wealth and opportunity at the expense of the working and middle classes. The theory of structural functionalism, coined by Davis and Moore (1945), asserted that stratification was necessary in society. The primary reasons given for their claims were that stratification serves a useful function of society. That is, not every job or task is equally important or desirable; these various tasks require different skills and therefore, to fill such positions there must be variation in the types of rewards given. Davis and Moore (1945) go on to explain that the function of stratification is to motivate the labor force in a highly competitive market and that without competition for higher pay (and thus, access to resources) it would be difficult to fulfill all the needs of society.
More specifically related to income inequality, Davis and Moore (1945) argue that the reason there is such a disparity in income between those at the top of the social ladder and those at the bottom is (1) those at the top have more skills; and (2) those at the bottom perform jobs that are less important than those at the top. In a significant departure from structural functionalism, many scholars who adhere to the writings of Karl Marx regarding capitalism argue that inequality is not necessary, nor does it serve a pertinent function. Rather, as they see it, inequality is a symptom of societal dysfunction. Scholars such as Tumin (1953) claim that inequality provides opportunity to the privileged while at the same time limiting the possibilities for those in the working