{"title":"Piketty on Growth and Distribution","authors":"Joan R. Rovira","doi":"10.7866/HPE-RPE.15.3.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In his book Capital in the Twenty-First CenturyThomas Piketty combines two distinct theories to explain the stylized facts of growth and distribution in capitalist economies. The first is an analysis of the concentration of inherited wealth driven by the difference between the rate of return on capital and the rate of growth of national income. The second is essentially the neoclassical growth model with a constant (net) saving rate and an elasticity of substitution between capital and labour greater than one. I argue that for these two theories to be mutually consistent, in a long-run framework in which financial wealth converges in value with non-financial capital, the interdependence between the rates of growth and return at the aggregate level must be recognized. Since in Capital the rates of growth and return are assumed to be independently given, I show that Piketty has built a fundamentally over-determined, inconsistent analysis of growth and distribution. I also show that Piketty’s approach diverges in fundamental ways from classical, neoclassical and post-Keynesian models of growth and distribution, and in particular from the way they deal with the rates of growth and return in balanced conditions.","PeriodicalId":48669,"journal":{"name":"Hacienda Publica Espanola-Review of Public Economics","volume":"214 1","pages":"91-114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hacienda Publica Espanola-Review of Public Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7866/HPE-RPE.15.3.4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
In his book Capital in the Twenty-First CenturyThomas Piketty combines two distinct theories to explain the stylized facts of growth and distribution in capitalist economies. The first is an analysis of the concentration of inherited wealth driven by the difference between the rate of return on capital and the rate of growth of national income. The second is essentially the neoclassical growth model with a constant (net) saving rate and an elasticity of substitution between capital and labour greater than one. I argue that for these two theories to be mutually consistent, in a long-run framework in which financial wealth converges in value with non-financial capital, the interdependence between the rates of growth and return at the aggregate level must be recognized. Since in Capital the rates of growth and return are assumed to be independently given, I show that Piketty has built a fundamentally over-determined, inconsistent analysis of growth and distribution. I also show that Piketty’s approach diverges in fundamental ways from classical, neoclassical and post-Keynesian models of growth and distribution, and in particular from the way they deal with the rates of growth and return in balanced conditions.
期刊介绍:
Hacienda Pública Española/Review of Public Economics welcomes submissions on all areas of public economics. We seek to publish original and innovative research, applied and theoretical, related to the economic analysis of Government intervention. For example, but not exclusively: Taxation, Redistribution, Health, Education, Pensions, Governance, Fiscal Policy and Fiscal Federalism.
In addition to regular submissions, the journal welcomes submissions of:
-Survey Reviews, containing surveys of the literature regarding issues of interest in the Public Economics field;
-Policy oriented reviews, showing the current contributions of Public Economics in relation to relevant contemporary issues affecting public decision-makers in the real world (Policy Watch);
-Comments of previously published articles. Contributions to this section should be limited to a maximum of 2 000 words (12 pages). If deemed adequate, the authors of the commented article will be given the opportunity to react in a Reply. Both Comment and Reply will be published together.
Articles for the Survey Reviews and Policy Watch section are subject to the same double blind reviwing procedure. The adequacy of Comments submitted for publication will be evaluated by the Executive Editors.