‘Inequality is not a Problem’: How (Some) Economists Responded to Thomas Piketty

Q2 Arts and Humanities Analyse und Kritik Pub Date : 2019-11-01 DOI:10.1515/auk-2019-0022
J. King
{"title":"‘Inequality is not a Problem’: How (Some) Economists Responded to Thomas Piketty","authors":"J. King","doi":"10.1515/auk-2019-0022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century makes hardly any reference to the ethics of inequality. Surprisingly, this is an omission shared by most of his critics. In this paper I investigate the literature on which he and his reviewers might have drawn and speculate on the reasons why they did not. I outline the four ‘views of society’ and the related issues in moral philosophy that were presented by Michael Schneider in his book on the distribution of wealth. I then summarise the criticisms of Piketty made by those few reviewers who did show some interest in ethical questions and examine the slightly earlier and quite different case against reducing inequality made by one of these critics, N. Gregory Mankiw. I consider the economic, political and social costs of inequality identified in a book-length study of Piketty’s work by Steven Pressman, and conclude by reflecting on the reasons for the widespread neglect of moral philosophy by mainstream economists.","PeriodicalId":35240,"journal":{"name":"Analyse und Kritik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analyse und Kritik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2019-0022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century makes hardly any reference to the ethics of inequality. Surprisingly, this is an omission shared by most of his critics. In this paper I investigate the literature on which he and his reviewers might have drawn and speculate on the reasons why they did not. I outline the four ‘views of society’ and the related issues in moral philosophy that were presented by Michael Schneider in his book on the distribution of wealth. I then summarise the criticisms of Piketty made by those few reviewers who did show some interest in ethical questions and examine the slightly earlier and quite different case against reducing inequality made by one of these critics, N. Gregory Mankiw. I consider the economic, political and social costs of inequality identified in a book-length study of Piketty’s work by Steven Pressman, and conclude by reflecting on the reasons for the widespread neglect of moral philosophy by mainstream economists.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“不平等不是问题”:(一些)经济学家如何回应托马斯·皮凯蒂
托马斯·皮凯蒂的《21世纪资本论》几乎没有提到不平等的伦理问题。令人惊讶的是,他的大多数批评者都遗漏了这一点。在本文中,我调查了他和他的审稿人可能借鉴的文献,并推测了他们没有借鉴的原因。我概述了迈克尔·施耐德在他关于财富分配的书中提出的四种“社会观”和道德哲学中的相关问题。然后,我总结了少数对伦理问题表现出一些兴趣的评论家对皮凯蒂的批评,并研究了其中一位批评者n·格雷戈里·曼昆(N. Gregory Mankiw)提出的稍微早一点、完全不同的反对减少不平等的观点。我考虑了史蒂文·普雷斯曼(Steven Pressman)在对皮凯蒂的著作进行的长达一本书的研究中指出的不平等的经济、政治和社会成本,最后反思了主流经济学家普遍忽视道德哲学的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Analyse und Kritik
Analyse und Kritik Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
From Prejudice to Polarization and Rejection of Democracy The Stopping Power of Sources Democracy, Civility, and Semantic Descent Ethics and Affect in Resistance to Democratic Regressions Practice Theory as a Tool for Critical Social Theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1