Search

The paper begins with a brief reminder of the origin of economic sociology. It then surveys research by economic sociologists from the 1980s to the present, with a focus on their relation to political economy, which ranges from close to arm's length. Finally, beyond any differences between economic theory and economic sociology, the paper considers how both approaches can be connected in the socio-historical and economic study of economic inequalities by Thomas Piketty, and the use of matching markets by Alvin Roth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Estudios Económicos is the property of El Colegio de Mexico AC and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In his most recent books, Piketty offers a global history of inequality in its economic, social, political, and intellectual dimensions, arguing that history is moved by the struggle of ideologies. To take part in this battle of ideas, he conceives a new ideal model of society, 'participative socialism', as an egalitarian alternative to the dominant neoproprietarian ideology and to the dangerous resurgence of nationalism and populism. This paper provides a new interpretation of Piketty's view of history and of his participatory socialism in light of Paul Ricoeur's study of the dialectics of ideology and utopia. First, I present Ricoeur's singular analysis of ideology and utopia, which he sees as two inseparable facets of social imagination. Then I show how Ricoeur's concepts can be fruitfully applied to Piketty's conception of history and to his conception of a new form of socialism for the 21st century, drawing lessons from history and forming a 'good' or 'realist' utopia. Finally, I demonstrate that this interpretation of Piketty's socialism can help to better understand some of the criticisms he has received. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a structuralist analysis of the elasticity of substitution between capital and labour, with an application to the US economy. The paper shows how the elasticity of substitution is an aggregated residual parameter, as well as how fluctuations of it can be explained in terms of technological, distributive, demographic and demand shocks. Then, based on a 2 × 2 dynamical model for the wage share of income and the employment rate, the paper analyses Thomas Piketty's theoretical proposition that the functional distribution of income may not be stationary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a response to Deirdre McCloskey's review essay, published recently in this journal, of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the twenty-first century. It argues that McCloskey has set up a number of straw men to attack. Furthermore, her three main arguments against Piketty are flawed. McCloskey wants human capital to be added to Piketty's measure of wealth; she contends that Piketty does not understand the supply-response mechanism; and she accuses Piketty of focusing on the wrong problem--inequality rather than poverty. This paper explains why these are all bad arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Analyse & Kritik is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper applauds the vision and originality of Piketty's Capital and Ideology. We draw attention to the distinctive methodological perspective which he adopts, which we liken to call "social science engineering." This allows a problem oriented perspective on long‐term global social change which sidesteps siloed disciplinary debates in social science and history about the meaning of modernity, the rise of capitalism, the formation of social groups, and the primacy of nations. We bring out how his theory of property permits him to take forward his overarching insight that economic growth leads to wealth accumulation. This, therefore, challenges long standing sociological perspectives by insisting that modernity is a conservative, rather than a revolutionary and transformative process. We build on this essential contribution by noting some areas where his work can push forward even further, notably that his focus on shifting relativities obscures qualitative historical changes, and more particularly means his analysis of the 20th century is not as provocative as that of the 19th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review essay evaluates Capital and Ideology in light of the Latin American experience. Given its history of exploitation and high levels of inequality, the region constitutes an essential case study. By considering the Latin America case, we can also benefit from the many insights coming from within the region and often overlooked by the Anglo‐Saxon (dominant) literature. The paper makes two different arguments. First, asymmetries in economic and political power are the main drivers of long‐term inequality. Following insights from structuralism, I show how the organization of the global economy has shaped domestic patterns of income distribution in many parts of the world. The dependent character of economic development together with the power of domestic elites explain Latin America's stubborn inequality; ideology has historically been more an instrument than an underlying driver. Second, we cannot understand the evolution of income distribution without considering the role of dictatorships. While Capital and Ideology explains convincingly why liberal democracies are not working, it never properly considers the risk and costs of (conservative) authoritarian regimes. In thinking about policy responses, the essay also highlights the importance of strengthening democracy, fighting dictatorships, and enhancing the influence of social movements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper forms part of a larger study of the social implications of London becoming the location of choice for the global ‘super-rich’. The study examines how members of new wealth elites organise their day-to-day activities, the impact their growing numbers have on the prestigious neighbourhoods from which they are displacing pre-existing elites, and the disruptive effect they have on previously taken-for-granted mores, networks and places of association. The aim of the paper is to situate this wider study within a geographic and historical context by framing it within the arguments of Piketty, namely that increased levels of inequality since 1980 are best understood not as a secular trend but as signifying a return to the pre-existing conditions that characterised Western society prior to 1914. To analyse the evolution of – what geodemographers have termed – the Alpha Territory in London over a period of 500 years the paper takes Highgate Village as a case study area, identifies the manner in which the Village’s varied housing stock appeals to different manifestations of this Alpha Territory and uses three recent planning disputes to bring to the surface otherwise hidden conflicts between the interests of global capital and the defenders of more traditional elite values. Returning to the issues raised by Piketty, the paper concludes with an analysis of social change through the use of archive material which enables the lifestyles of those who currently occupy Highgate’s most prestigious properties to be compared with those who occupied them a hundred years ago. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This survey essay reviews close to 200 papers in arguing that in order to achieve sustainable and inclusive development, foreign aid should not orient developing countries toward industrialization in the perspective of Kuznets but in the view of Piketty. Abandoning the former's view that inequality will fall with progress in industrialization and placing more emphasis on inequality in foreign aid policy will lead to more sustainable development outcomes. Inter alia: mitigate short-term poverty, address concerns of burgeoning population growth, train recipient governments on inclusive development, fight corruption and mismanagement and avoid the shortfalls of celebrated Kuznets' conjectures. We discuss how the essay addresses post-2015 development challenges and provide foreign aid policy instruments with which discussed objectives can be achieved. In summary, the essay provides useful policy measures to avoid past pitfalls. 'Output may be growing, and yet the mass of the people may be becoming poorer' (Lewis). 'Lewis led all developing countries to water, proverbially speaking, some African countries have so far chosen not to drink' (Amavilah). Piketty has led all developing countries to the stream again and a challenging policy syndrome of our time is how foreign aid can help them to drink. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over several millennia, democracy has undergone the influence of time and cultures, and has been recognized as both an effective and dysfunctional system. Given the influence of such factors, this paper discusses the relationship between capitalist development and democracy, and their essential categorical structure. What is the relationship between democracy and capitalism? Could democracy be possible in a capitalist society? How does the capitalist mode of production influence democratic values and institutions? Changes in the system of capitalism, associated primarily with globalization, have led to a divergence of democracy and justice, and, as a result, they questioned the ability of capitalist principles to bring various benefits to people. Governments are often disarmed in front of multinational corporations and the balance of power between them is far from ideal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over several decades, income has become increasingly concentrated at the top of the distributional pyramid in many rich countries. Raising taxes on top income earners and top wealth owners has gained traction in many policy circles as a way to reverse this inequality surge. This paper examines the views of mainstream economists, Thomas Piketty and Post-Keynesian economists concerning the impact of taxation and optimal tax policy. We show that, in terms of taxing the rich, these three perspectives have a great deal in common, but there are also many disagreements. We argue that Piketty occupies a middle ground between mainstream and Post-Keynesian economics, and there is a good deal that Piketty and these two schools can learn from one another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on Piketty’s explanation of the increased capital share of total income in major economies in recent decades presented in chapter 6 of his 2014 book. Piketty’s explanation is presented in terms of the theoretical framework of the marginal productivity theory of distribution. The first section of the paper critically reviews the key elements of marginal productivity theory: production function, marginal products, diminishing returns, and elasticity of substitution. The second section summarizes Piketty’s explanation of the increasing capital share in terms of marginal productivity theory; the third section critically evaluates Piketty’s explanation; and the fourth section briefly presents an alternative heterodox explanation of the increased capital share in recent decades. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Ensayos de Política Económica is the property of Pontificia Universidad Catolica Argentina and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ensayos de Política Económica is the property of Pontificia Universidad Catolica Argentina and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper is inspired by Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty- First Century. Piketty does a wonderful job of tracing income and wealth over time, and relating changes to trends of economic and population growth, and drawing out the implications for inequality, inheritance and even democracy. But, he says relatively little about where capital is located, how capital accumulation in one place relies on activities elsewhere, how capital is urbanized with advanced capitalism and what life is like in spaces without capital. This paper asks 'where is the geography in Capital' or 'where is the geography of capital in Capital'? Following Piketty's lead, the paper develops its analysis through a number of important novels. It examines, first, the debate that Jane Austen ignored colonialism and slavery in her treatment of nineteenth century Britain, second, how Balzac and then Zola provide insight to the urban political economy of capital later in the century, and third, how Katherine Boo attends to inequality as the everyday suffering of the poor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Piketty’sCapitalism in the twenty-first centuryprovides a superb, detailed historical analysis of the evolution of income and wealth inequality. Piketty demonstrates vast and increasing inequality that he argues might possibly be tempered in the future by economic growth and educational expansion supplemented by government redistributive policies. However, Piketty has little understanding of the reproductive nature of education, the limits of economic growth, or the fundamental problems of capitalism. In this paper, I depart from a political economy perspective to examine the bankruptcy of the underlying neoclassical economic theory he relies upon. In particular, I discuss how Piketty mistakenly sees capitalism as, in large part, a meritocracy, and the implications for education. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper considers the influence of the burgeoning global 'super-rich' on contemporary sociospatialization processes in London in the light of a contemporary re-reading of Pahl's classic volume, Whose City? It explores if a turn to 'big data' - in the form of commercial geodemographic classifications - can offer any additional insights to a sociological approach to the study of the 'super-rich' that extends the 'spatialization of class' thesis further 'up' the class structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thomas Piketty’sCapital 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. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Thomas Piketty is the most politically and economically important participant in the ongoing debate about the deleterious effects of income and wealth inequality. The article analyses his arguments carefully because they give Marxists an opportunity to intervene in a mainstream political-economic debate in which they are generally not taken seriously. As impressive as Piketty's argument is, and as willing as he is to embrace a socialist solution to capitalist crisis, a non-dogmatic Marxist examination of his texts reveals that his argument does not grasp at the most systematic level the connections between the driving forces of the capitalist economy and the undemocratic implications of widening inequality. This article will argue that although his critique acknowledges the structural inequality of power between workers and capitalists upon which capitalist society depends, his argument points towards an organic link between the exploitation of labour, the falling rate of profit, capitalist crisis, the shift of investment from the productive economy to the financial sector, and growing inequality that he does not explicitly formulate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a great deal of interest in the data on income and wealth inequality collected by Thomas Piketty. This paper does not question that data; rather, it questions the framework of Piketty's analysis, both theoretically and empirically—namely the alleged upward tendency of the ratio of wealth to national income and the rise of wealth inequality. First, in the mechanism put forward, wealth can only grow as a result of savings, thus ruling out any form of price effect (as in urban land). Second, Piketty’s second law defines an asymptotical trajectory, in which variables grow in parallel, something incompatible with the rise of the ratio between two variables. In addition, Piketty’s model does not match data for the USA. The historical profile of the ratio of wealth/national income is actually the inverted image of the productivity of capital (the ratio of output/firms’ fixed capital). Doubts are also expressed concerning the dramatic fall of the ratio of wealth/national income in Europe around World War I. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-first Century has focused attention on the dramatic rise in economic inequality that has occurred in the United States and Europe over the past four decades. This paper argues that his account of the mechanisms that determine the distribution of income and wealth in a capitalist economy is unconvincing, for it rests on a tautology and on a spurious hypothesis about how the savings rate, the growth rate, and the capital/income ratio are connected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Papeles de Europa is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper analyzes the impact of the Great Recession on the economies of the United States and the major economies of Europe (Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain), based on the analysis of the national accounts of the countries chosen. The paper provides additional weight to the conclusions reached by Piketty, but using different sources: a reduction in the share of wages in national income and an increase in social inequality. This can be explained because the downward trend in capital productivity cannot be corrected, so an increase in the share of gross operating surplus in national income (q) and in social inequality is bolstered to maintain the rate of profit, a process which is accompanied by the growing financialization of the economy.

Purpose – This critique of Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century summarizes and comments on the main tenets of the author’s principal theory. The author's aim is to point out the book’s contributions to a critical debate around social and economic issues, while giving special emphasis to its theoretical and epistemological relevance for management science. Design/methodology/approach – Based on a careful reading of the book, in the original French and English translation versions, the author explores Piketty’s arguments and proposals and attempts to place his “scholarly discourse” in relation to Marx’s “worldview” as well as the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Findings – The book’s potential impact over the long run is extremely high, ostensibly enough to make it as important as Marx’s work, but relying on a decidedly different method and philosophy. The author also considers the strong complementariness between this work and that of Pierre Rosanvallon in the field of political science. Some similarities with Fukuyama’s approach are also considered, but on a much lesser note. Research limitations/implications – The question of unemployment, which is given little attention in Piketty’s work, is not addressed here. Social implications – In contrast with Piketty’s book, this paper intends to find social application only within the microcosm of the scholarly community. Originality/value – The author hopes to draw a link between the book’s contribution to economic thinking and its philosophical underpinnings, that is by presenting a reading that is both a positivist assessment and an attempt to decipher underlying assumptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article applies previously estimated effects of immigration on housing values to urban counties in the United States. Our findings here also help estimate how much of the increase in the net capital share of income since 1970 as observed by Piketty () is caused by immigration. We find that in most urban counties in the United States, increased levels of immigration have had a modest but non-negligible effect on the level of real estate prices and, per Rognlie (), likely capital share. These estimates provide hard numbers for the public debate over immigration policy in the United States, with implications elsewhere as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Piketty claims that the gap between the return to capital and the growth rate (r−g) governs the evolution of wealth inequality. This paper assesses its empirical validity using an IV approach and almost one century of US data. Our results are twofold: First, wealth shares are nonstationary, necessitating first differences to draw a valid inference from any econometric exercise. This is consistent with Piketty’s line of argumentation and casts doubt on studies on inequality that use inequality levels without showing the trending behavior of the data. Second, r−g played a significant role in the evolution of wealth inequality over the last century, both statistically and economically. In particular, r−g can explain over 50% of the increase in wealth inequality since the late 1970s.

Piketty's Capital has provoked considerable debate regarding inequality. The existence of increasing inequality creates a challenge for ecological economics. In this paper we set out some of the problems inherent in Piketty's approach and how they are addressed from the point of view of ecological economics. We use Jackson and Victor's response as a point of departure to make several points. Piketty's work involves an unreconciled inconsistency between his laws and the institutional context, which becomes problematic when one starts to think about ‘inevitability’. He simply assumes away ecological problems to make future forecasts for inequality. As such, his forecasts are undermined, since ecological issues are fundamental to any viable future economy. Furthermore, Piketty effectively reproduces (rather than contests) the mainstream practice of delegating ecological issues to a sub-discipline. Jackson and Victor, meanwhile, focus on the mainstream economic aspect of Piketty's work, and construct a model to contest a model. In so doing, they provide an ideational response to what is also a problem of ideological frameworks. Though it can be important to contest an idea, they inadvertently, through family resemblance, contribute to the reproduction of the problematic position of ecological concerns within dominant ways of conceiving economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Economía is the property of Universidade Federal do Parana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the 21st century" has been the most important book economy in recent times. Its aim integrates the debate theories of growth, income distribution, inequality and differences between the extremes income and income of the majority. The work predicts a slow increase in the share of capital income and inequality. His proposal for a global tax on capital is a way to evaluate such tendencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thomas Piketty’s Capital documents long-term trends in income and wealth in advanced economies. It also provides a theoretical framework for analysing the past and projecting the future. Piketty argues that the ratio of wealth to national income is on an upward trend and that this is responsible for the rising income share of wealth-owners. This note accepts Piketty’s main empirical findings but questions his interpretation. The rising income share of wealth-owners is not due to the over-accumulation of capital, as he claims, but just the opposite. There has been too little real investment. The note also considers the long-term dynamics of Piketty’s model and explores the effect of modifying his assumptions about savings behaviour. Finally, it considers the implications of rising asset prices, which are documented by Piketty but are not adequately taken into account in his theoretical analysis or projection of future trends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over several millennia, democracy has undergone the influence of time and cultures, and has been recognized as both an effective and dysfunctional system. Given the influence of such factors, this paper discusses the relationship between capitalist development and democracy, and their essential categorical structure. What is the relationship between democracy and capitalism? Could democracy be possible in a capitalist society? How does the capitalist mode of production influence democratic values and institutions? Changes in the system of capitalism, associated primarily with globalization, have led to a divergence of democracy and justice, and, as a result, they questioned the ability of capitalist principles to bring various benefits to people. Governments are often disarmed in front of multinational corporations and the balance of power between them is far from ideal.

We examine Thomas Piketty's explanations for steady and rising inequality in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the decline of inequality in the half-century after World War I, and the return of high levels of inequality since the 1970s. We specify empirical and conceptual problems with his analysis, which stem from his presentation of causality at a highly general and vague level. That leads him to confuse rather than clarify the causal relations among implacable economic forces, changes in technological innovation and population growth, ideology, and governmental policies and the outcomes that he seeks to explain. We identify social scientists and historians who are able to account for temporal and geographic variations in the political coalitions that propelled egalitarian reforms, and that in their absence cleared the terrain for reactionary anti-egalitarian policies that the rich incited for their narrow benefit. We explain why Piketty's limited conception of ideology is insufficient for explaining how mass opposition to inequality is mobilized. We show that if we want to combine the study of capital in the twenty-first century with that of politics, we need a broader conception of ideology than what Piketty offers, one that will allow us to specify how ideology affects parties, states, voters, and activists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his recent book, Capital and Ideology, French economist Thomas Piketty devotes the final chapter to the changing dimensions of political conflict in Western democracies. The goal of this article is to confront some of his findings with mainstream political science. Piketty's arguments are confronted with the findings of scholars within political science. To begin the article, we establish two research questions in the introduction. We then delineate the gradual reversal of the educational cleavage and subsequent emergence of the multi-elite system according to Piketty. He demonstrates how the classist conflict prevailing in the 1950s and 60s morphed into the Brahmin Left versus the Merchant Right system, with the "Left" being supported by the more educated electorate and the "Right" being supported by the relative well-offs. In the following two sections, we deal with his arguments regarding the causes and the outcomes of this gradual shift. Firstly, he proposes two hypotheses regarding the metamorphosis of the Left: the social and nativist hypotheses. We argue that neither of the two hypotheses is actually a comprehensive explanation and we propose alternative that takes into account the changing structure of social classes. Secondly, with regards to the outcomes of the reversal of the educational cleavage, Piketty considers one of the consequences of this shift to be a social-nativist trap, a combination of pro-redistribution policies and cultural nativism. We have concluded that the social-nativism is not a trap per se as much as an inevitability resulting from the less advantaged class feeling abandoned in the multi-elite political conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are many reports on investigating the influences of institutional factors and Piketty's Hypothesis on income inequality; nonetheless, the inequality effects of both factors are seemingly investigated separately. We hypothesize that economic freedom viewed as an institutional improvement or distortion has comparatively larger effects on inequality than the forces of income divergence introduced by Thomas Piketty. This article revisits the income inequality–(r–g) nexus and uncovers the role of economic freedom as an institutional indicator in explaining the relationship. Considering the latest inequality data of World Inequality Database (WID) and Standardized World Income Inequality (SWIID) for 82 countries over 2000–2017, an inequality model is estimated that explicitly captures the interaction effect of (r−g) and economic freedom. Reaffirming that economic freedom affects inequality in a non-linear form, we also found evidence that (r−g) raises inequality in the short run, demonstrating that preexisting holders of capital derive greater shares of income. Nevertheless, the effect of (r–g) is not as strong as that of economic freedom and is insignificant in highly unequal countries. This implies that institutional factors play a more important role than Piketty's Hypothesis in the presence of high inequality. Furthermore, variables of inflation, gross savings rate, trade openness, and unemployment rate are shown to be the most consistently positive and significant factor and GDP per capita, government spending, natural resource rent, and tax revenue variables have negative and significant effects on the baseline estimations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rawls' theory is about prudence rather than justice. It is about the kind of political structure on which rational people would agree if they were preparing for the worst. Other strategies, such as confining redistribution to upholding a safety net, might also be plausible. Rawls' theory is Georgism in persons: the income from individual abilities is regarded as if it is at the disposal of the collective and could be taxed as rent. This goes against the strong moral intuition of self-ownership. However, Rawls' question, where the worst off are as well off as they can be, is interesting. According to the Index of Economic Freedom, it actually may be under relatively unfettered capitalism. Unlike Rawls, Piketty is chiefly worried about the rich, seeking to impose confiscatory taxes on them. But the rich are not a fixed, unchangeable group of people who can effortlessly watch their capital accumulate. Capital is precarious, as is vividly illustrated in Balzac's novel Père Goriot which Piketty quotes. Different as the approaches of Rawls and Piketty are, both of them agree that their ideal society has to be closed: It must become 'socialism in one country.' [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wealth inequality research is fragmented across different social science disciplines. This article explores the potential of interdisciplinary perspectives by investigating the thematic overlap between economic and sociological approaches to wealth inequality. To do so, we use the Web of Science citation database to identify pertinent articles on the topic of wealth inequality in each discipline (1990‒2017). On the basis of complete bibliographies of these selected articles, we construct co-citation networks and obtain thematic clusters. What becomes evident is a low thematic overlap: Economists explore the causes of wealth inequality based on mathematical models and study the interplay between inequality and economic growth. Sociologists focus mostly on wealth disparities between ethnic groups. The article identifies, however, a few instances of cross-disciplinary borrowing and the French economist Thomas Piketty as a novel advocate of interdisciplinarity in the field. The prospects of an economics-cum-sociology of wealth inequality are discussed in the conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty (2014) explains growing income inequality via the difference between the rate of return on capital and the growth rate of the economy: the "r > g" inequality. Even if it is true that r > g leads to increasing inequality, nearly every school of economic thought predicts that r will fall as the economy grows. Thus, for Capital (2014) to be a comprehensive theory of inequality, a more adequate theory of r is required. I term this the "Piketty Problem." I offer a solution to this problem from an institutionalist perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper studies the evolution of the inequality in Spain, both in terms of income and wealth, from the beginning of the eighties. Also attending to the changes in the typical composition of both variables in the different quantiles, during the period analyzed. From the analysis of these magnitudes, it appears that certain tax figures project an uneven tax burden on different segments of the population. Moreover, issues relating to the dissemination of knowledge, investment in education, economic growth and population growth, which Piketty qualifies as major forces of convergence and divergence on the distribution are also analyzed. This allows us to elucidate the impact of the mentioned variables have on inequality and how the implemented institutional reforms in these fields have conditioned the development of the mentioned forces and provide an estimate regarding the form and intensity of their future influence on the evolution of the distribution.

When discussing the type of institutional regime most prone to realizing the principles of justice as fairness, Rawls (2001) presents three arguments about the superiority of a property-owning democracy over welfare-state capitalism, concerning, respectively, the fair value of political liberties, fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle. In a critique of those arguments, O’Neill (2012) states that only the last one, the argument of the difference principle, is convincing. This paper, tries to demonstrate how Piketty’s (2014) recent analysis of the tendency of increasing inequality in low-growth societies offers support to Rawls’s arguments favoring property-owning democracy in matters regarding the fair value of political liberties and fair equality of opportunity. Piketty’s work also stresses the importance, in what refers to the difference principle, of distinguishing between a regime encompassing policies to prevent the wealth concentration (property-owning democracy) and another one whose exclusive concern is to reduce income inequality (welfare-state capitalism).

A translation of a book is not just a faithful conversion of its text from one language to another. The translation is a regeneration of the entire complex organism of the book which often radically alters its paratextual apparatus. Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Harvard University Press, 2014) is a book that has not only challenged the current capitalist economic model but has also revolutionized the idea of a bestseller. A comparison of the paratexts of its French and English editions demonstrates how a skilful and purposeful visual repackaging of a book, deploying a different paratext, without any cuts or alterations to its text, can radically transform it, make the translation attractive to a wider audience, and ultimately be a contributing factor in its success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]