SUMMARY - After Piketty_ The Agenda for Economics and Inequality - Heather Boushey

Play this article



Here is a summary of the key points:

  • Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the 21st Century became an unprecedented publishing phenomenon, selling over 2 million copies worldwide in over 30 languages.

  • Its success greatly exceeded expectations, as the acquiring editor at Harvard University Press anticipated just 200,000 sales over 2-3 years.

  • Piketty's academic stature and profile was higher in France prior to the book's release, helping drive initial tens of thousands of sales there.

  • However, his message about rising inequality under neoliberalism faced uncertain reception in the more ideologically diverse US market.

  • Ultimately, the book captured widespread attention, likely due to tapping into public concerns about inequality in the post-recession context and presenting a rigorous empirical analysis of long-term trends.

  • While Piketty's prominence helped in France, the book's popularity crossed borders in an unpredicted manner. Its success exemplified a strong appetite for understanding issues related to the distribution of wealth and economic power.

In short, Capital in the 21st Century became a global publishing phenomenon that significantly exceeded all forecasts, speaking to deep public interest in issues of inequality despite uncertainty over reception in some markets like the US.

Here is a summary of key points about Thomas Piketty's work on economic inequality and the American right:

  • Piketty provided extensive data showing that income and wealth inequality in the United States and other countries has been increasing significantly since the 1970s. This challenged the view that inequality was not a major issue.

  • His central theory is that the rate of return on capital (r) tends to be higher than the overall economic growth rate (g). When r > g, it leads to increasing concentration of wealth among capital owners over time through inheritance and investment returns.

  • Historically, the late 19th century Gilded Age saw r greatly exceed g, resulting in inherited wealth dominating economies. Piketty argues current trends could return the world to this "patrimonial capitalism."

  • The American right is generally skeptical of Piketty's work and policy prescriptions. They dispute his theories about returns on capital driving inequality and deny inequality itself is a problem.

  • Conservatives argue the free market optimally distributes resources and rewards, and that efforts to curb inequality through wealth taxes or other policies will discourage business investment and economic growth.

  • However, Piketty's extensive data and analysis has fueled debate about inequality and concern among others about undue concentration of wealth and political influence if trends continue unchecked.

    Here is a summary:

  • Piketty's formula relating wealth-to-income (W/Y) to savings rate (s) and growth rate (g) obscures the role of capitalist institutions in enabling private wealth accumulation through profits and property rights.

  • Piketty argues that as long as return on capital (r) exceeds growth rate (g), the share of income going to capital (α) and wealth inequality will rise over time. This dynamic was obscured historically by high postwar growth rates.

  • Structural factors like returns on foreign investment, capital substituting for labor, use of wealth to influence policy/returns, or non-economic motives could keep r above g.

  • Conceptualizing savings as accumulating for its own sake, like real estate, rather than just future consumption, supports higher taxes on wealth without deterring accumulation.

  • Valuation effects and capital gains are also major contributors to wealth levels, suggesting wealth is determined by factors like bargaining power (α), income share to owners (αY), and capital levels, not just savings and growth.

    Here are the key points from the summary:

  • Enslaved people frequently worked in urban settings throughout the South, performing a variety of labor like in shipyards, factories, construction, public works projects, etc.

  • Their labor contributed significantly to developing infrastructure and the overall economy of cities and states. They worked on projects like levee construction, railroads, cemeteries, etc.

  • Some cities and state governments directly owned enslaved people and utilized their labor for public works like roads, bridges, etc. This was seen as a cost-effective use of labor.

  • Records provide specific examples of enslaved individuals doing road work assigned by county governments. Their labor played an integral role in both private industry and the development of professional/financial capital in the South.

Overall, it highlights how enslaved labor was extensively used in urban settings and profoundly important for developing infrastructure and economies throughout the Southern states.

Here is a summary of the key points made in the article:

  • The article argues that Thomas Piketty's analysis in Capital in the 21st Century does not fully account for the role of human capital in driving wealth and income inequality.

  • Human capital, such as skills, education and other job qualifications, represents an important form of wealth that is accumulated over one's lifetime through labor and investments.

  • Human capital can be inherited intergenerationally through factors like parents investing in their children's education and development. It also provides returns through higher lifetime earnings.

  • Including human capital in the analysis changes some of Piketty's conclusions about the causes and nature of inequality. Specifically, it suggests inequality stems more from differential ability to accumulate human capital than just inheritance of physical wealth.

  • Mainstream economics sees human capital theory as central to understanding labor market inequalities, yet Piketty dismisses it without adequate consideration in his framework focused on physical capital.

  • Accounting for both physical and human capital transmission would provide a more comprehensive picture of wealth dynamics and intergenerational advantages according to the article.

So in summary, the key argument is that Piketty's analysis is limited by not incorporating human capital theory and overlooking the important role of skill-based wealth in driving economic outcomes and inequality.

Here is a summary:

  • Technological progress and globalization have driven changes in labor market structures that have increased inequality.

  • Automation has substituted for many middle-income, routine jobs while complementing higher-skilled, non-routine work. This has polarized the labor market and widened gaps between educational groups.

  • Offshoring and global supply chains introduced greater competition from lower-cost countries, putting downward pressure on wages in developed nations.

  • Traditional manufacturing employment declined as production shifted abroad, removing well-paying jobs for those without post-secondary education.

  • New industries require higher skills and the earnings premium for education has risen substantially. However, education has not fully offset inequality rises.

  • Future technologies like AI threaten further automation across skill levels and greater labor market disruption if not properly managed through policy responses like education investments and tax/transfer programs.

  • Transformations in the labor market structure through outsourcing and the "fissured workplace" have also diminished worker bargaining power and wage-setting norms, exacerbating inequality trends.

In summary, technological and global economic changes have disproportionately benefited higher-skilled workers while reducing opportunities and bargaining power for those with fewer skills or qualifications. This has substantially increased inequality in recent decades.

Here is a summary of the key points:

  • The passage discusses how the shifting of work from direct employment to outsourcing and contracting arrangements (referred to as "fissuring") has impacted wage determination and inequality.

  • Large companies have some degree of monopsony power in the labor market, giving them more discretion in setting wages. Historically they promoted internal fairness through consistent pay policies.

  • But fissuring allows companies to treat labor costs more like market transactions by outsourcing functions and jobs to separate entities that compete on costs including wages.

  • Studies show outsourced workers in the same jobs earn less than direct employees. Fissuring increases inequality between firms as wages are driven down for contractors.

  • More research is needed to better understand how norms of fairness interact with market forces under fissuring, and how this evolution impacts wage determination for different skills and sectors.

  • The shift to outsourcing has given companies more flexibility in wage-setting relative to previous internal fairness constraints, contributing to rising overall inequality within and between firms.

    Here is a summary of the key points:

  • The passage argues that finance capital represents the culmination of neoliberal capitalism's transformation, more so than just growing inequality between capital/labor as described by Piketty.

  • Corporations have increasingly prioritized financial values and practices over other concerns.

  • Capital can appear and be located in extra-legal spaces that are obscure to states and international governance, like tax havens but also special economic zones/corridors/cities operating outside democratic oversight.

  • These extra-legal spaces allow capital to be highly mobile while maximizing returns, decoupling the economy from politics.

  • Zones have proliferated globally as paradigmatic extra-legal areas governed by private rather than democratic rules, amplifying capital's power and spatially reproducing inequality.

  • Zones and offshore financial centers function as "evil paradises" that are deliberately nondemocratic, spatially concentrating the effects of neoliberal capitalism's transformation in anti-democratic pockets.

    Here are the key points from the summary:

  • Accurately measuring wealth inequality, especially in the US, is challenging due to gaps and limitations in existing data sources. Improving wealth data collection should be a research priority.

  • There are important debates around estimating long-term trends in wealth concentration in places like the US where data sources change over time. More work is needed to reconcile different studies.

  • Capturing information from tax filings, financial accounts, inheritances, and savings can significantly enhance wealth data quality, but requires expanded reporting.

  • Understanding what drives the composition of top incomes, particularly the share coming from capital/business/partnership income versus salaries, provides insights into inequality dynamics.

  • Government policies around taxation, wages, unions, and social programs have significantly impacted inequality levels over time. Comparative analysis across policies/countries is instructive.

  • Continuing to measure inequality comprehensively using distributional national accounts frameworks will allow deeper understanding of inequality drivers and the impact of economic growth and policy changes over the long run.

In summary, the passage emphasizes that better measurement is key to ongoing research aimed at understanding wealth inequality trends and evaluating what policy approaches may be most effective at addressing rising disparities.

Here are the key points summarized:

  • Piketty argues we are returning to a form of "patrimonial capitalism" where the rich earn most income from capital/assets rather than labor, as in the 19th century, increasing the importance of past inherited wealth.

  • Boushey examines what insights a feminist perspective can provide in understanding this new era of patrimonial capitalism.

  • One optimistic view is that greater economic inclusion and participation actually promotes growth. Inheritance patterns are also more egalitarian now than in the past. So rising inequality may not negatively impact women's economic and political rights.

  • However, a more pessimistic view is that with 19th century levels of inequality returning, there could be complementary forces working to reduce women's economic options and political power, just as occurred in the past during periods of high inequality.

  • Institutions play an important role in influencing economic outcomes, so the treatment and position of women in the economy and society is likely tied to broader trends in equality and power structures.

The key takeaway is that a feminist lens cautions the potential negative impacts on women's rights and opportunities if inequality reaches levels seen in prior eras dominated by inherited wealth and patrimonial capitalism. Greater inclusion is optimistically viewed as promoting growth.

Here is a summary of the key points:

  • Piketty raises important concerns about rising inequality driven by capital accumulation outpacing economic growth. His empirical analysis sheds light on historical patterns.

  • However, his work does not fully account for gender, social structures, and institutional influences on wealth accumulation and inheritance over time. A feminist perspective could provide additional insights.

  • Factors like marriage patterns, assortative mating trends among elites, and differences in family structures by income level may reinforce intergenerational inequality in ways not fully captured by Piketty's framework.

  • Piketty's predictions about a return to "patrimonial capitalism" based on inherited wealth depend on assumptions about gender norms and inheritance laws/practices that need more examination considering evolving family dynamics.

  • Overall, incorporating analysis of unpaid labor, social institutions, and gender is needed to fully understand wealth dynamics and their implications for predicting the impacts of rising inequality over generations into the future.

    Here is a summary of the key points:

  • Rising income and wealth inequality in recent decades is driven by multiple factors including technology, globalization, declining unionization, and rising economic rents.

  • Inequality can impact macroeconomic stability and performance through several potential channels such as consumer spending patterns, credit market dynamics, political economy, and redistribution issues.

  • However, disentangling these effects is difficult empirically due to other confounding factors changing simultaneously. The relationship between inequality and various economic outcomes is complex.

  • Moderate inequality may promote growth, but very high inequality is linked to rent-seeking, less productive investment, constraints on public investment, and social instability - all of which can slow growth.

  • Inequality may contribute indirectly to financial crises by increasing household leverage and inflating asset bubbles when credit constraints ease.

  • While the impact of inequality remains debated, there are arguments it could exacerbate business cycles by making aggregate demand more reliant on wealthy spending and increasing wealth effects on consumption.

  • Overall, more research is still needed but inequality appears to pose macroeconomic risks, especially at very high levels, through its influence on several transmission channels in the economy. The relationship is multifaceted rather than a direct causality.

    Here is a summary of the key points:

  • Germany and France experienced significant political turmoil in the early 20th century as left-wing movements gained popularity but faced resistance from entrenched conservative forces.

  • World War I exacerbated existing political divisions and ideological conflicts in both countries. It also weakened moderate left-wing parties that had previously advocated progressive social reforms.

  • In the aftermath of WWI, both Germany and France suffered from political instability, economic difficulties related to war debts and reparations, and the rise of new ideological divisions like communism vs. socialism.

  • In Germany, conservative elites had undermined the socialist SPD party's influence prior to WWI through electoral changes. During the war, opposition to the militaristic government grew within the SPD.

  • The Popular Front government in France brought Communists into power in the mid-1930s and enacted significant labor reforms, but tensions remained high as fascism rose abroad.

  • Overall, the early 20th century was a period of tumultuous political change, polarization and power struggles as left-wing movements grew in strength but faced resistance from traditional ruling classes in both Germany and France. The impacts of WWI exacerbated these sociopolitical divisions.

    Here is a summary:

  • The passage proposes analyzing historical drivers of global inequality through the lens of how history shaped both initial endowments (wealth distribution) and ongoing institutions (rules governing economic, political and social behaviors).

  • Events like slavery and colonization created two groups - "citizens" in colonizing countries who benefited, and colonial "subjects" who were exploited. Citizens generally received larger endowments and operate under democratic institutions that facilitate wealth accumulation. Subjects received little and faced coercive, undemocratic institutions limiting opportunities.

  • A simple wealth transmission model shows that over generations, endowment differences erode due to random events. However, persistent institutions continue influencing inequality long after initial endowments fade by shaping incentives, economic power and capacity for redistribution.

  • The paper will examine examples like how post-colonial institutions in Africa and policies in Latin America impacted long-term inequality, above and beyond fading colonial endowments.

  • The overall framework analyzes how history shapes current global inequality through both initial conditions and durable effects of the institutions it helped establish and propagate over time.

    Here is a summary of the key points:

  • Piketty's analysis of rising inequality focuses primarily on economic forces like returns on capital outpacing economic growth. However, politics and institutions also play a major role in shaping inequality dynamics.

  • The role of the state is more complex than Piketty acknowledges, as governments are influenced by powerful interests seeking to affect policies around taxation, regulation, public investment, and other redistributive mechanisms.

  • High economic inequality tends to translate into high political inequality as wealthy groups can more effectively influence policymaking through lobbying, campaign donations, and other advocacy. This undermines democratic principles of equal representation.

  • Inequality also threatens principles of equal opportunity by enabling greater spatial and economic segregation among socioeconomic classes. It allows wealthy groups to opt out of social contracts to a greater degree.

  • More research is needed to better understand the interplay between economic forces, political institutions and processes, and inequality outcomes over long periods of time. Integrating insights from political science could strengthen Piketty's theoretical framework.

  • Overall, while Piketty shines a light on rising inequality, a more comprehensive analysis requires considering not just economic dynamics but also the political channels through which inequality gets magnified or constrained in different societies.

    Here is a summary of the key points:

  • Studies find that government policies in the US align more closely with the preferences of economic elites and business groups than average citizens, contributing to rising inequality. The wealthy support policies that do not significantly redistribute wealth or reduce income differences.

  • More data is needed on the political views of the very wealthy, as existing sources cannot distinguish the super-rich from merely rich. Organized interest groups also shape unequal political influence and impact redistributive policies through the political process over time.

  • Technical changes alone do not explain growing income divergence at the top; politics and policies must be considered to understand rising inequality trends. Weakening civic organizations has reduced information and leverage for working families.

  • The decline of cross-class civic groups since the 1960s disrupted advocacy, giving more influence to well-funded narrow interests. Corporations now dramatically overshadow other groups in policy shaping through lobbying and information provision to Congress.

  • Historical analysis examines how organized interests shape inequality through influence on long-term policy regimes and tax systems, based on their "power resources" in political systems. U.S. fragmentation magnifies corporate influence and perpetuates inequality.

  • Early discriminatory policies around housing and capital access, like redlining, continue to impact wealth inequality today through lack of accumulated wealth and place-based dynamics concentrating disadvantage.

    Here is a summary of the key points made in the passage:

  • Piketty argues that inherited wealth will rise significantly in the future if saving and bequest rates of the wealthy remain similar to pre-World War I levels.

  • However, the passage questions the assumption that the saving and bequest behavior of high-income individuals today will mirror that of the late 19th/early 20th century.

  • It notes the share of female wealth holders has increased since the 1960s, which could imply inherited wealth is less important as more wealth is self-made rather than inherited.

  • The destruction of large fortunes in the early 20th century through events like wars, revolutions and taxation also suggests inherited wealth played a smaller role in the 20th century.

  • So Piketty's prediction about rising inherited wealth in the future may overestimate its importance if saving and bequest patterns have changed from the past in meaningful ways.

  • The basic economic mechanisms influencing wealth transmission across generations are complex and could differ today compared to the period Piketty focuses on.

In summary, the passage raises doubts about a key assumption underpinning Piketty's argument by questioning whether historical saving and bequest behaviors still apply in the current context.

Here is a summary of the key points:

  • Piketty analyzes long-term trends in wealth inequality but his analysis relies on an untested assumption that saving and bequest behaviors will mimic historical patterns from over a century ago.

  • Saving and bequest behaviors may be different now compared to the late 19th/early 20th century due to changes in tax code, economic conditions, social norms, etc.

  • Piketty assumes the very high rates of return on capital relative to economic growth that drove wealth concentration in the past will continue, but this is uncertain and may not hold going forward if behaviors change.

  • So while Piketty provides a valuable analysis of long-term historical trends, one core assumption about inheritance and saving behaviors remaining the same over time remains untested and could impact projections of future wealth inequality dynamics.

In summary, the passage questions whether saving, bequest and inheritance behaviors of high-income individuals will necessarily follow the same patterns observed historically, which is a key assumption underlying Piketty's analysis and projections of future wealth inequality trends.

Here is a summary of the key points:

  • The article provides a feminist critique of Thomas Piketty's theories of capital accumulation and wealth inequality as presented in Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

  • It argues that Piketty's framework overlooks the important economic contributions of women, such as unpaid household labor and care work traditionally performed by women. Incorporating women's roles leads to a more complete picture of inequality.

  • Feminist economics pays closer attention to intersectional issues like how inequality differs across gender and race. Inheritance patterns vary between racial groups due to histories like slavery.

  • Accounting for trends like rising female labor force participation, household production, and human capital challenges the prediction that returns to capital will inevitably outgrow economic growth.

  • A feminist perspective also considers how labor market structures, discrimination, and social policies impact inequality over time, not just returns on wealth. This provides a more nuanced analysis of wealth accumulation dynamics.

  • In summary, the chapter puts forth a feminist critique that broadens and enriches Piketty's framework by centering issues of gender and unpaid work in the analysis of capital and inequality.

    Here is a summary of the key points from the passage:

  • Piketty examines long-term data on income sources like wages, capital income, corporate manager pay, and overall wealth/income inequality.

  • Technological change is seen as a driver of rising inequality by substituting capital for less skilled labor and favoring higher skilled workers, contributing to labor market polarization.

  • Human capital theory explains some inequality through differences in education, skills and experience levels, and their intergenerational transmission impacts mobility.

  • Inheritance is a major mechanism for wealth accumulation and resilience across generations, raising concerns about inequality of opportunity over time.

  • Tax records and surveys provide income data but inheritance data relies more heavily on estate/wealth tax records where they exist due to data limitations.

  • The Luxembourg Income Study project collates cross-country tax data to facilitate international inequality comparisons over the long run.

In summary, it discusses Piketty's examination of long-term income and wealth inequality drivers like technology, human capital, inheritance, and differences in available data sources across countries and over time.

Here is a summary of the key points:

  • The text analyzes inequality from both microeconomic and macroeconomic perspectives. The macro analysis looks at how inequality can impact overall economic performance and stability through things like financial crises, political influence, and falling demand.

  • Potential policy remedies discussed include strengthening labor unions, increasing taxes, boosting public investments in education, and regulating rents. However, new technologies also enable solutions like basic income support.

  • Thomas Piketty's work sheds light on long-term historical trends in inequality dating back centuries. His analysis warns that inequality could return to 19th century levels without intervention. He advocates for inheritance and carbon taxes.

Did you find this article valuable?

Support Literary Insights by becoming a sponsor. Any amount is appreciated!