Tuesday , February 28 2017
Home / FT Alphaville / Snap AV: One of these is not like the other, global inequality edition

Snap AV: One of these is not like the other, global inequality edition

Summary:
Some inequality clickbait from a new Piketty paper:And this par, with our brief emphasis:We observe a clear pattern of rising inequality: top income groups enjoyed relatively more growth, while the situation has been very different for the bottom. In China, top groups have enjoyed very high growth, but aggregate growth was also so large that even the bottom 50% average income grew markedly by +401% between 1978 and 2015. This is likely to make rising inequality much more acceptable. In contrast, in the US, there was no growth left at all for the bottom 50% (-1%). France illustrates another type of situation. Very top incomes have grown more than average, but this pattern of rising inequality happened only for very high and numerically relatively negligible groups, so that it had limited

Topics:
David Keohane considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

Alexandra Scaggs writes Snap AV: Globalisation and income inequality, corporate edition

Guest writer writes Guest post: A ‘Phillips’ view of the euro

Izabella Kaminska writes Further reading

Siona Jenkins writes FT Opening Quote: Profits rise at Trinity Mirror

Some inequality clickbait from a new Piketty paper:

Snap AV: One of these is not like the other, global inequality edition

And this par, with our brief emphasis:

We observe a clear pattern of rising inequality: top income groups enjoyed relatively more growth, while the situation has been very different for the bottom. In China, top groups have enjoyed very high growth, but aggregate growth was also so large that even the bottom 50% average income grew markedly by +401% between 1978 and 2015. This is likely to make rising inequality much more acceptable. In contrast, in the US, there was no growth left at all for the bottom 50% (-1%). France illustrates another type of situation. Very top incomes have grown more than average, but this pattern of rising inequality happened only for very high and numerically relatively negligible groups, so that it had limited consequences for the majority of the population. In effect, the bottom 50% income group enjoyed the same growth as average growth (+39%).

Related link:
A Rodrik profile, including this on his ‘trilemma’: “It is not possible to have deep globalization, political democracy, and a competent nation-state. At best, we can have two out of three” – Harvard

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2016. All rights reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
0 0
David Keohane
(Spending some time as FTAV’s Bombay wallah. Noticeably sweatier but not much else has changed.) David studied economics, politics and journalism before joining the FT in 2011 as a Marjorie Deane fellow. He covered emerging markets, equities and currencies before making the jump over to FT Alphaville in May 2012. In between his degree and masters he wandered into the real world of business where he learnt how to manipulate a spreadsheet and organise meetings where nothing gets decided.