Wealth inequality: The physics basis

Recent studies by economists such as Piketty (2013, 2019) and Atkinson (2015) have contested the well-established view that post-war redistribution policies have been successful in the long term at slowing down the rise of structural inequalities. In reality, the claim goes, they have dealt mostly with reducing inequalities of income through redistribution and have left inequalities of wealth and capital ownership uncontrolled. These, according to their studies, have now risen in the developed world and reached levels more typical of 19th Century Europe. To make matters worse, perceptions of and attitudes towards fighting inequalities as unjust that Rawls saw as based on a wide consensus of citizens' "considered judgments" (Rawls, 1999, p. 17), have changed, leading to them being accepted as the justified and even necessary price to pay for economic growth and as a reward for merit. Economic arguments based on the need for incentives for raising productivity and the "trickle-down effect" have become widely accepted as if the price of economic efficiency should be disconnected from the demands of equity. Meritocracy has provided ethical arguments too. As John Roemer says, "today the most important problem for the social sciences of inequality is understanding how electorates have come to acquiesce to policies which increase inequality… and to try revealing the logic of the I would like to thank the editors of the Special Issue on Rawls for inviting me to develop ideas that I first presented in a previous paper published in French in 2016, "L'état-providence face aux inégalités et la démocratie de propriétaires: une comparaison entre Meade, Rawls, Ackerman et Piketty," Tocqueville Review, 2/2016), as well as in another paper in English in 2018: « Self-development and Social Justice ». I hope to be able to develop these ideas in a future book on property-owning democracy and its philosophical justifications.

Addressing wealth and income inequality requires a thorough understanding of the mechanisms driving these disparities. Agent-Based Models (ABMs) offer a powerful tool for simulating these complex systems, capturing the intricate interplay of individual behaviors and emergent macroeconomic trends. Here we consider two existing ABM classes: one, exemplified by the Nirei-Souma (NS) model, which simulates how individuals accumulate wealth through income from work, returns on investments, and consumption, and the other, represented by the Bouchaud-Mezard (BM) model, which emphasizes the role of wealth exchanges and random returns in shaping the wealth distribution. Drawing on empirical evidence of wealth and income distribution in Italy, we benchmark both models revealing that they effectively captures Pareto-like wealth distribution, but fail to fully account for the persistent lack of social mobility observed in empirical data. To overcome this limitation, we propose an interacting version of the NS model, integrating it with wealth exchange mechanisms. Through this interacting model, we can show the influence of network topology on wealth distribution and dynamics. Simulations on hierarchical networks yield results that align more closely with empirical observations compared to regular random graphs, highlighting the importance of hierarchical interactions in shaping wealth inequality and social mobility. The model is further analyzed to reveal the interplay between income sources and wealth accumulation.

Inequality, Concentration of Wealth and the Ownership Structure of Islamic Banks

On five hot issues on wealth distribution

The publication of Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Piketty (2014) propelled the debate about the prospects of the evolution of income and wealth inequalities in this century. One of the main controversies is about the effects on the income and wealth inequalities of a decrease in the growth rate g. In Piketty (2014), it is claimed that a decrease in g will cause an increase in the wealth inequality, through an increase in the difference r−g, where r is the rate of return on capital. This claim was criticized by many authors. In this chapter, the author presents a neoclassical growth model with heterogeneous agents and uses it to shed more light on this issue. The author’s model generalizes and improves previous models introduced in Piketty and Zucman (2015) and in Aoki and Nirei (2016). The author also presents a result, relating income, wealth, and wage inequalities.

This paper surveys and analyzes the available evidence on the distribution of wealth in Australia. On the basis of this evidence, it is argued that the cross‐section distribution of personal wealth reveals considerable concentration in the top tail, with the top 1 per cent of adult individuals holding around 25 per cent of private wealth. The inequality of wealth revealed in the cross‐section distribution among the top 10 per cent of wealth holders is not significantly reduced when adjustments are made to correct for life‐cycle influences. Although the proportion of wealth held by the top 1 per cent of adult individuals has decreased sharply since World War I, the second to tenth percentiles have almost the same proportion in the 1960s and 1970s as in 1915.

A one-off wealth tax for Belgium: Revenue potential, distributional impact, and environmental effects

Cryptocurrencies often tend to maintain a publically accessible ledger of all transactions. This open nature of the transactional ledger allows us to gain macroeconomic insight into the USD 1 Trillion crypto economy. In this paper, we explore the free market-based economy of eight major cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, Dash, Litecoin, ZCash, Dogecoin, and Ethereum Classic. We specifically focus on the aspect of wealth distribution within these cryptocurrencies as understanding wealth concentration allows us to highlight potential information security implications associated with wealth concentration. We also draw a parallel between the crypto economies and real-world economies. To adequately address these two points, we devise a generic econometric analysis schema for cryptocurrencies. Through this schema, we report on two primary econometric measures: Gini value and Nakamoto Index which report on wealth inequality and 51% wealth concentration respectively. Our analysis reports that, despite the heavy emphasis on decentralization in cryptocurrencies, the wealth distribution remains in-line with the real-world economies, with the exception of Dash. We also report that 3 of the observed cryptocurrencies (Dogecoin, ZCash, and Ethereum Classic) violate the honest majority assumption with less than 100 participants controlling over 51% wealth in the ecosystem, potentially indicating a security threat. This suggests that the free-market fundamentalism doctrine may be inadequate in countering wealth inequality within a crypto-economic context: Algorithmically driven free-market implementation of these cryptocurrencies may eventually lead to wealth inequality similar to those observed in real-world economies.

This paper uses SOEP data to study the distributional effect of intergenerational transfers on the wealth distribution of German households. Similar to most other central European countries, Germany is likely to face a period of increasing aggregate bequest flows. At the same time, there is an ongoing debate on the distributional implications of such wealth shocks. This study adds to the discussion by providing causal estimates for the effect of transfer receipt on the savings behavior of households. The model allows for dynamic adjustment and variations in the savings behavior over the wealth distribution. I use the estimates to decompose the overall effect of transfers on wealth inequality in the effect of the aggregated transfer volume, the transfer incidence over the wealth distribution and the effect of the savings behavior. The results are very much in line with the literature, indicating that transfers tend to equalize wealth inequality, despite minor variations in the savings behavior over the wealth distribution and despite a strong relationship between initial household wealth and transfer accrual.

Purpose: The study examines to test asymmetry of income and wealth inequality on GDP growth rate in India during 1995-2023 through NARDL model. Methods: The paper applied Shin et al. (2014) model to estimate asymmetry in NARDL model, applied Dicky and Fuller (1979) model for unit root test, applied Breusch-Pagan model (1979) to test the serial correlation and heteroscedasticity tests. Stability test was done by following Page (1954). Symmetry test was applied by using Wald test (1943). The data on income inequality and wealth inequality were collected from the World Inequality Data Lab and data on GDP growth rate were collected from the World Bank. Results: The paper finds that positive and negative changes of cumulative dynamic multipliers of both income and wealth inequality impact on GDP growth favourably and adversely. Positive and negative responses diverge away from positive and negative long run limits and asymmetry lines of wealth and income inequality have no convergence. Cointegration of wealth and income inequality have negative impacts on GDP growth rate. Conclusion: NARDL model can help policy makers to conduct fiscal and monetary policy and other welfare measures in both short run and long run to ameliorate inequalities towards sustainable GDP growth rate. The model can justify how positive and negative responses of asymmetries in short and long run affect GDP growth.

We study the dynamics of the distribution of overlapping generation economy with finitely lived agents and inter-generational transmission of wealth. Financial markets are incomplete, exposing agents to both labor income and capital income risk. We show that the stationary wealth distribution is a Pareto distribution in the right tail and that it is capital income risk, rather than labor income, that drives the properties of the right tail of the wealth distribution. We also study analytically the dependence of the distribution of wealth, of wealth inequality in particular, on various fiscal policy instruments like capital income taxes and estate taxes. We show that capital income and estate taxes can significantly reduce wealth inequality. Finally, we characterize optimal redistributive taxes with respect to a utilitarian social welfaremeasure. Social welfare is maximized short of minimal wealth inequality and with zero estate taxes. Finally, we study the effects of different degrees of social mobility on the wealth distribution.

This chapter brings wealth into the picture, again in a comparative perspective, to bring out key features of recent trends and their implications for the prosperity and prospects of ordinary families. Data on the distribution of wealth has been improving in recent years, and new data are exploited here to examine patterns of wealth holding across the income distribution. In doing so, particular attention is paid to the extent and nature of wealth held by middle and lower income working-age families, and how this differs from those higher up the distribution. The chapter also looks at inequality in the distribution of wealth compared with income, and whether wealth inequality has widened as income inequality has grown.

This study aims to link the interconnectedness between the dynamic of macroeconomic policies and the distribution of wealth in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) context through the lens of monetary policy. Time series and panel data from the World Inequality Database (WID) for six ASEAN countries from 2000 to 2021 and the panel vector autoregression (PVAR) were used to analyze the dynamic interactions between monetary policy and wealth inequality. The results suggest that lowering the policy interest rate, increasing inflation, and economic growth lead to a significant increase in wealth inequality in the short run. The impulse response function of the top 1% and top 10% wealthiest are more noticeable than those of the middle 40% and the bottom 50%. Additionally, the study highlights an interesting temporal dynamic, suggesting that the effects of monetary policy don't manifest instantaneously. Instead, these effects evolve gradually. This time lag indicates the complexity of how monetary interventions interact with economic factors and underscores the importance of patience and careful observation when assessing the outcomes of such policy decisions. The study's implications emphasize the importance for policymakers to consider the distributional effects of monetary policy in the long run policy objective.

On income and wealth inequality in Turkey

There are conflicting theories about whether individuals like or dislike inequality, or in other words, whether living in an unequal country increases or decreases their subjective well-being. Empirical literature has so far focused on income inequality and has not yet reached a consensus. In the present paper, we focus on wealth inequality, an aspect that has so far been overlooked in the happiness literature. The aim of the present paper is to systematically investigate the wealth inequality–happiness relationship and compare the results to the income inequality–happiness association. Furthermore, we focus on different parts of income or wealth distribution, rather than using a single inequality measure. We use data from the integrated World Values Surveys and European Values Surveys for over 50 countries, matched with the World Inequality Database data over the years 1981–2020. Following our analyses, we find some evidence supporting the “tunnel effect” theory: individuals are happier with increases in the top 10% and top 1% shares of wealth and less happy with increases in the middle 40% share of wealth, especially in low- and middle-income countries. In high-income countries, increasing the bottom 50% share of wealth increases individuals’ life satisfaction, suggesting that they favor redistribution.