Québécois Econ prof @MasonEconomics. LSE-trained TTU-proud, GMU-blood. I do econ hist, pol econ & the measurement of living standards. Book harvester & French
The doughnut model makes a strong claim: capitalism and growth inherently push societies out of that space and the result is imbalance, injustice, and ecological overshoot. In other words, we leave the doughy part of the doughnut. 
Friedman’s core insight is that states expand and reshape themselves to maximize net extractable revenue, not to maximize welfare. Territory (and institutions) go to whoever values them most as tax bases, net of collection costs (and one could argue this could be extended to transaction costs)
The "Doughnut Model" by Kate Raworth is the most influential framework in degrowth thinking. It claims sustainable development exists only between a "social foundation" and an "ecological ceiling." Outside that? Injustice or unsustainability. But does it hold up empirically? 
Here is the origin of the problem. When you do not have micro-data and only tables of income where there are intervals (0$ to 1000$ etc. -- see image), you need some way of assuming distributing within intervals and across them. The usual method is Pareto interpolation. 
On the graph here, we used the Maddison Project Database and synthetic control to construct Cuba without the revolution, embargo, and Soviet Aid. The red line is the synthetic (counterfactual), orange is actual Cuba but with the "flawed" GDP numbers (flawed because they are largely assumed). The green uses John Devereux's recent reconstruction of Cuba's national account. The blue subtracts Soviet Aid.
1/ Derrière des slogans comme « champions nationaux » ou « industries stratégiques », le protectionnisme se cache sous un vernis technique. Ca donne des platitudes comme « promouvoir des champions nationaux », « protéger nos industries stratégiques », « rapatrier les chaînes d’approvisionnement » ou encore « se protéger contre les abus des étrangers ».
The Great Leveling, a sharp decline in U.S. income inequality, is often dated to the 1940s. But did it start earlier? We argue that correcting for regional price differences suggests a more gradual decline beginning in the 1920s. 2/n
The story usually told is that inequality was rising. I dispute that in full. For reasons that historians know and agree but never aggregated as corrections to measurement. There are five big corrections.
We take inspiration from Robert Higgs' 1992 "Myth of Wartime Prosperity" in the Journal of Economic History but shift from the USA to Canada. 
We argue that @MilesCorak and others were right to point out that income inequality reduces the chances at upward *relative* intergenerational income mobility. However, we also argue that this effect is mitigated by the role of institutions.
