Font Size: 

The main purpose of this paper, which focuses on macroeconomic aspects of Piketty’s arguments, will be to point at some of the book’s analytical weaknesses and to argue that some empirical evidence, a clearer distinction between wealth and capital and different theoretical perspectives on income distribution and growth might lead to questioning some of the book’s central claims.

After briefly summarizing some of the main concerns of the book, I will present two different lines of argument provided by Piketty as to the causes of the increase in the wealth to income ratio. Subsequently, some lines of critical assessment will be developed. The first consists in pointing out that the capital-output ratio has not increased in the last decades, and that the increase in the wealth to output ratio shown in Piketty’s data cannot (unlike changes in the capital-output ratio) be regarded as a cause of changes in primary income shares. Subsequently, non-mainstream interpretations of the recent changes in income distribution and the slowing down of growth will be presented. These are rooted in a rejection of neoclassical decreasing demand curves for production factors inspired by the capital controversies of the 1960s and 1970s, and attribute a fundamental role to institutions and macroeconomic policies. Accordingly, they involve different views and emphases concerning the determinants of past and future changes in income distribution with respect to Piketty’s arguments, which also have some implications for policy proposals

Piketty, inequality, income distribution, capitalist dynamics