What do you think?
Rate this book
Inequality: What Can Be Done?
Winner of the Richard A. Lester Award for the Outstanding Book in Industrial Relations and Labor Economics, Princeton University
An Economist Best Economics and Business Book of the Year
A Financial Times Best Economics Book of the Year
Inequality is one of our most urgent social problems. Curbed in the decades after World War II, it has recently returned with a vengeance. We all know the scale of the problem―talk about the 99% and the 1% is entrenched in public debate―but there has been little discussion of what we can do but despair. According to the distinguished economist Anthony Atkinson, however, we can do much more than skeptics imagine.
“[Atkinson] sets forth a list of concrete, innovative, and persuasive proposals meant to show that alternatives still exist, that the battle for social progress and equality must reclaim its legitimacy, here and now… Witty, elegant, profound, this book should be read.”
―Thomas Piketty, New York Review of Books
“An uncomfortable affront to our reigning triumphalists. [Atkinson’s] premise is inequality is not unavoidable, a fact of life like the weather, but the product of conscious human behavior.
―Owen Jones, The Guardian
An Economist Best Economics and Business Book of the Year
A Financial Times Best Economics Book of the Year
Inequality is one of our most urgent social problems. Curbed in the decades after World War II, it has recently returned with a vengeance. We all know the scale of the problem―talk about the 99% and the 1% is entrenched in public debate―but there has been little discussion of what we can do but despair. According to the distinguished economist Anthony Atkinson, however, we can do much more than skeptics imagine.
“[Atkinson] sets forth a list of concrete, innovative, and persuasive proposals meant to show that alternatives still exist, that the battle for social progress and equality must reclaim its legitimacy, here and now… Witty, elegant, profound, this book should be read.”
―Thomas Piketty, New York Review of Books
“An uncomfortable affront to our reigning triumphalists. [Atkinson’s] premise is inequality is not unavoidable, a fact of life like the weather, but the product of conscious human behavior.
―Owen Jones, The Guardian
400 pages, Hardcover
First published May 1, 2015
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews
January 30, 2018
Inequality: What can be done? by Anthony B. Atkinson, is a fascinating book that examines basic policy prescriptions to reduce inequality levels and improve close the wage distribution gap that many nations currently feature. Atkinson begins the book by examining inequality levels over the past century, using primarily data from the US and UK as a comparison, but also looking globally when needed to make his statistics more authoritative. He finds that income inequality has a U shaped curve - in the early 20th century, income was generally quite unequal, with wealth being concentrated in the hands of wealthy citizens in a society. As WWII ended, this trend began to decline, and many nations have seen there income levels reach the fairest possible ratio they have ever achieved in the years leading up to and including the 1960's. This trend has again reversed, and we are approaching global levels of income inequality not seen for a century. Atkinson has used many metrics to show this trend, some of the more frequently used ones being the Gini coefficient as well as household income distribution calculations that include income from wages and capital, and subtracts taxes. These metrics are useful in bringing a statistical backing to the introductory analysis of historical inequality.
Atkinson then goes on the prescribe fifteen basic policy initiatives that he believes would reverse the growing inequality rates seen in many nations around the world. Listed they are:
1. Government oversight of technological development so that innovation is always geared toward increasing employment rates.
2. Ensuring a proper balance of power exists among stakeholders - this includes balancing the power of business leaders, the government and workers/trade unions in terms of employment decisions, and creating or improving the power of consumer groups to encourage businesses to think about consumers over shareholders.
3. Seeking full employment through government policy making - this could include guaranteed public employment with a minimum living wage for example
4. A national pay policy should exist to produce a minimum wage that ensures a livable wage. Atkinson also believes that this should be a top priority for national governments.
5. A guaranteed positive real rate of interest on savings via national savings bonds.
6. A capital endowment (minimum inheritance) paid to all at adulthood.
7. The creation of a sovereign wealth fund to build up the net worth of the state by purchasing property and investing in businesses.
8. A more progressive income tax rate that has a varied impact based on ones income level. Basically higher taxes for higher income, lower taxes for lower income.
9. The introduction of an Earned Income Discount tied into the number of dependents in a household.
10. The taxation of inheritance and gifts under a progressive lifetime capital receipts tax.
11. Up-dating property tax registers regularly to ensure proper payment of taxes.
12. Child benefits should be paid to all children at a substantial rate, but should be taxed.
13. A "participation income" (a form of guaranteed annual income) to complement existing social protection policies with the aim of a national child basic income.
14. (alternative to the above) An update to national social insurance policies to ensure they are up to date and can support the economic development of lower income earners.
15. The increase of Official Development Assistance to 1% of gross GDP.
As can be seen, Atkinson is exploring some ideas about improving household income. He suggests improving levels of equality by giving social assistance to low income earners, progressively taxing the rich, taxing forms of capital transfer to level the playing field, and giving taxable benefits to those households with dependents. Although these policies seem radical (Atkinson mentions they might) I personally think they are quite fascinating. Without going into to much detail, these policies expand the role the state has in redistributing income, with the ultimate goal of improving the general level of prosperity in a nation state. Atkinson's 15 proposals are expanded in greater detail, getting a full chapter each. This ensures that the summations are explained with statistical backing, as well as the ethical reasons why they should be explored. Obviously these prescriptions are political in nature, and may anger some more ideological readers. However, looking at them with no preconceived notions is important - this is good political discourse here, and it is grounded firmly in reality. Atkinson goes on to ponder the plausibility of enacting these proposals, and wonders whether globalization will be a help, of a hinder.
Although this book shares some similarities with Thomas Picketty's Capital in the Twenty First Century Atkinson goes into more detail on recommendations. This book is more grounded then the more academic Capital. There is little for me to criticize here - the book is comprehensive, evenly toned, and does not disparage other policy options. Rather, this book offers recommendations, explains them, details statistical reasons why they might work, and concludes. It is concise, interesting and authoritative, and I would highly recommend it to those interested in economics, or those interested in reading about policy options to reduce income inequality levels.
Atkinson then goes on the prescribe fifteen basic policy initiatives that he believes would reverse the growing inequality rates seen in many nations around the world. Listed they are:
1. Government oversight of technological development so that innovation is always geared toward increasing employment rates.
2. Ensuring a proper balance of power exists among stakeholders - this includes balancing the power of business leaders, the government and workers/trade unions in terms of employment decisions, and creating or improving the power of consumer groups to encourage businesses to think about consumers over shareholders.
3. Seeking full employment through government policy making - this could include guaranteed public employment with a minimum living wage for example
4. A national pay policy should exist to produce a minimum wage that ensures a livable wage. Atkinson also believes that this should be a top priority for national governments.
5. A guaranteed positive real rate of interest on savings via national savings bonds.
6. A capital endowment (minimum inheritance) paid to all at adulthood.
7. The creation of a sovereign wealth fund to build up the net worth of the state by purchasing property and investing in businesses.
8. A more progressive income tax rate that has a varied impact based on ones income level. Basically higher taxes for higher income, lower taxes for lower income.
9. The introduction of an Earned Income Discount tied into the number of dependents in a household.
10. The taxation of inheritance and gifts under a progressive lifetime capital receipts tax.
11. Up-dating property tax registers regularly to ensure proper payment of taxes.
12. Child benefits should be paid to all children at a substantial rate, but should be taxed.
13. A "participation income" (a form of guaranteed annual income) to complement existing social protection policies with the aim of a national child basic income.
14. (alternative to the above) An update to national social insurance policies to ensure they are up to date and can support the economic development of lower income earners.
15. The increase of Official Development Assistance to 1% of gross GDP.
As can be seen, Atkinson is exploring some ideas about improving household income. He suggests improving levels of equality by giving social assistance to low income earners, progressively taxing the rich, taxing forms of capital transfer to level the playing field, and giving taxable benefits to those households with dependents. Although these policies seem radical (Atkinson mentions they might) I personally think they are quite fascinating. Without going into to much detail, these policies expand the role the state has in redistributing income, with the ultimate goal of improving the general level of prosperity in a nation state. Atkinson's 15 proposals are expanded in greater detail, getting a full chapter each. This ensures that the summations are explained with statistical backing, as well as the ethical reasons why they should be explored. Obviously these prescriptions are political in nature, and may anger some more ideological readers. However, looking at them with no preconceived notions is important - this is good political discourse here, and it is grounded firmly in reality. Atkinson goes on to ponder the plausibility of enacting these proposals, and wonders whether globalization will be a help, of a hinder.
Although this book shares some similarities with Thomas Picketty's Capital in the Twenty First Century Atkinson goes into more detail on recommendations. This book is more grounded then the more academic Capital. There is little for me to criticize here - the book is comprehensive, evenly toned, and does not disparage other policy options. Rather, this book offers recommendations, explains them, details statistical reasons why they might work, and concludes. It is concise, interesting and authoritative, and I would highly recommend it to those interested in economics, or those interested in reading about policy options to reduce income inequality levels.
April 29, 2015
By Edward Hadas
Income inequality is a hot economic and political topic. But Anthony Atkinson, an academic at Oxford, was into it long before it became trendy. He published his first paper on the topic in 1970. Since then he has collected a knighthood and 19 honorary degrees, earned for a distinctive combination of ethical, statistical and practical analysis. His latest book – “Inequality: What can be done?” – is mostly practical.
Atkinson does not hide his bias in favour of greater equality. The book is an unabashed call to reverse the increase in British income inequality over the last three decades. Sensibly, there is more emphasis on helping the poor than on soaking the rich. Of the book’s 15 policy suggestions, 10 are entirely aimed at reducing relative poverty and two others have both pro-poor and anti-rich elements.
The proposals take up most the book, and describing their background and defending them against potential objections occupy almost all the rest. Anyone with a left-of-centre political orientation will find most of the ideas congenial.
Some are familiar, for example more progressive taxes, a living minimum wage and a generous universal child benefit. Others seem to have been hauled out from the back of the old left’s intellectual closet: stronger unions, government-guaranteed employment for all, a state-run investment authority and government savings bonds with guaranteed interest rates. Atkinson also offers a few more contemporary notions: a universal capital endowment, technology policy aimed explicitly at employment, and higher levels of government aid to poor countries.
Despite his personal preferences, Atkinson’s presentation is fair-minded. He provides the arguments both for and against each of his ideas. He also emphasises that what works in the UK, with its particular history and institutions, might not work elsewhere. Still, the book’s universal-sounding title is not really justified by the almost exclusively British discussion.
The bigger problem with “Inequality”, though, is that it fails to address fully some big questions. The first is statistical. Where is the inequality problem? Atkinson’s own data does not show a massive increase in poverty in most developed countries. Even the most basic measure of inequality, the Gini coefficient, has not increased by an amount that he considers salient in Italy, Canada and Japan. It has fallen in France.
The big increases in the Gini coefficient are limited to the United States and the UK. Most of that, as the exhaustive data mining by French economist Thomas Piketty has shown, comes from the extraordinary rise in pay for top executives. If that is the case, Atkinson’s list of 15 suggestions could probably be boiled down to two: higher tax rates on top incomes and some sort of limit on the ratio of highest to average or lowest incomes in any organisation.
The next unanswered question is about the correct role of the welfare state. Atkinson notes that elected politicians in many countries have become warier about ambitious government programmes that redistribute incomes. He does not, though, seem concerned that voters are not demanding a change of course.
The electorate may be blind or selfish, but it is possible that as the threat of dire poverty has receded people want different things from their government. Similarly, unions may have declined simply because many employees find their earnings and treatment at work are satisfactory without recourse to a fairly expensive lobby group.
Finally, Atkinson spends at least 85 percent of this book dealing with inequality within nations that account for about 15 percent of the world’s population. Such an insular approach seemed normal when he started his career and is still standard practice among many of his peers.
But as Branko Milanovic of the City University of New York has pointed out, poor residents of rich countries are much better off than all but the richest residents of poor countries. In such a world, a global perspective is ethically vital to the study of inequality. British politicians could learn much from Atkinson’s book, but a broader approach could bear richer fruit.
(original here: http://reut.rs/1JlckmD)
Income inequality is a hot economic and political topic. But Anthony Atkinson, an academic at Oxford, was into it long before it became trendy. He published his first paper on the topic in 1970. Since then he has collected a knighthood and 19 honorary degrees, earned for a distinctive combination of ethical, statistical and practical analysis. His latest book – “Inequality: What can be done?” – is mostly practical.
Atkinson does not hide his bias in favour of greater equality. The book is an unabashed call to reverse the increase in British income inequality over the last three decades. Sensibly, there is more emphasis on helping the poor than on soaking the rich. Of the book’s 15 policy suggestions, 10 are entirely aimed at reducing relative poverty and two others have both pro-poor and anti-rich elements.
The proposals take up most the book, and describing their background and defending them against potential objections occupy almost all the rest. Anyone with a left-of-centre political orientation will find most of the ideas congenial.
Some are familiar, for example more progressive taxes, a living minimum wage and a generous universal child benefit. Others seem to have been hauled out from the back of the old left’s intellectual closet: stronger unions, government-guaranteed employment for all, a state-run investment authority and government savings bonds with guaranteed interest rates. Atkinson also offers a few more contemporary notions: a universal capital endowment, technology policy aimed explicitly at employment, and higher levels of government aid to poor countries.
Despite his personal preferences, Atkinson’s presentation is fair-minded. He provides the arguments both for and against each of his ideas. He also emphasises that what works in the UK, with its particular history and institutions, might not work elsewhere. Still, the book’s universal-sounding title is not really justified by the almost exclusively British discussion.
The bigger problem with “Inequality”, though, is that it fails to address fully some big questions. The first is statistical. Where is the inequality problem? Atkinson’s own data does not show a massive increase in poverty in most developed countries. Even the most basic measure of inequality, the Gini coefficient, has not increased by an amount that he considers salient in Italy, Canada and Japan. It has fallen in France.
The big increases in the Gini coefficient are limited to the United States and the UK. Most of that, as the exhaustive data mining by French economist Thomas Piketty has shown, comes from the extraordinary rise in pay for top executives. If that is the case, Atkinson’s list of 15 suggestions could probably be boiled down to two: higher tax rates on top incomes and some sort of limit on the ratio of highest to average or lowest incomes in any organisation.
The next unanswered question is about the correct role of the welfare state. Atkinson notes that elected politicians in many countries have become warier about ambitious government programmes that redistribute incomes. He does not, though, seem concerned that voters are not demanding a change of course.
The electorate may be blind or selfish, but it is possible that as the threat of dire poverty has receded people want different things from their government. Similarly, unions may have declined simply because many employees find their earnings and treatment at work are satisfactory without recourse to a fairly expensive lobby group.
Finally, Atkinson spends at least 85 percent of this book dealing with inequality within nations that account for about 15 percent of the world’s population. Such an insular approach seemed normal when he started his career and is still standard practice among many of his peers.
But as Branko Milanovic of the City University of New York has pointed out, poor residents of rich countries are much better off than all but the richest residents of poor countries. In such a world, a global perspective is ethically vital to the study of inequality. British politicians could learn much from Atkinson’s book, but a broader approach could bear richer fruit.
(original here: http://reut.rs/1JlckmD)
August 21, 2021
Wealth inequality is something of a "pet-project" for me, if you could call it that - what do you call a topic that you feel strongly about, are interested in changing but can really do nothing about (at this stage anyway)??
So I'm always interested in devouring a tome on the subject. Atkinson's book is quite interesting in that its much more focussed on intervention and change than other books I've read, which are all good but are usually devoted more to the effects of economic inequality than how to change it.
The strength of this book is being highly techincal and precise and offering a wide range of solutions that could be implimented incrimentally - e.g. rather than calling for a drastic change in one area Atkinson identified multiple.
My only caution of the book is that it is relatively academic in style, Inequality isn't really an accessible or angled for a layman audience, its choc full of numbers, data-sources and robust review of figures. None of this is necessarily bad but I think its worth considering before diving in, Inequality its really a quiet lockdown read!
So I'm always interested in devouring a tome on the subject. Atkinson's book is quite interesting in that its much more focussed on intervention and change than other books I've read, which are all good but are usually devoted more to the effects of economic inequality than how to change it.
The strength of this book is being highly techincal and precise and offering a wide range of solutions that could be implimented incrimentally - e.g. rather than calling for a drastic change in one area Atkinson identified multiple.
My only caution of the book is that it is relatively academic in style, Inequality isn't really an accessible or angled for a layman audience, its choc full of numbers, data-sources and robust review of figures. None of this is necessarily bad but I think its worth considering before diving in, Inequality its really a quiet lockdown read!
December 13, 2018
While at heart a good book, its written in that academic purple prose style that made Capital in the Twenty-First Century such a slog. I suppose this must be expected of any economics text, I have read very few that aren't heavily padded. It looses a star for writing style.
At the heart of this book is Atkinson's 15 proposals designed to reverse this rising inequality that started in the early 80's.
Let's look at Proposal 6: There should be a capital endowment (minimum inheritance) paid to all at adulthood. This could be used to fund college or vocational training, buy a house or start a business. This would fix some of the issues with higher education including the roughly 70x increase in tuition for California State Colleges and help those not college bound in other ways. Of course in the book this is covered with more details and verbage.
And when the neo-cons cry not possible, I would counter that other countries have done some of this already, including the US pre-80's and that high levels of inequality lead to political instability. I wouldn't want to be a member of the ultra-rich if they brought back the guillotine. For the average Joe I would point to Denmark's happy residents that enjoy a decent social support network, good economy and low crime as something the US should strive for.
This would be a good book club read for those groups that tackle politics.
At the heart of this book is Atkinson's 15 proposals designed to reverse this rising inequality that started in the early 80's.
Let's look at Proposal 6: There should be a capital endowment (minimum inheritance) paid to all at adulthood. This could be used to fund college or vocational training, buy a house or start a business. This would fix some of the issues with higher education including the roughly 70x increase in tuition for California State Colleges and help those not college bound in other ways. Of course in the book this is covered with more details and verbage.
And when the neo-cons cry not possible, I would counter that other countries have done some of this already, including the US pre-80's and that high levels of inequality lead to political instability. I wouldn't want to be a member of the ultra-rich if they brought back the guillotine. For the average Joe I would point to Denmark's happy residents that enjoy a decent social support network, good economy and low crime as something the US should strive for.
This would be a good book club read for those groups that tackle politics.
January 8, 2016
Este es quizá uno de los mejores libros de economía que he leído.
El libro de Atkinson es una mezcla poco común de análisis económico riguroso, capacidad pedagógica en la exposición de los argumentos y uso adecuado de datos y estadísticas. El libro busca responder la pregunta ¿qué hacer para disminuir la desigualdad? y es por ello que puede ser visto como un complemento al texto de Piketty. En la primera parte del libro Atkinson explica las razones por las cuales es posible considerar la disminución de la desigualdad como un objetivo de política loable. En esa misma parte, el autor explica de qué hablamos cuando hablamos de desigualdad, como se mide y da un breve repaso a la evolución histórica reciente de la desigualdad en los países desarrollados. La segunda parte, que es en donde está lo jugoso del libro, está dedicada a la exposición detallada de las 15 propuestas de política de Atkinson para disminuir la desigualdad. Las propuestas son poco convencionales, en buena medida porque de forma correcta abordan al problema de la desigualdad como un problema surgido de diferentes mercados. Cada propuesta es explicada a detalle y se ejemplifica su instrumentación para el caso de Reino Unido. La tercera parte del libro consta de las respuestas de Atkinson a los cuestionamientos más comunes que se le pueden hacer a sus propuestas.
En suma, es un excelente libro, que recomiendo a todos los interesados en el tema y en la discusión de la política económica. No es necesario ser un especialista para entenderle.
El libro de Atkinson es una mezcla poco común de análisis económico riguroso, capacidad pedagógica en la exposición de los argumentos y uso adecuado de datos y estadísticas. El libro busca responder la pregunta ¿qué hacer para disminuir la desigualdad? y es por ello que puede ser visto como un complemento al texto de Piketty. En la primera parte del libro Atkinson explica las razones por las cuales es posible considerar la disminución de la desigualdad como un objetivo de política loable. En esa misma parte, el autor explica de qué hablamos cuando hablamos de desigualdad, como se mide y da un breve repaso a la evolución histórica reciente de la desigualdad en los países desarrollados. La segunda parte, que es en donde está lo jugoso del libro, está dedicada a la exposición detallada de las 15 propuestas de política de Atkinson para disminuir la desigualdad. Las propuestas son poco convencionales, en buena medida porque de forma correcta abordan al problema de la desigualdad como un problema surgido de diferentes mercados. Cada propuesta es explicada a detalle y se ejemplifica su instrumentación para el caso de Reino Unido. La tercera parte del libro consta de las respuestas de Atkinson a los cuestionamientos más comunes que se le pueden hacer a sus propuestas.
En suma, es un excelente libro, que recomiendo a todos los interesados en el tema y en la discusión de la política económica. No es necesario ser un especialista para entenderle.
May 3, 2015
Anthony Atkinson was one of the pioneers of research into inequality beginning in the 1960s, one of the original people to put together comprehensive estimates of income shares based on administrative tax data, and a lifelong contributor to both economics and public policy. So it is no surprise that his summary of a lifetime of thought and engagement in the new book Inequality is comprehensive, wise, but does not contain much that is very original--if only because much of Atkinson's original contributions have turned into commonsense. Unlike many other books on inequality, Atkinson devotes the majority of his work to a very serious discussion of a set of more 15 specific policy proposals as well as about a half dozen others "ideas to pursue". The ideas include not on the conventional (e.g., a higher minimum wage) but have a tendency to inject considerations of inequality into just about every economic policy issue (e.g., what R&D to finance). He is reasonably detailed about not just the economic considerations but also administrative issues and a particularly detailed microsimulation of the effect the proposals would have on inequality, poverty and the overall budget. While one could certainly debate the ideas, Atkinson has done us a service by putting them all together in this form.
October 21, 2015
Atkinson has contributed an important book that adds a lot to the discussion on the issues raised in Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century. Taking as given the notion that one would like to redistribute wealth and income more equally, he takes up the question of how to go about it.
The point of view is an eye-opener for someone used to American political discourse: neither "redistribution" nor "welfare state" seem to carry any pejorative connotation. While the discussion is often specific to the case of the U.K. policy framework, the set of 15 proposed reforms and additional topics for consideration give a much more broad-based and practical set of options that Piketty, who essentially stops at "we need a global tax on wealth, but of course that's impossible." Most of the concepts have relevance here in the U.S. and elsewhere.
The point of view is an eye-opener for someone used to American political discourse: neither "redistribution" nor "welfare state" seem to carry any pejorative connotation. While the discussion is often specific to the case of the U.K. policy framework, the set of 15 proposed reforms and additional topics for consideration give a much more broad-based and practical set of options that Piketty, who essentially stops at "we need a global tax on wealth, but of course that's impossible." Most of the concepts have relevance here in the U.S. and elsewhere.
December 5, 2018
Se trata de una versión más corta, menos técnica, más aburrida y más inglesa de Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Creo que le pifié al ponerme a leerlo todo. Me pasa un poco eso, no logro identificar que no es necesario leer todo un libro para saber de que va, y que es imposible leer todos los libros. Me interesaba algo en la línea de Desigualdad: este libro lo cita al principio, pero no va más allá de eso. También menciona la discusión que me interesa con Rawls a la cabeza, pero se vuelve a quedar ahí.
Dice que Piketty menosprecia el papel del estado. Para mí no es así. Plantea que de acuerdo a Piketty la única manera de reducir la desigualdad es una guerra. Yo en cambió entendí que esa fue la manera en que sucedió en el pasado, pero Piketty insiste en soluciones estatales al problema de la desigualdad. Una tasa Tobin, por ejemplo. En este libro Atkinson propone otras muchas soluciones posibles, impuestos y subsidios básicamente. Creo que eso es lo más interesante del libro. Es decir, no la discusión teórica sino las propuestas "prácticas". Muy orientadas a la coyuntura Inglesa de hace tres años (al menos lo leí bastante "a tempo"... da la sensación que este libro se torna ilegible después del 2020).
Dice que Piketty se centra exclusivamente en Francia. Para mí no es tan así.
Me aburrió bastante y no me aportó nada demasiado nuevo. Me pareció que le falta discusión política sobre la implementación de las propuestas. En sudamérica las cosas cambiaron mucho en los últimos tres años respecto de las políticas tan alabadas en este libro. ¿Por qué se "corruptizan" las instituciones públicas? ¿Cómo hacer para evitar ese proceso? En el prólogo menciona la cuestión de la diferencia entre la desigualdad "merecida" y la "inmerecida". Es lógico pensar que la sociedad compense economicamente a quienes más se esfuerzan estudiando y trabajando. También tiene sentido que uno pueda hacer una transmisión de riqueza a su descendencia. También queda claro que los niveles de desigualdad en los que vivimos son intolerables. Para convencerse de esto, haga lo siguiente: entre en una página de venta de inmuebles de su ciudad y busque casas ordenadas de mayor a menor precio. Incluso sacando los precios irreales se dará cuenta que nadie puede comprar una casa de tres millones de dólares a fuerza a ahorrar de su salario. Solo mantener una casa así sale al menos lo mismo que lo que gana una persona bien paga. Si vive en una ciudad también habrá advertido que hay gente que duerme en la calle. ¿Cómo es posible que las sociedades toleren esto?
Ahora bien, creo que la cuestión está en como lograr sociedades más justas, no solo más equitativas. La desigualdad es mala "per se", estoy de acuerdo con Atkinson. ¿Pero como hacer para que el esfuerzo valga la pena? Sería preferible vivir en una sociedad donde todos tengan donde vivir y que comer. Al menos eso. También la posibilidad de acceso a la educación. ¿Qué premiamos como sociedad? A un buen futbolista lo premiamos con un sueldo que alcanzaría para satisfacer necesidades básicas (dependiendo del lugar, obviamente) de (tranquilamente) diez mil personas. Eso es jugar al fútbol, si dirigís una empresa ganas mucho más. ¡Y eso es salario! Obviamente la plata no se hace trabajando, sino con tierra y capital, o alguna buena idea digamos. Creo que está bien que el capital produzca una ganancia, también el esfuerzo y la responsabilidad. Pero estoy seguro que estos diferenciales no son los que optimizan la retribución al esfuerzo y la responsabilidad. En primer lugar porque alguien que no comió bien y durmió en la calle de chico no puede ni pensar en esforzarse y ser responsable. Creo que esta cuestión de la correcta asignación de retribuciones a las ideas, al capital, al esfuerzo, a la responsabilidad, etc. es más interesante que la desigualdad "per se". Y creo que Atkinson la pasa de largo. Todo chico merece al menos la posibilidad de crecer y estudiar, estoy de acuerdo con esa propuesta del libro. También con que por el intercambio generacional todos deberíamos heredar al menos algo. Pero creo que el camino del "tengo derecho a esto" es, al menos, peligroso.
En esta falta de profundidad el libro se me hizo, incluso, un poco naif.
Dice que Piketty menosprecia el papel del estado. Para mí no es así. Plantea que de acuerdo a Piketty la única manera de reducir la desigualdad es una guerra. Yo en cambió entendí que esa fue la manera en que sucedió en el pasado, pero Piketty insiste en soluciones estatales al problema de la desigualdad. Una tasa Tobin, por ejemplo. En este libro Atkinson propone otras muchas soluciones posibles, impuestos y subsidios básicamente. Creo que eso es lo más interesante del libro. Es decir, no la discusión teórica sino las propuestas "prácticas". Muy orientadas a la coyuntura Inglesa de hace tres años (al menos lo leí bastante "a tempo"... da la sensación que este libro se torna ilegible después del 2020).
Dice que Piketty se centra exclusivamente en Francia. Para mí no es tan así.
Me aburrió bastante y no me aportó nada demasiado nuevo. Me pareció que le falta discusión política sobre la implementación de las propuestas. En sudamérica las cosas cambiaron mucho en los últimos tres años respecto de las políticas tan alabadas en este libro. ¿Por qué se "corruptizan" las instituciones públicas? ¿Cómo hacer para evitar ese proceso? En el prólogo menciona la cuestión de la diferencia entre la desigualdad "merecida" y la "inmerecida". Es lógico pensar que la sociedad compense economicamente a quienes más se esfuerzan estudiando y trabajando. También tiene sentido que uno pueda hacer una transmisión de riqueza a su descendencia. También queda claro que los niveles de desigualdad en los que vivimos son intolerables. Para convencerse de esto, haga lo siguiente: entre en una página de venta de inmuebles de su ciudad y busque casas ordenadas de mayor a menor precio. Incluso sacando los precios irreales se dará cuenta que nadie puede comprar una casa de tres millones de dólares a fuerza a ahorrar de su salario. Solo mantener una casa así sale al menos lo mismo que lo que gana una persona bien paga. Si vive en una ciudad también habrá advertido que hay gente que duerme en la calle. ¿Cómo es posible que las sociedades toleren esto?
Ahora bien, creo que la cuestión está en como lograr sociedades más justas, no solo más equitativas. La desigualdad es mala "per se", estoy de acuerdo con Atkinson. ¿Pero como hacer para que el esfuerzo valga la pena? Sería preferible vivir en una sociedad donde todos tengan donde vivir y que comer. Al menos eso. También la posibilidad de acceso a la educación. ¿Qué premiamos como sociedad? A un buen futbolista lo premiamos con un sueldo que alcanzaría para satisfacer necesidades básicas (dependiendo del lugar, obviamente) de (tranquilamente) diez mil personas. Eso es jugar al fútbol, si dirigís una empresa ganas mucho más. ¡Y eso es salario! Obviamente la plata no se hace trabajando, sino con tierra y capital, o alguna buena idea digamos. Creo que está bien que el capital produzca una ganancia, también el esfuerzo y la responsabilidad. Pero estoy seguro que estos diferenciales no son los que optimizan la retribución al esfuerzo y la responsabilidad. En primer lugar porque alguien que no comió bien y durmió en la calle de chico no puede ni pensar en esforzarse y ser responsable. Creo que esta cuestión de la correcta asignación de retribuciones a las ideas, al capital, al esfuerzo, a la responsabilidad, etc. es más interesante que la desigualdad "per se". Y creo que Atkinson la pasa de largo. Todo chico merece al menos la posibilidad de crecer y estudiar, estoy de acuerdo con esa propuesta del libro. También con que por el intercambio generacional todos deberíamos heredar al menos algo. Pero creo que el camino del "tengo derecho a esto" es, al menos, peligroso.
En esta falta de profundidad el libro se me hizo, incluso, un poco naif.
July 20, 2018
Este es un libro - ensayo de economía de nivel básico-intermedio. El libro esta dividido en dos partes. En la primera, explica conceptos básicos y la evolución de la desigualdad en el mundo. En la segunda parte elabora una serie de propuestas de política económica e ideas a explorar para reducir la desigualdad, enfatizando en el Reino Unido. Al mismo tiempo, también escribe un capítulo para dar respuesta a las posibles críticas a dichas propuestas. Por ejemplo, un mito típico es que algunas medidas para disminuir la desigualdad podrían detener el crecimiento económico, cuándo no hay evidencia para sostener eso. Como tampoco hay evidencia para decir que la globalización impide reducir la desigualdad. Si bien el libro esta enfocado en el Reino Unido, varias políticas son transferibles a otros contextos o permiten analizar las existentes con un enfoque para reducir la desigualdad. Un libro recomendable para los interesados en analizar la desigualdad económica y cómo reducirla.
March 21, 2023
Pretty nice, but the focus on the UK was, as the author advertised, obvious, and maybe of not *that* much interest to someone on the Continent that already benefits from a more developed welfare state. Nonetheless, analyses were clear, and the focus on policy was well-intended. If this book is paired reading with a more ideological/philosophical book, they would complement each other well. Ideology without policy seems biteless, policy without ideology is misguided.
April 7, 2022
Great book where the author presents proposals in order to reduce the inequality we go by on the 21st century. These proposals are not only backed up by previous events throughout the history but also by thinking about the present day and the future. Even tho I liked it I recognize that it some chapters are a bit to extensive for someone without any economical background like me.
April 11, 2021
Li apenas alguns pedaços. Interessante
October 11, 2022
you guys would not believe how much i wanted to be reading fanfiction instead of this
March 8, 2021
Espero poder hacer una reseña más en forma pronto, pero me parece un texto fundamental para divulgar qué se entiende por desigualdad desde la economía y qué se puede hacer al respecto, sobre todo las primeras ~100 páginas. El resto son propuestas muy concretas, que ciertamente pueden aplicar en varios contextos, pero que están pensadas específicamente para el Reino Unido.
Ganas de leer más al respecto y más de lo que haya publicado Atkinson.
Ganas de leer más al respecto y más de lo que haya publicado Atkinson.
October 23, 2015
Anthony Atkinson's Inequality is a dense book probably aimed at people who are much smarter than I am. But it's nonetheless easy to grasp the basic ideas. Atkinson talks about the extreme degree in which the developed world faces income inequality and practical ways to rectify that inequality. Essentially, what he thinks is that the problem requires a patchwork of solutions or a package of policies that all have to be implemented in concert with one another. For example, one decent thing that could be done would be to increase the minimum wage to a decent living wage, and maybe to allow wage hikes in general. Sad fact is is that average wages have not seen a real increase in at least 40-some-odd years so it would be nice if the salaries increased along with the necessary standard of living. Another solution would be increasing the amount of money that people receive with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC is a system already in place in the United States whereby households get back money after they pay into taxes if their in a low enough income bracket. Already this has been estimated by the federal government to keep many families and children up out of poverty. It could only help more to increase this amount. Another policy change: At least in the United States, there is not much in the way of protection for workers' rights vis-a-vis employers, so minimal or zilch restriction on the formation of unions would be a nice thing. (Wal-Mart, for example, has threatened to fire employees if the company so much as gets wind that you're interested in forming a union.) I can't remember all his other proposals (there are about 40) but here's one last one I can remember: Governments should make a concerted effort to direct the technology they fund for research so as to direct it to better people's livelihoods. In general, this has not been the case. The Internet, for example, was an invention of the Pentagon system and then only later privatized for public use. Examples abound like this in the United States, where the top research and development goes into the Pentagon system, eventually becomes privatized, and then people put it out there as products or services for the people. But none of this is being done in a systematic way. The first priority here seems to be to fund military research and then if it happens to have any kind of practical application later, then that's just a nice byproduct.
Anyway, good book to read and would be helpful for reference, I think.
Anyway, good book to read and would be helpful for reference, I think.
November 16, 2015
Inequality is bad.
Wait, not the book, but the fact that some have much more than others and that it is truly impossible to justify that in terms of hard work - whatever that means.
Inequality has been the elephant in the room that was ignored for so long until Piketty blew up for some reason last year. It's weird how that happens in the culture. I bought Piketty’s book Capital on pre-order and only got about 100 pages in,. By the time I actually got the book, I had read so many blogs going back and forth over it that I had felt like I had already read it.
Anthony B. Atkinson’s book, “Inequality: What can be done?” didn’t get the same attention when it came out in 2015, and I’m not sure why not. Maybe the bloggers on both sides had decided that it was time to look at something else - secular stagnation, when will the Fed achieve liftoff from the zero lower bound, is the Phillips curve still a thing. Or maybe because Atkinson’s book felt a little less universal than Piketty with his laws so that people could argue if r was less than, greater than, or equal to g. Either way, the fact that people didn’t let this book blow up in the same way is shameful, because it is more straightforward and systematic and economical with the prose. If anything, it fails because it is less grandiose than Piketty, looking at changes that can be made at the national level instead of some global wealth tax. Instead he has a constellation of proposals and an examination of their feasibility and potential cost. If anything for popular American readers, it might be seen as a bit dry and a bit too focused on somewhere that is not America, but the proposals are transferable. Importantly though, Atkinson doesn’t leave his proposals as the definitive answer, accepting that the economy exists in flux with many variables - making his work not just some answers but a jumping off point for further discussion, We just have to be brave enough to join that discussion.
Wait, not the book, but the fact that some have much more than others and that it is truly impossible to justify that in terms of hard work - whatever that means.
Inequality has been the elephant in the room that was ignored for so long until Piketty blew up for some reason last year. It's weird how that happens in the culture. I bought Piketty’s book Capital on pre-order and only got about 100 pages in,. By the time I actually got the book, I had read so many blogs going back and forth over it that I had felt like I had already read it.
Anthony B. Atkinson’s book, “Inequality: What can be done?” didn’t get the same attention when it came out in 2015, and I’m not sure why not. Maybe the bloggers on both sides had decided that it was time to look at something else - secular stagnation, when will the Fed achieve liftoff from the zero lower bound, is the Phillips curve still a thing. Or maybe because Atkinson’s book felt a little less universal than Piketty with his laws so that people could argue if r was less than, greater than, or equal to g. Either way, the fact that people didn’t let this book blow up in the same way is shameful, because it is more straightforward and systematic and economical with the prose. If anything, it fails because it is less grandiose than Piketty, looking at changes that can be made at the national level instead of some global wealth tax. Instead he has a constellation of proposals and an examination of their feasibility and potential cost. If anything for popular American readers, it might be seen as a bit dry and a bit too focused on somewhere that is not America, but the proposals are transferable. Importantly though, Atkinson doesn’t leave his proposals as the definitive answer, accepting that the economy exists in flux with many variables - making his work not just some answers but a jumping off point for further discussion, We just have to be brave enough to join that discussion.
November 4, 2019
If there is anyone who has the credibility to hold forth on both the plague of inequality as well as its obliteration, it is Anthony Atkinson. Having dedicated a significant part of his career to the cause and consequence of inequality, Anthony Atkinson is a treasure trove of ideas, suggestions, measures and recommendations. He puts all these valuable attributes to splendid effect in "Inequality: What Can Be Done?".
Beginning by providing an overview of the pernicious problem that is inequality, Atkinson proceeds to elucidate 15 proposals; a stirring mix of both the tried and tested as well as innovative which in his opinion would go a long way in mitigating inequality, if not obliterating it. These proposals include channeling the potential of technology with a humane objective in mind whereby the spur of advancement will act as a generator of employment rather than displacing labour; every country contributing 1% of its Gross National Income ("GNI") towards a corpus for poverty eradication; increasing the marginal rates of taxation to as high as 65% (a proposal that is sure to rankle very many sentiments); a compulsory entitlement towards Child Benefit as well as an employment allowance to every adult etc.
As may be evident from the nature of the proposals themselves, they are controversial as well as debate inducing. Recognising this fact, Atkinson devotes an entire chapter in discussing the potential criticisms that could be levied against each of the fifteen proposals as well as comprehensive rebuttals of such criticisms. He also dwells on the budgetary aspects of the proposal concluding that a state bold enough to introduce and implement such proposals, although incurring huge expenditure will still end up clocking a surplus.
Atkinson's proposals may or may not see the light of the day. But it sure represents a pioneering step towards reducing the unsavoury gap between the so called 1 percenters and the left behind 99 percenters.
Beginning by providing an overview of the pernicious problem that is inequality, Atkinson proceeds to elucidate 15 proposals; a stirring mix of both the tried and tested as well as innovative which in his opinion would go a long way in mitigating inequality, if not obliterating it. These proposals include channeling the potential of technology with a humane objective in mind whereby the spur of advancement will act as a generator of employment rather than displacing labour; every country contributing 1% of its Gross National Income ("GNI") towards a corpus for poverty eradication; increasing the marginal rates of taxation to as high as 65% (a proposal that is sure to rankle very many sentiments); a compulsory entitlement towards Child Benefit as well as an employment allowance to every adult etc.
As may be evident from the nature of the proposals themselves, they are controversial as well as debate inducing. Recognising this fact, Atkinson devotes an entire chapter in discussing the potential criticisms that could be levied against each of the fifteen proposals as well as comprehensive rebuttals of such criticisms. He also dwells on the budgetary aspects of the proposal concluding that a state bold enough to introduce and implement such proposals, although incurring huge expenditure will still end up clocking a surplus.
Atkinson's proposals may or may not see the light of the day. But it sure represents a pioneering step towards reducing the unsavoury gap between the so called 1 percenters and the left behind 99 percenters.
August 28, 2020
Atkinson, aki amellett, hogy Anthony és B(arnes) és Sir és még a becsületrend birtokosa is, igazi doyenje (volt, sajnos: két éve hunyt el) a közgazdaság-tudománynak. Ha ír valamit a témában, akkor annak súlya van. És ha még azt is mondja az előszóban, hogy laikusoknak írta, hát kedvet kapok hozzá. Nem is bánom meg – még ha attól tartok, az a célozgatás a laikusokra némiképp hurráoptimizmus. Mert akárki akármit mondjon, ha a nyolcvanadik oldalon még arról beszél a szerző, hogy az egyenlőtlenséggel kapcsolatos adatokat milyen módszertan segítségével lehet elemezni, az bizony nem laikusoknak van kitalálva. Igaz, baromi fontos, és remekül illusztrálja, milyen kemény dió az egyenlőtlenség, mennyi félreértés és félinformáció kapcsolódik hozzá. De hát a laikus számára mindez nagyjából indifferens, mégpedig roppantul kellemetlenül az: mintha egy nála jóval nagyobb, jóval szőrösebb és jóval büdösebb ellenféllel kéne iszapbirkóznia.
De ha ezen átvergődik az ember, olyasvalamit kap a kötettől, ami kincset ér, és aminek hiánya kábé az összes általam eddig olvasott közgazdasági szakkönyv (ami nem sok) Achilles-sarka: konkrét szakpolitikai javaslatokat*. Igaz ugyan, hogy a brit viszonyokra vannak megszövegezve, de olvasgatván őket azért Európa kevesebb vízzel körbevett részein is bőven alkalmazhatóak, legfeljebb kisebb módosításokkal. Ezek a javaslatok nem csak úgy oda vannak baszarintva a könyv lezárásába, hanem köréjük van építve az egész fejtegetés, Atkinson alaposan megmagyarázza őket, és felkészül a várható ellenvetésekre, amelyek közül alapvetően kettőt emelnék ki.
a.) Miért is kell az egyenlőtlenséget felszámolni?
Azért, mert végtelenül etikátlan, hogy 2009-ben (a hitelválság mélypontján) a Goldman Sachs alkalmazottai annyi célprémiumot vittek haza, mint amekkora a Föld 224 000 000 legszegényebb emberének a vagyona. Atkinson pedig a priori veszi, hogy a gazdasági-politikai döntésekre ugyanúgy érvényesek az etika szabályai, mint bármi másra: az igazságosság és a hasznosság nem tekinthetőek egymás ellentéteinek, mert ha annak tekintjük őket, az beláthatatlan károkat okoz. Egyrészt mindenféle társadalmi elégedetlenség melegágya (elég a bolsevik forradalomra gondolni), másrészt pedig az egész demokrácia alapeszményét ássa alá. Hisz a demokrácia kulcsa a törvény előtti egyenlőség, ami természetesen nem ugyanaz (és nem is szabad, hogy ugyanannak tekintsük), mint a gazdasági egyenlőség – de ha a gazdasági egyenlőtlenség túllép egy bizonyos mértéket (és Atkinson szerint ez Nagy-Britanniában és az USA-ban megtörtént), akkor automatikusan újratermeli a törvény előtti egyenlőtlenséget is, létrehozva a maga „törvények feletti” arisztokráciáját.
b.) A neoliberális és neokonzervatív közgazdászok másik állandó ellenérve, hogy egy mindenbe beleavatkozó, egyenlősítő állam olyan, mint a „lyukas vödör”: elszív ugyan a gazdagoktól némi pénzt, de annak egy részét el is nyeli saját adminisztrációjának fenntartásával. Gátolja tehát a gazdaság növekedését, „kisebb tortát” hoz létre, amit ezért értelemszerűen kevesebb részre lehet osztani. Atkinson ezzel nem ért egyet – egyfelől azért, mert ha igaz is, hogy a torta kisebb lesz, igazságos elosztással lehet, az emberek többsége így is többet kap majd belőle**. Másrészt igazából nem sikerült bebizonyítania még senkinek, hogy a torta szükségszerűen lesz kisebb, ha a jóléti állam progresszív adókkal operál. (Ami azt illeti, a jóléti állam kialakulása a XIX. század második felében egyáltalán nem akadályozta meg Európát abban, hogy a világ legpotensebb régiója legyen – sőt, talán elő is segítette azzal, hogy megerősítette a társadalmi szolidaritást.) A neoliberálisok állandó mantrája, miszerint ha a gazdagoknak hagyjuk a pénzt, az lecsorog a szegényekig is, nem más, mint a közgazdaságtan legnagyobb kamuja – egyáltalán nem látszik, hogy akár Amerika, akár Anglia szegényei profitáltak volna abból, hogy a felső 1% rommá kereste magát. És így P.u. (azaz Piketty után – ez egy ilyen közgazdasági időhatározó, most vezettem be) egyre kevésbé tartható a gondolat.
Atkinson beszél még számos más dologról is: a nemzeteken belüli egyenlőtlenségen kívül kitér (bár rövidebben) a globális egyenlőtlenségekre is, és azt se felejti el, hogy milyen nehézségekbe ütközne, ha egyetlen ország próbálná megvalósítani ezeket az eszméket (nemzetközi versenyhátrány, nagy vagyonok Kajmán-szigetekre szivárgása, stb.), de én ezekről a dolgokról már nem számolok be, mert kezdek éhes lenni. Jó étvágyat nekem.
(Ja. És lehet ezekkel a baloldali elméletekkel egyetérteni vagy egyet nem érteni, de hogy Magyarországon egyik párt sem hirdeti – tudtommal – ezen gondolatok megvalósíthatóságát, számomra egészen biztosan jelzi, hogy Magyarországon baloldali pártok egyszerűen nincsenek.)
* Hogy érzékeltessem, mennyire ez a lista a kötet központja, elmondanám, hogy háromszor is szerepel az összes javaslat ugyanebben a megfogalmazásban a szövegben. Egyszer külön-külön, aztán az utolsó javaslat után összegzésképp, aztán az utószóban még egyszer. Hogy rögzüljön. Amiből az is következhet, hogy aki nem akarja átrágni magát a szövegen, de egy picit érdekli a téma, elég, ha a javaslatokat magába szívja.
** Matematikai példával: ha van egy 24 szeletes tortám, amin V, W, X, Y és Z osztozik, és W ebből kisajátít magának 12 szeletet, akkor a többieknek csak 3-3 szelet jut. Viszont ha van egy 22 szeletes tortám, amiből W csak 6 szeletet sajátít ki, akkor a többieknek 4-4 szelet jut. És megharapom azt, aki felhívja a figyelmemet arra, miszerint 22 szeletes torta nincs. Valamint azt is, aki hiányolja a példából a torták átmérőjét, magasságát, esetleg sűrűségét.
De ha ezen átvergődik az ember, olyasvalamit kap a kötettől, ami kincset ér, és aminek hiánya kábé az összes általam eddig olvasott közgazdasági szakkönyv (ami nem sok) Achilles-sarka: konkrét szakpolitikai javaslatokat*. Igaz ugyan, hogy a brit viszonyokra vannak megszövegezve, de olvasgatván őket azért Európa kevesebb vízzel körbevett részein is bőven alkalmazhatóak, legfeljebb kisebb módosításokkal. Ezek a javaslatok nem csak úgy oda vannak baszarintva a könyv lezárásába, hanem köréjük van építve az egész fejtegetés, Atkinson alaposan megmagyarázza őket, és felkészül a várható ellenvetésekre, amelyek közül alapvetően kettőt emelnék ki.
a.) Miért is kell az egyenlőtlenséget felszámolni?
Azért, mert végtelenül etikátlan, hogy 2009-ben (a hitelválság mélypontján) a Goldman Sachs alkalmazottai annyi célprémiumot vittek haza, mint amekkora a Föld 224 000 000 legszegényebb emberének a vagyona. Atkinson pedig a priori veszi, hogy a gazdasági-politikai döntésekre ugyanúgy érvényesek az etika szabályai, mint bármi másra: az igazságosság és a hasznosság nem tekinthetőek egymás ellentéteinek, mert ha annak tekintjük őket, az beláthatatlan károkat okoz. Egyrészt mindenféle társadalmi elégedetlenség melegágya (elég a bolsevik forradalomra gondolni), másrészt pedig az egész demokrácia alapeszményét ássa alá. Hisz a demokrácia kulcsa a törvény előtti egyenlőség, ami természetesen nem ugyanaz (és nem is szabad, hogy ugyanannak tekintsük), mint a gazdasági egyenlőség – de ha a gazdasági egyenlőtlenség túllép egy bizonyos mértéket (és Atkinson szerint ez Nagy-Britanniában és az USA-ban megtörtént), akkor automatikusan újratermeli a törvény előtti egyenlőtlenséget is, létrehozva a maga „törvények feletti” arisztokráciáját.
b.) A neoliberális és neokonzervatív közgazdászok másik állandó ellenérve, hogy egy mindenbe beleavatkozó, egyenlősítő állam olyan, mint a „lyukas vödör”: elszív ugyan a gazdagoktól némi pénzt, de annak egy részét el is nyeli saját adminisztrációjának fenntartásával. Gátolja tehát a gazdaság növekedését, „kisebb tortát” hoz létre, amit ezért értelemszerűen kevesebb részre lehet osztani. Atkinson ezzel nem ért egyet – egyfelől azért, mert ha igaz is, hogy a torta kisebb lesz, igazságos elosztással lehet, az emberek többsége így is többet kap majd belőle**. Másrészt igazából nem sikerült bebizonyítania még senkinek, hogy a torta szükségszerűen lesz kisebb, ha a jóléti állam progresszív adókkal operál. (Ami azt illeti, a jóléti állam kialakulása a XIX. század második felében egyáltalán nem akadályozta meg Európát abban, hogy a világ legpotensebb régiója legyen – sőt, talán elő is segítette azzal, hogy megerősítette a társadalmi szolidaritást.) A neoliberálisok állandó mantrája, miszerint ha a gazdagoknak hagyjuk a pénzt, az lecsorog a szegényekig is, nem más, mint a közgazdaságtan legnagyobb kamuja – egyáltalán nem látszik, hogy akár Amerika, akár Anglia szegényei profitáltak volna abból, hogy a felső 1% rommá kereste magát. És így P.u. (azaz Piketty után – ez egy ilyen közgazdasági időhatározó, most vezettem be) egyre kevésbé tartható a gondolat.
Atkinson beszél még számos más dologról is: a nemzeteken belüli egyenlőtlenségen kívül kitér (bár rövidebben) a globális egyenlőtlenségekre is, és azt se felejti el, hogy milyen nehézségekbe ütközne, ha egyetlen ország próbálná megvalósítani ezeket az eszméket (nemzetközi versenyhátrány, nagy vagyonok Kajmán-szigetekre szivárgása, stb.), de én ezekről a dolgokról már nem számolok be, mert kezdek éhes lenni. Jó étvágyat nekem.
(Ja. És lehet ezekkel a baloldali elméletekkel egyetérteni vagy egyet nem érteni, de hogy Magyarországon egyik párt sem hirdeti – tudtommal – ezen gondolatok megvalósíthatóságát, számomra egészen biztosan jelzi, hogy Magyarországon baloldali pártok egyszerűen nincsenek.)
* Hogy érzékeltessem, mennyire ez a lista a kötet központja, elmondanám, hogy háromszor is szerepel az összes javaslat ugyanebben a megfogalmazásban a szövegben. Egyszer külön-külön, aztán az utolsó javaslat után összegzésképp, aztán az utószóban még egyszer. Hogy rögzüljön. Amiből az is következhet, hogy aki nem akarja átrágni magát a szövegen, de egy picit érdekli a téma, elég, ha a javaslatokat magába szívja.
** Matematikai példával: ha van egy 24 szeletes tortám, amin V, W, X, Y és Z osztozik, és W ebből kisajátít magának 12 szeletet, akkor a többieknek csak 3-3 szelet jut. Viszont ha van egy 22 szeletes tortám, amiből W csak 6 szeletet sajátít ki, akkor a többieknek 4-4 szelet jut. És megharapom azt, aki felhívja a figyelmemet arra, miszerint 22 szeletes torta nincs. Valamint azt is, aki hiányolja a példából a torták átmérőjét, magasságát, esetleg sűrűségét.
August 20, 2015
I would have given this book five stars but for a glaring omision. Professor Atkinson very clearly gives his reasons for income equality in the UK and makes cogent proposals for alleviating the inequality. But he has totally neglected to mention the role of banks in helping create income equality. Especially the way banks pump excessive credit to household and inflate unsustainable bubbles in housing and other assets.
Other than that; it is a very comprehensive book with solid proposal to reduce income equality
Other than that; it is a very comprehensive book with solid proposal to reduce income equality
May 13, 2015
Wow! This book is an intellectual tour de force. The author covers a vast amount of ground in amazing detail. I like the author's proposal for eradicate inequality. They are more realistic, I think, than Picketty's prescription of a global wealth tax and could be achieved if governments are willing and able.
July 27, 2017
Overall just a little too academic and "ivory tower"-ish for my taste. I'd have liked to have seen more analysis on the effects the proposals would have and rather less on the rationale for each proposal.
January 22, 2016
Takes the topic further by introducing tangible proposals to tackle the problem of inequality. Anyone interested in the subject matter or interested in policy in general should study this.
October 17, 2021
Una excelente reflexión sobre las alternativas para luchar contra la desigualdad y repensar los esquemas de redistribución de la riqueza.
March 31, 2022
leitura muito boa sobre as atuais adversidades que a sociedade está vivendo,com um manual sobre como resolver os problemas
existem muitos dados e análises no livro,que podem ser extremamente úteis caso sejam postas em prática
o ao avançarmos na leitura,podemos perceber que o autor é fascinado na ideia do "bem estar social",e tenta usar as informações para poder convencer os leitores de que é realmente uma boa ideia
ele cita exemplos de como deu certo,onde deu certo,porque deu errado e o que poderia ser corrigido/mantido para continuar sendo válido
inclusive,gostaria de agradecer pelo escritor por ter exposto o chamado "WPA",uma ideia muito boa que foi implementada nos EUA na época da Grande Depressão,e que chegou a não só a empregar mais de 8 milhões de pessoas,como também progrediu rapidamente a infraestrutura norte-americana,e foi uma ferramenta essencial para driblarem essa crise absurda
aqui podemos fazer o mesmo,ou até mesmo de uma forma muito melhor,e muito mais intensa,visto que poderíamos usar a base e adaptar para a nossa realidade
e a leitura não é nada cansativa,muito bom
existem muitos dados e análises no livro,que podem ser extremamente úteis caso sejam postas em prática
o ao avançarmos na leitura,podemos perceber que o autor é fascinado na ideia do "bem estar social",e tenta usar as informações para poder convencer os leitores de que é realmente uma boa ideia
ele cita exemplos de como deu certo,onde deu certo,porque deu errado e o que poderia ser corrigido/mantido para continuar sendo válido
inclusive,gostaria de agradecer pelo escritor por ter exposto o chamado "WPA",uma ideia muito boa que foi implementada nos EUA na época da Grande Depressão,e que chegou a não só a empregar mais de 8 milhões de pessoas,como também progrediu rapidamente a infraestrutura norte-americana,e foi uma ferramenta essencial para driblarem essa crise absurda
aqui podemos fazer o mesmo,ou até mesmo de uma forma muito melhor,e muito mais intensa,visto que poderíamos usar a base e adaptar para a nossa realidade
e a leitura não é nada cansativa,muito bom
January 15, 2019
Good academic book on economics and not so hard to read, but difficult to understand. For a layman like me this book has very complicated tax schemes and so forth. Still the book is divided in chapters and sub chapters and at the end of each chapter there is a summary. So there are many chances to trying to understand what the writer is trying to explain. The most interesting part was the beginning of the book, where the writer explains how inequality is measured and why it is now worst than in the last century. The rest of the book is about the solutions that are mostly traditional well fare state measures, but there are more ambitious schemes borrowed from Thomas Piketty, like the global capital tax and UBI. The most new proposal was a new inheritance redistribution scheme that works like a starting capital for every person turn 21 years old. But this book is too focused on great great Britain and US to be very useful for other people on Earth.
March 24, 2021
Tony Atkinson is a serious & highly acclaimed scholar in the area of economic inequality studies. He is the mentor of the current rock star of the field, Thomas Piketty. This is a serious, pragmatic & scholarly compendium of recommendations for what can be done to alleviate economic inequality down to manageable proportions but not to eliminate it. Atkinson is not a radical. His specific recommendations are specified for his native UK but the general guidelines have applicability to any & all well developed & industrialized national economies characterized by excess inequality. This is an important book with ideas that need to be spread & debated but unfortunately, I cannot say that's it's a particularly enjoyable read. It's quite dry.
September 22, 2018
Atkinson is a British academic who has co-authored some works with the French economist Thomas Piketty. "Inequality," published in 2015, before the fiasco that has currently overtaken the U.S. and the idiocy of Brexit, offers a number of possible steps that could be taken to limit the economic inequality that exists in western European countries and the U.S.
The one problem that I have with the book is that Atkinson doesn't explicit illustrate the economic problem with widening inequality. We readily know the moral issues, but action seems more likely if we also could make plain why inequality is disadvantageous in the long run to the economic picture.
The one problem that I have with the book is that Atkinson doesn't explicit illustrate the economic problem with widening inequality. We readily know the moral issues, but action seems more likely if we also could make plain why inequality is disadvantageous in the long run to the economic picture.
November 21, 2018
The book brings light to a very important issue in the modern economy: the inequality and the problems that it creates to the society.
Even though the idea is interesting, there are many flaws in the proposals solutions, such as:
- Look for equality in results doesn't consider the motivations of the human beens;
- An annual income tax at 65% would make people avoid keep savings. They would earn the money and spend it all.
I could list many propositions and its flaws, so I think it is easier to say that the author has a completely different bias than me. I don't believe that the politicians should decide every move allowed to the population.
Even though the idea is interesting, there are many flaws in the proposals solutions, such as:
- Look for equality in results doesn't consider the motivations of the human beens;
- An annual income tax at 65% would make people avoid keep savings. They would earn the money and spend it all.
I could list many propositions and its flaws, so I think it is easier to say that the author has a completely different bias than me. I don't believe that the politicians should decide every move allowed to the population.
December 6, 2020
O livro apresenta um panorama da desigualdade, contando sua história, expondo propostas e avaliando seus impactos. É nítido que houve muita pesquisa envolvida, e isso deixa o livro rico e pragmático, embora cheio de economês. O maior problema são as seções específicas sobre a burocracia de programas do Reino Unido, que em nada se aplicam ao público internacional. Em geral um livro muito bom pra quem já é da área, mesmo que você não concorde com todas as propostas, é inegável a qualidade da pesquisa envolvida.
June 19, 2018
This is a very valuable deep dive into the social impact of inequality and what might be done about it. There are plenty of solutions proposed which are interesting to think about. Sadly they are almost all policy / political in nature and it seems unlikely that many of them are going to be adopted in the current climate.
That doesn't make them invalid (though I'm not sure they are all as sound as each other), but they aren't likely to be accessible as near-term solutions for many nations.
That doesn't make them invalid (though I'm not sure they are all as sound as each other), but they aren't likely to be accessible as near-term solutions for many nations.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews