Wealth,Capital and the Theory of Distribution: Some Implications for Piketty’s Analysis

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014) has been spectacularly successful. One reason for this is that while it often challenges received views and supports a non-apologetic interpretation of capitalism, at the same time it relies on mainstream economics. This theoretical framework, however, is not always conducive to consistency and interpretative accuracy. This paper points out some of the book’s analytical weaknesses and shows that some empirical evidence, a clearer distinction between wealth and capital, and a different theoretical perspective, could lead to questioning some of the book’s claims. In particular, it argues that the increase in the wealth-to-output ratio (but not the capital-to-output ratio) cannot explain the observed changes in income shares. It also contends that non-mainstream perspectives on income distribution and growth suggest that changes in income distribution are due more to policy and power relations than to the factors Piketty identifies.     

On the causes of the changes in income shares: Some reflections in the light the United States experience

The last 30 years have witnessed a dramatic change in the distribution of income, with the wage share falling in all major industrialized countries. Main-stream analyses, including New Keynesian ones, which retain the notion of factor substitution leading to a “factor intensity” inversely related to its rate of return, have encountered some difficulties in the interpretation of this change. Nonmainstream approaches present an advantage in the explanation of the phenomenon, consisting in the fact that they entail no a priori connections between the changes in distribution and the changes factor proportions. Hence if a change in institutions or in the bargaining strength of the parties affects distribution, income shares may vary significantly (i.e., changes in wages need not be accompanied by changes in labor to output ratio in the opposite direction as in mainstream analyses). Yet empirical observation may question also some of the analyses that have been advanced outside the mainstream. The article will explore the ways in which nonmainstream approaches have interpreted the described changes in distribution, and assess them from an analytical viewpoint and with reference to U.S. data. The purpose is that of pointing at some open questions and problems.     

Do Rising Top Incomes Spur Economic Growth? Evidence From OECD Countries Based on a Novel Identification Strategy

We investigate the causal relationship between the growth rate of top income shares and economic growth in 12 OECD economies for the period 1950–2010. To analyze patterns of short- and long-run causality, we build upon recent advances in structural-vector autoregressive modeling of non-Gaussian systems. This framework allows us to discriminate between rival transmission channels by means of dependence tests, since independent shocks are unique for a particular causation pattern. We consider the share of income accruing to the top 1 percent (1), to the next 9 percent (9), and to the top decile (10). While structural models display considerable heterogeneity across countries, mean group and pooled results strongly favor a specific transmission pattern. In particular, 1 has a long-run positive impact on economic development. This result, which is also confirmed by identified impulse-response functions, is particularly evident for the post-1980 period.     

Conflict, Distribution and Population Growth

This paper studies an optimal foraging model where distributive conflicts among foragers emerge from population growth. It investigates distributive rules set to resolve the conflicts. Efficient distributive rules are the ones associated with the most efficient productive decisions. Unequal societies, where the ruling class or King maximizes the surplus, engender the choice of more efficient productive combinations and to a smaller population relative to egalitarian societies.     

城乡居民收入差距的动态演变:1988～2002年

中国城乡居民收入差距已经引起广泛关注。文章以住户调查数据为基础,利用泰尔指数分解、G.Fields分解、Blinder分解、分位回归分解等多种方法讨论了1988年、1995年和2002年“城乡”因素本身对城乡居民收入差距的贡献。这些分解结果表明我国的城乡差距较显著并在不断扩大;而且城乡差距更不利于农村中的低收入人群。     

经济增长与收入分配相关性研究重点转移带来的政策启示

从有关经济增长与收入分配相关性的研究内容入手,分析经济增长和收入分配研究从功能性分配向规模化分配的理论转变过程,提出了针对此种演变带给我们的政策启示:在经济增长过程中,应同时关注收入差距问题。     

收入不平等与经济增长：移动的库兹涅茨曲线*——新时期收入分配改革的思路与意义

准确判断收入不平等对经济增长的影响,对于客观评价中国各个阶段的收入分配制度改革尤为重要。本文在统一增长理论的框架下引入收入不平等因素,构建了一个人口数量、不平等和经济增长同时内生的理论模型,并利用CGSS数据构造收入不平等指标,使用中国省际非平衡面板数据进行经验检验。研究发现：收入不平等与经济增长之间呈现倒U型关系。更重要的是,随着经济发展水平的提高,倒U型曲线将逐渐向左移动,即最优的收入不平等程度随着经济发展水平的提高而逐渐降低。这一发现意味着改革开放以来,中国各个时期的收入分配制度改革均是在特定历史条件下的最优选择。本文的结论具有深刻的政策含义：为了提高经济增长率,需要进一步巩固“脱贫攻坚”成果,逐渐加大收入分配调节力度,使收入分配制度改革紧跟经济发展的步伐,根据经济发展水平不断缩小收入不平等程度。