This paper argues that the cumulative causation processes between wealth and power risk leading to an escalation of wealth inequality. We confirm with new survey data for the Eurozone Piketty's conclusions that wealth is highly concentrated and that this inequality is perpetuated through dynastic wealth. This leads to an ever-concentrating ability to shape economic and political institutions. While neoclassical economics has a blind spot where power is concerned, we discuss how heterodox approaches have attempted to conceptualize this structural power which influences the framework of economic activity. Finally, we discuss three concrete channels through which the unequal distribution of private assets may affect power relations and economic activity.

The purpose of this study is to summarize and analyze the swedish reception and public discussion of the book The Capital in the Twenty-First Century by the french economist Thomas Piketty. Reviews and articles from printed mass media are discussed and reflected upon with help from the reception theory developed by Hans Robert Jauss. Three conclusions are presented in the study. The first conclusion is that the comments and the critique of Piketty’s book depend upon other comments and critical points expressed in the collected reception. The second conclusion is that the swedish reception is heavily influenced by how the book by Piketty has been read and discussed in an anglo-american context. The third and final conclusion is that the swedish reception can be divided into two historical phases which differs in terms of how the book is perceived.

Piketty's main theoretical prediction is that a small elite will own all wealth if capitalism is left to its own devices. We formulate and calibrate a Post-Keynesian model with an endogenous distribution of wealth between workers and capitalists. The model permits Piketty's Corner solution of all wealth held by capitalists; however, it also shows that interior solutions with a stable, non-zero wealth share of workers, a stable wealth-to-income ratio, and a stable and positive gap between the profit and the growth rate determined by the Cambridge equation. Furthermore, simulations show that the model confirms to Piketty's empirical findings in a transitional phase, in which the wealth share of capitalists rises to over 60%, the wealth-toincome ratio increases, and income inequality rises. Finally, we show that the introduction of a wealth tax as suggested by Piketty could neutralize the rise in wealth concentration. / Series: INEQ Working Paper Series

Nous proposons une actualisation et un prolongement de l’étude de référence BOURGUIGNON et CHIAPPORI (1998). Ces auteurs ont mis en évidence le fait que le système redistributif français est complexe, peu flexible, inefficace, au total assez faiblement redistributif et fortement biaisé à l’encontre des revenus du travail par rapport à ceux de l’épargne. Nous montrons comment le concept d’allocation universelle, conjugué à une imposition proportionnelle des revenus (flat tax), une taxe uniforme sur les patrimoines et un volet de prestations compassionnelles, permet de définir un ensemble redistributif présentant des caractéristiques opposées.La complexité laisse la place à une allocation universelle versée à tous les résidents en situation régulière, dont le montant varie uniquement selon l’âge, 340 euros mensuels pour les adultes, 192 euros pour les mineurs (montants calculés pour l’année 2010, indexés sur l’évolution du PIB), financée par le prélèvement de 18 % de l’ensemble des revenus. Une taxe sur l’actif net (1 % sur tous les patrimoines nets de dettes) remplace l’ensemble de la fiscalité du patrimoine et de sa transmission. Nous utilisons et adaptons l’outil de microsimulation développé par LANDAIS, PIKETTY, SAEZ (2011) pour comparer les effets redistributifs du système actuel à ceux de notre proposition, avec un niveau de précision inédit pour ce type de proposition. Au total, les caractéristiques redistributives analysées par déciles, centiles et milliles de revenus sont proches, les principales divergences ouvrant à une discussion sur l’équité du système actuel, plus particulièrement relativement à la fiscalité pesant sur le travail et les patrimoines les plus élevés. / We offer an update and extension of the Bourguignon and Chiappori (1998) reference document. These authors have shown that the French redistributive system is complex, inflexible, inefficient, not much redistributive and heavily biased against labor income as compared with savings and heritage.We show how the concept of basic income, combined with a flat tax on all income, a uniform tax on assets and additional compassionate services, defines a redistributive set with opposite characteristics.The complexity gives way to a universal allowance paid to all regular residents, which vary only by age, 340 euro a month for adults, 192 euro for children (amounts calculated for 2010, indexed on the evolution of GDP), financed by the levy of 18% of the total revenues. A tax on net assets (1% on all assets net of debt) replaces all of the taxation of wealth and its transmission.We use and adapt the microsimulation tool developed by Landais, Piketty, Saez (2011) to compare the distributional effects of the current system to those of our proposal, with an unprecedented level of accuracy for this type of proposal.In total, the redistributive features analyzed by deciles, percentiles and thousandth of income are close. The main differences open a discussion on the fairness of the current system, particularly with respect to the tax burden on labor and the highest wealth.

The continuous rise of socio-economic inequality over the past decades with its connected political outcomes such as the Brexit vote in the UK, and the election of Donald Trump are currently a matter of intense debate both in academia and in journalism. A significant sign of the heightened interest was the surprise popularity of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century. The book reached the top of the bestseller lists and was described as a "media Sensation" and Piketty himself as a "rock star Economist". This paper, drawing from a major international and cross-disciplinary study, investigates the print media treatment in four European countries of economic policy proposals presented in Capital. Applying social semiotic and critical discourse analysis, we specifically focus on articles which are in disagreement with these proposals and identify five categories of counterarguments used against Piketty: authorisation, moralisation, rationalisation, portrayal of victimhood and inevitability. Providing textual and linguistic examples we demonstrate how the use of linguistic resources normalises and conventionalises ideology-laden discourses of economic means (taxation) and effects, reinforcing particular views of social relations and class as common sense and therewith upholding and perpetuating power relations and inequalities. / Series: Department of Economics Working Paper Series

The continued rise of socio-economic inequality over the past decades with its connected political outcomes such as the Brexit vote in the UK, and the election of Donald Trump are currently a matter of intense debate both in academia and in journalism. One significant sign of the heightened interest was the surprise popularity of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the twenty-first Century. The book reached the top of the bestseller lists and was described as a "media Sensation", with Piketty himself as a "rock star Economist". This paper, drawing from a major international and cross-disciplinary study, investigates the print media treatment in four European countries of economic policy proposals presented in Capital. Applying social semiotic and critical discourse analysis, we specifically focus on articles which are in disagreement with these proposals and identify five categories of counterarguments used against Piketty: authorisation, moralisation, rationalisation, portrayal of victimhood and inevitability. Providing textual and linguistic examples we demonstrate how the use of linguistic resources normalises and conventionalises ideology-laden discourses of economic means (taxation) and effects, reinforcing particular views of social relations and class as common sense and therewith upholding and perpetuating power relations and inequalities.

Cette thèse commence par souligner les contextes et les difficultés d'analyse de l'économie chinoise : la première difficulté est la particularité de la Chine qui est également référencée comme «socialisme avec des caractéristiques chinoises», qui comprend le contexte culturel unique et la langue, la nature de l'économie, le manque de données, et les changements institutionnels fréquents. La deuxième difficulté est l'insuffisance des modèles de croissance économique modernes. En outre, les chercheurs souffrent également des problèmes économétriques généraux de la modélisation macroéconomique, par exemple le problème de petit échantillon, la faible identification et l'estimation sensible pour la stationnarité des séries et paramètres tronqués. Par conséquent, nous devons trouver et travailler dans un cadre approprié. Cette thèse montrera l'insuffisance des modèles de croissance économique dominante pour expliquer la croissance économique de la Chine et la nécessité de sortir du cadre néoclassique. L'analyse se tourne progressivement vers les approches marxistes et se concentre sur l'analyse des taux de profit. [...]Cette thèse propose quelques éléments de réflexion méthodologique sur le thème de la croissance de l’économie chinoise dans la longue période. À partir de données statistiques officielles chinoises retravaillées, nous reconstruisons des séries temporelles de stocks de capital physique les plus longues possibles, soit de 1952 à 2014, de façon à remonter au plus près de la date de formation de la République populaire et étendre cette base de données jusqu’au présent, pour tenir compte des derniers annuaires statistiques publiés en 2016. Nous testons ces nouvelles données afin d’estimer les contributions des facteurs de production à la croissance dans un cadre théorique néoclassique, en soulignant les limites de tels modèles – problématiques, car selon nous indépassables. [...] L'auteur a prédit les valeurs de certaines variables économiques de 2015. L'auteur prédit que le taux de profit continuera à baisser même s'il est déjà faible dans 2014. Si le taux de profit continue à baisser, les marxistes pourraient soutenir qu'une crise se produira à l'avenir. Toutefois, l'argument est cohérent avec les faits qu'une crise financière sur le marché boursier se produira en 2015 et 2016. La prévision pour la croissance économique est également très réussie. En outre, l'auteur a également étendu la décomposition économique des taux de profit. L'auteur a proposé trois décompositions différentes puis appliqué un filtre à ces composants. Les cycles économiques et les crises ont été confirmés avec une perspective marxiste revisée. / The rise of emerging economies and their increasing contributions to the world’s economy has led to the development of the science of economics. China is a typical representative of emerging market economies. This economic phenomenon pushes the development of economic growth theory, and the problems in empirical analyses also promote econometric techniques. Though China is still a developing country, China has successfully dragged itself out of absolute poverty. Is the technique of China’s economic development an alternative method for the struggle against the poverty of other poor countries? With the lack of modern international standard data, the empirical analyses of modern economic growth theories in the literature are generally focused on the period after the opening-up reform in 1978 or the period after the fiscal reform in 1993. In this thesis, the author attempts to extend the vision, by further analyzing China’s economy using modern economic approaches since the foundation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Alongside the wave of privatization, marketization, and liberalization in the countries of the former Soviet Union, socialist countries, and developing countries, China has also begun its economic reform since 1978 in which it has achieved great economic success. Chinese policymakers themselves contribute the rapid economic growth to the success of the institutional choice. For instance, Hu Jintao’s report at the 17th Party Congress (2007) has the following assertion: “To sum up, the fundamental reason behind all our achievements and progress since the reform and opening up policy was introduced is that we have blazed a path of socialism with Chinese characteristics and established a system of theories of socialism with Chinese characteristics.” However, what does the so-called “socialism with Chinese characteristics” really mean? How does it work on the path of economic growth? All those interesting questions incite this thesis to explore the answers. [...]