How inequalities emerge in various domains within societies – from education to the economy, from technology to the distribution of resources – and what dynamics underlie them have long been subjects of ongoing debate. Although the dynamics of inequality are often studied within the specific language and jargon of each field, approaches that offer a more general perspective have made significant contributions to understanding the factors and processes that lead to inequality as a whole. In this context, one of the most influential approaches to understanding how social inequalities occur is the "Matthew effect," developed by the renowned sociologist Robert Merton (1968), inspired by the verse in the Gospel of Matthew: “For whoever has will be given more.” The Matthew effect explains how even very small initial differences can grow over time if no intervention is made, how advantage begets further advantage, how it accumulates, and ultimately how it exacerbates inequalities.
In this context, Daniel Rigney introduces the Matthew effect in his book "The Matthew Effect: How Advantage Begets Further Advantage," and explores its contributions to understanding inequality across various domains – from science and economics to politics, education and culture. Rigney stated that his primary aim in writing the book was to evaluate the extent to which the Matthew effect applies across a broad spectrum, despite its well-established influence in the social sciences and related fields. Rigney notes that although many pioneering studies have examined the Matthew effect in areas such as education, economics, sociology and politics following Merton’s original definition, these discussions have largely remained confined within their respective disciplines. With this book, he aims to emphasize the broad reach of the Matthew effect, to illustrate how similar dynamics emerge across interrelated domains and to show how these dynamics can mutually reinforce one another.
In his book, Rigney devotes separate chapters to the impact of the Matthew effect across various fields. At the same time, in the conclusion, he brings together these diverse discussions under a unified perspective, highlighting the interactions between different domains. One of the notable strengths of the book is its ability to present contemporary examples to readers, particularly through sociological and economic indicators in countries where the Matthew effect is especially prominent, such as the United States. A key contribution of the book – both to the academic literature and to the general reader – is its explanation of the consequences of the Matthew effect on inequality through familiar analogies such as zero-sum games, as well as common idioms and proverbs. Through these analogies and accessible explanations, Rigney points out that the manifestations of the Matthew effect are often clearly observable by society, even if not explicitly labeled as such.
Rigney devotes the first chapter of his book to a detailed examination of the Matthew effect. In summary, in various areas of life, initial advantages tend to lead to further advantages over time, and thus, the gap between those who have more and those who have less at the outset continues to widen. This dynamic contributes to the deepening of inequalities and, if left unaddressed, can eventually become chronic. For example, as emphasized in Merton’s work, highly esteemed scientists and institutions increase their visibility and recognition to a much greater extent compared to their peers and other institutions, thereby attracting more resources. These additional resources, in turn, further enhance their reputation.
As in other domains, in the realm of politics, power tends to generate more power. To illustrate how cycles of power become entrenched, Rigney cites the fact that, since 1964, 81% of U.S. senators and 93% of members of the House of Representatives have been reelected. Power does not manifest solely in governance; it is also evident in structures related to education, the economy and religion. Rigney particularly demonstrates how the Matthew effect plays a significant role in deepening racial inequalities in American society by presenting examples from various domains. For instance, employment status, low wages and challenges in education prevent Black Americans from accumulating economic advantages at the same rate as white Americans. As a result, significant assets cannot be passed down to future generations, and poverty persists across generations. This negative situation triggers secondary effects in other areas: unemployment and crime rates increase, family structures weaken, health and overall well-being decline, and individuals become more vulnerable to destructive external forces.
In short, there is a self-reinforcing cycle at play in the context of inequality. In this regard, the Matthew effect also provides a framework for analyzing social phenomena through the lens of positive feedback loops, as described in systems theory. Rigney explains that the Matthew effect functions as a form of positive feedback that amplifies the deviation of the system, thereby pushing it toward instability.
Of course, inequalities are also influenced by many internal factors and can be interpreted differently depending on the context. For example, some explain inequalities not through the Matthew effect, but rather through differences in individuals’ motivation, talent or personal initiative. This perspective places extraordinary emphasis on human capital. However, when individuals fail to reach expected positions, levels of success, or income despite their level of human capital, this approach tends to locate the source of the problem not in external factors, but again in deficiencies within their human capital. Yet, in reality, most people live in a grey zone – vulnerable to the unexpected, uncontrollable and impersonal mechanisms of the Matthew effect. Therefore, Rigney emphasizes that it is a major fallacy to claim that wealthy and disadvantaged players in social domains such as the economy, science, art and education have equal opportunities to succeed. He illustrates this point notably through the example of compound interest. Even if we assume that the interest rate is the same for individuals who invest different amounts of money, which is not entirely accurate, as the rate is tied to the amount invested, it becomes evident over time that the gap between initial amounts increases significantly. In other words, the rules of the game and the initial conditions virtually guarantee that inequalities will grow as the game progresses.
For this reason, Rigney highlights the critical distinction between having an opportunity to succeed and having an equal opportunity to succeed. This distinction is, in fact, quite important. Because having access, being in the game, means having a chance to succeed, but it certainly does not mean that everyone in the game has an equal chance of winning. Another important point Rigney emphasizes regarding the Matthew effect is that the reverse flow of the trend it produces is extremely limited in scale. In other words, it is indeed possible for the poor to become wealthy or for the rich to become poor, but the likelihood of such a reversal is significantly lower compared to the probability of the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer. Therefore, the most important mechanism of the Matthew effect is that it leads to cumulative advantage through positive feedback loops. In other words, through self-amplifying cycles, advantage generates further advantage, and the gap between those who have more and those who have less continues to deepen over time.
The Matthew effect can be either relative or absolute, depending on the domain in which it occurs. As Rigney explains, the absolute Matthew effect resembles a zero-sum game, where one player’s gain directly corresponds to another’s loss. In such contexts, an increase in one person’s advantage is necessarily tied to a worsening of another’s disadvantage. In the case of the Matthew effect, however, the system is open and resources expand, resulting in a positive-sum game in which, despite differences in gains, everyone has the potential to benefit. Therefore, as previously noted, one player’s success is not always tied to the loss of others. Nonetheless, even in such systems, there is a risk that some players may attempt to monopolize the gains. Whether absolute or relative, the social mechanisms that produce the Matthew effect are often covert and not recognized by most participants involved in a given social phenomenon.
After examining the manifestations of the Matthew effect in various domains such as education, economics, science and technology, Rigney turns to a particularly important question: Is the Matthew effect an inevitable social phenomenon, or can it be prevented? He explores this issue in detail. Within this framework, Rigney approaches the problem through the lens of constructivism. According to this perspective, the Matthew effect emerges as a result of artificial rules that we ourselves have created within a social game. As with any set of game rules, these can lead to highly unequal outcomes. Therefore, just as the rules of a game can be changed, so too can the structures and norms that produce the Matthew effect. Rigney places particular emphasis on the idea that the inequalities and accumulation of advantage resulting from the Matthew effect can, in fact, be mitigated through social interventions. He illustrates this by drawing an analogy to society’s responses to natural diseases or disasters. He also explores in detail both the mathematical constraints that can limit the Matthew effect and the role of government interventions. However, Rigney points out that the social consequences of the Matthew effect are not necessarily always destructive or unjust. For instance, he uses the example of the accumulation of personal wealth to argue that the outcomes may vary depending on how that wealth is acquired, how it is used, and how it affects the well-being of others.
In summary, the book serves as an important resource that goes beyond the technical definition of the Matthew effect, offering insight into how it can be understood in different contexts, which social processes it influences, and, most importantly, raising awareness that this effect is not an inevitable process. There are, in fact, many possible avenues for intervention. In society, no domain exists in isolation or functions independently from others. Each domain influences the others. In other words, an advantage gained in one area can lead to further advantages within that same field, while also generating benefits in other areas. As a result, the Matthew effect does not merely activate self-reinforcing cycles within a single domain but also triggers cycles that exacerbate inequality across other domains. Thus, an advantage or disadvantage in one field can have a domino effect, spreading to other areas as well. For this reason, mitigating the Matthew effect is of critical importance for the development of society as a whole – that is, for ensuring that the advancement of one segment of society does not come at the expense of another. The prevalence of the Matthew effect suggests that the natural flow of social processes tends to increase inequality. Therefore, public policies aimed at intervening in this "normal" flow are essential for reducing inequalities.
