Core vs. Periphery Of Social Group

Economists often ignore many of those axes and are tempted to treat each of them as uncorrelated to the others.

But sociology has convincingly shown that these axes tend to covariate, so that rich people tend to be more educated, to have top jobs, to participate more to social life and decision-making.

Thus one should distinguish a core of society (people with more than certain thresholds of income, education, ... and strong connections through social communication channels) - which actively takes part to public life - in contrast to social periphery, a more or less marginal layer of people (poor, emarginated, isolated) [1].

Social cohesion is what keep society united, avoiding the polarization of core vs. periphery. To measure social cohesion, one should look at how deep is the gap between the so-called "have's" and "have not's" (as in the case of "digital divide", the access to clean water, or the softer concept of "employability") and how fast is this gap filled through a diffusion dynamics.

Electoral participation is much higher in the core than in the periphery. This explains - in part - why, even in quite polarized society, democratic election can be won by parties making the interests of the small minority of rich.