If I had my own way, I would never pay much attention (today) to people who would tell me they want to study inequality & populism, and inequality & discrimination. These are popular topics, everybody is now ready to study them & I would take it as a sign of lack of originality.
But, leaving aside global inequality and links between factoral and personal inequality, which are indeed my favorite topics, I would love on see studies on (here are some examples):
Why the end of apartheid did not bring income inequality down (but increased it) in South Africa?

Will climate change (under current projections) increase inter-country inequality or not?
Did introduction of cotton gin & incentive for enslavement increase inequality in the US? And does it carry any implications for the role of robotics?

Did fascist regimes increase wages more than profits?

Is corruption always inequality-increasing?
Were socialist regimes class-based?

Can you have a class-based inequality when assets cannot be transmitted across generations?

Why Africa had high inequality even when the main factor of production (land) was in common ownership?
Why do autocrats need (or do not need) wealth?

Why don't rich countries that lose money through tax evasion crack down on tax havens?

Do federal regimes reduce inequality between states?
Is high cost of education a way for the rich to maintain monopoly of education in favor of their offspring?

Are campaign donations, in a *democracy* getting even more concentrated than wealth?

Did inequality in France increase before the Revolution, or it went down?
Was gender inequality substantially reduced in socialism with positive long-term effects on growth?

Does commodification reduce gender inequality?

Are politicians getting richer *after* they leave office?

Was financial capitalism historically associated with high inequality?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Branko Milanovic

Branko Milanovic Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BrankoMilan

26 Feb
Expanding on Bukharin.
Bukharin is often credited with a quip that the Soviet Union has a two-party system too, one party is in power, another in jail.
I thought you could try to apply his quip to the current multi-party systems in many post-communist countries.
One could argue that in many there are only three parties:
-party of nationalists,
-party of pensioners, and
-party of the mafia.
The reason is that these are the three constituencies that really exist. The party system thus reflects well the body-politic.
Any kind of the left has ceased to exist. When you do not have the left, you do not have the right either, partly because the ideology of the right is shared by all relevant factions in society: disdain for workers & trade unions, celebration of wealth.
Read 6 tweets
25 Feb
My four worst experiences (+ there are two others but they are too complicated to describe on Twitter).
#EconTwitter
1 A very famous economist who, after having an email fight with me, writes to the Chief World Bank economist, strongly evoking their personal relationship, to ask that I should be dismissed (I saw the letter). He failed (easily).
2 An even more famous right-wing economist, at a meeting, after we each introduced ourselves, gives me barely a glance and turns himself toward the head of the table & says seriously and sternly, "you pay here people to study inequality and undermine the system?"
Read 5 tweets
18 Feb
If you wanted to bring everybody in the world to the level of the Western median income, total world income would need to be multiplied by 2.5. And you would need to reduce incomes of all those who currently make more than the Western median (~10% of global population).
Obviously, one-half of Western population would have to have their incomes cut; those with the Western mean income by some 15%. Image
If you were to do the same calculation in current exchange rates, the numbers are even bleaker.

The take home message is:
the idea that somehow we can all live at the Western median income and the entire GDP of the world need not increase much is...well, a pure fantasy.
Read 4 tweets
10 Feb
I read this article, recommended as showing how "decent living" can be achieved by much lower energy use. After calculating an arbitrary goods/services basket which the authors call "decent living"
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
(an exercise that many economists have done for ages for poverty lines) the authors show that "decent living" (in its more economical version) can be achieved by energy consumption equal to Rwanda's and more generously with that equal to Uruguay's.
Let's accept that.
How are people who are currently consuming multiple times the energy of Rwanda (=most of the rich world) to be convinced to reduce their use so much?
@jasonhickel says it cannot be done by taxes and subsidies & green decoupling.
Let's accept that too.
Read 5 tweets
9 Feb
During the past 50 years, India and China had played key roles in influencing, and then reducing, global inequality. One way to look at their role is to see how they affect population-weighted international inequality (where country incomes are app. by GDPpc in PPP dollars).
China's growth effect has been uneven until the late 1970s. (When the value in the graph is negative, China's growth *reduces* global inequality.)
Note the spike in 1961: China's GDPpc went down by more than 10% and that added to global inequality.
After ~1975, every year China contributed to reducing inequality, but that effect is getting weaker.
This is happening not necessarily because China's growth is less but because China has become sufficiently rich that it no longer drives global inequality down.
Read 5 tweets
7 Feb
My reviews of ten books on China:
How China became a market economy by J Gewirtz
glineq.blogspot.com/2017/09/how-ch…
When China rules the world by M Jacques
glineq.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-al…
Adam Smith in Bejing by G Arrighi
glineq.blogspot.com/2018/03/will-b…
China's gilded age by Yuen Yuen Ang
glineq.blogspot.com/2020/06/can-co…
The China boom by Ho-fung Hung
glineq.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-so…
On China by H Kissinger
glineq.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-mo…
Memoirs of a Chinese revolutionary by Wang fan-hsi
glineq.blogspot.com/2018/02/i-wont…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!