The Unassuming Economist

In a recent column (2021) for Project Syndicate, Professor Dani Rodrik (Harvard Kennedy School of Government) writes that strengthening workers’ bargaining power and increasing the supply of good jobs for those who most need them is the way for boosting workers’ incomes and ensuring a fairer share of the prosperity pie for them.

“In advanced economies, earnings for those with less education often stagnated despite gains in overall labor productivity. In developing countries, where standard economic theory predicted that workers would be the main beneficiary of the expanding global division of labor, corporations, and capital again reaped the biggest gains.”

The article then moves on to discuss strategies that can counteract this problem such as firms’ investment in the happiness and productivity of their workers, increasing organizational power of workers, expansionary macroeconomic policies that can generate derived demand for labor, etc.

Click here to read the full article.

A recent article in the Financial Times by Martin Sandbu discusses in detail the state of inequality prevalent in the world today. Taking a cue from the World Inequality Report released by the World Inequality Lab on December 7th, 2021, the author makes an important point about the premature fiscal austerity of rich countries exacerbating inequalities after a pandemic (Furceri, Loungani, Ostry, Pizzuto, 2021).

Some other trends highlighted in the article include:

“First, global inequality (between countries) was pretty constant in 2020 compared to the year before — but that stalled a trend of falling inequality since the early 2000s.

Second, global inequality of individual wealth took a jump last year, when the share of global wealth owned by the world’s billionaires increased by half (from 2.2 to 3.3 percent) and that of the top 0.01 percent wealthiest individuals increased by about a percentage point (from 10.3 to 11.1 percent). At the same time, the wealth of the broader top 1 percent group remained stable, both in the US and Europe, so the winners of greater wealth inequality were extremely concentrated at the very top.

Third, Europe is the most egalitarian continent, whether measured by income inequality, wealth inequality, or inequality of individual carbon emissions, the WID’s data on which are fascinating and important. (They show that middle-income people in rich countries emit less than the top 10 percent in some poorer regions.)”

It then goes on to discuss some reasons which explain why Europe is more egalitarian than the US, the role of taxation and public spending for measures to promote equality, etc.

Click here to read the full article.

From a NBER paper by Rebecca Diamond and Enrico Moretti:

“Income differences across US cities are well documented, but little is known about the level of standard of living in each city—defined as the amount of market-based consumption that residents are able to afford. In this paper we provide estimates of the standard of living by commuting zone for households in a given income or education group, and we study how they relate to local cost of living. Using a novel dataset, we observe debit and credit card transactions, check and ACH payments, and cash withdrawals of 5% of US households in 2014 and use it to measure mean consumption expenditures by commuting zone and income group. To measure local prices, we build income-specific consumer price indices by commuting zone. We uncover vast geographical differences in material standard of living for a given income level. Low-income residents in the most affordable commuting zone enjoy a level of consumption that is 74% higher than that of low-income residents in the most expensive commuting zone.

We then endogenize income and estimate the standard of living that low-skill and high-skill households can expect in each US commuting zone, accounting for geographical variation in both costs of living and expected income. We find that for college graduates, there is essentially no relationship between consumption and cost of living, suggesting that college graduates living in cities with high costs of living—including the most expensive coastal cities—enjoy a standard of living on average similar to college graduates with the same observable characteristics living in cities with low cost of living—including the least expensive Rust Belt cities. By contrast, we find a significant negative relationship between consumption and cost of living for high school graduates and high school drop-outs, indicating that expensive cities offer a lower standard of living than more affordable cities. The differences are quantitatively large: High school drop-outs moving from the most to the least affordable commuting zone would experience a 26.9% decline in consumption.”

On December 7th, 2021, the World Inequality Lab released the World Inequality Report 2022, authored by the Lab’s co-director and economist Lucas Chancel and economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman. Through the course of its 10 chapters, the report covers insights on themes like changing global economic inequality, the rise of multimillionaires, the disproportionate burden of labor income discrimination on women, carbon inequalities, tax justice, and sustainability. Some notable statistics from the report yield the following results:

1. Income inequality: Globally, the richest 10% of the population currently earns 52% of the global income, whereas the poorest half of the population earns 8% of it. On average, an individual from the top 10% of the global income distribution earns €87,200 (USD122,100) per year, whereas an individual from the poorest half of the global income distribution makes €2,800 (USD3,920) per year.
2. Wealth inequality: The poorest half of the global population barely owns any wealth at all, possessing just 2% of the total. In contrast, the richest 10% of the global population own 76% of all wealth. On average, the poorest half of the population owns PPP €2,900 per adult, i.e. USD4,100 and the top 10% own €550,900 (or USD771,300) on average.
3. Regional variations in inequality: In Europe, the top 10% income share is around 36%, whereas in MENA it reaches 58%. In between these two levels, we see a diversity of patterns. In East Asia, the top 10% makes 43% of total income and in Latin America, 55%. Moreover, while some countries have experienced spectacular increases in inequality (including the US, Russia and India) others like European countries and China have only experienced a little rise.
4. Nations have become richer, but governments have grown poorer: Private wealth has grown immensely but the share of the public sector in total national wealth is close or euqal to 0 in rich countries.
5. Gender inequalities in labor income: Women’s share of total incomes from work (labor income) neared 30% in 1990 and stands at less than 35% today

The report also includes excerpts from Thomas Piketty’s upcoming book titled, ‘A brief history of inequality‘, slated for release in 2022 in the concluding chapter.

Click here to access the full report.

Abstract of this National Bureau for Economic Research (NBER) working paper (2021) by Jean-Felix Brouillette, Charles I. Jones, and Peter J. Klenow of Standford University:

“We construct a measure of consumption-equivalent welfare for Black and White Americans. Our statistic incorporates life expectancy, consumption, leisure, and inequality, with mortality rates playing a key role quantitatively. According to our estimates, welfare for Black Americans was 43% of that for White Americans in 1984 and rose to 60% by 2019. Going back further in time (albeit with more limited data), the gap was even larger, with Black welfare equal to just 28% of White welfare in 1940. On the one hand, there has been remarkable progress for Black Americans: the level of their consumption-equivalent welfare increased by a factor of 28 between 1940 and 2019 when aggregate consumption per person rose a more modest 5-fold. On the other hand, despite this remarkable progress, the welfare gap in 2019 remains disconcertingly large. Mortality from COVID-19 has temporarily reversed a decade of progress, lowering Black welfare by 17% while reducing White welfare by 10%.”

Click here to read the full paper.