Introduction 1 Freedom's Just Another Word  2 The Construction of Consent 3 The Neoliberal State 4 Uneven Geographical Developments 5 Neoliberalism with 'Chinese Characteristics' 6 Neoliberalism on Trial 7 Freedom's Prospect Notes Bibliography Index

/pdf/a-brief-history-of-neoliberalism-1sbwc7l6am.pdf

A Brief History of Neoliberalism

In this article, I present three key facts about income and wealth inequality in the long run emerging from my book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, and seek to sharpen and refocus the discussion about those trends. In particular, I clarify the role played by r > g in my analysis of wealth inequality. I also discuss some of the implications for optimal taxation, and the relation between capital-income ratios and capital shares.

About Capital in the Twenty-First Century

A New York Times #1 Bestseller An Amazon #1 Bestseller A Wall Street Journal #1 Bestseller A USA Today Bestseller A Sunday Times Bestseller Winner of the Financial Times and McKinsey Business Book of the Year Award Winner of the British Academy Medal Finalist, National Book Critics Circle Award "It seems safe to say that Capital in the Twenty-First Century, the magnum opus of the French economist Thomas Piketty, will be the most important economics book of the year-and maybe of the decade." -Paul Krugman, New York Times "The book aims to revolutionize the way people think about the economic history of the past two centuries. It may well manage the feat." -The Economist "Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century is an intellectual tour de force, a triumph of economic history over the theoretical, mathematical modeling that has come to dominate the economics profession in recent years." -Steven Pearlstein, Washington Post "Piketty has written an extraordinarily important book...In its scale and sweep it brings us back to the founders of political economy." -Martin Wolf, Financial Times "A sweeping account of rising inequality...Piketty has written a book that nobody interested in a defining issue of our era can afford to ignore." -John Cassidy, New Yorker "Stands a fair chance of becoming the most influential work of economics yet published in our young century. It is the most important study of inequality in over fifty years." -Timothy Shenk, The Nation

/pdf/capital-in-the-twenty-first-century-3ozrldwi71.pdf

Capital in the Twenty-First Century

This paper develops a dynamic general equilibrium model that is intended to help clarify the role of credit market frictions in business fluctuations, from both a qualitative and a quantitative standpoint. The model is a synthesis of the leading approaches in the literature. In particular, the framework exhibits a financial accelerator,' in that endogenous developments in credit markets work to amplify and propagate shocks to the macroeconomy. In addition, we add several features to the model that are designed to enhance the empirical relevance. First, we incorporate money and price stickiness, which allows us to study how credit market frictions may influence the transmission of monetary policy. In addition, we allow for lags in investment which enables the model to generate both hump-shaped output dynamics and a lead-lag relation between asset prices and investment, as is consistent with the data. Finally, we allow for heterogeneity among firms to capture the fact that borrowers have differential access to capital markets. Under reasonable parametrizations of the model, the financial accelerator has a significant influence on business cycle dynamics.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/nber_W6455.pdf?abstractid=226200&mirid=1

The Financial Accelerator in a Quantitative Business Cycle Framework

2 1 The innovative transport systems and the CityMobil project 10 1.1 The research questions 10 2 The state of art in the field of automatic transport systems 12 2.1 Case studies and demand studies for innovative transport systems 12 3 The design and implementation of surveys 14 3.1 Definition of experimental design 14 3.2 Questionnaire design and delivery 16 3.3 First analyses on the collected sample 18 4 Calibration of Logit Multionomial demand models 21 4.1 Methodology 21 4.2 Calibration of the “full” model. 22 4.3 Calibration of the “final” model 24 4.4 The demand analysis through the final Multinomial Logit model 25 5 The analysis of interaction between the demand and socioeconomic attributes 31 5.1 Methodology 31 5.2 Application of Mixed Logit models to the demand 31 5.3 Analysis of the interactions between demand and socioeconomic attributes through Mixed Logit models 32 5.4 Mixed Logit model and interaction between age and the demand for the CTS 38 5.5 Demand analysis with Mixed Logit model 39 6 Final analyses and conclusions 45 6.1 Comparison between the results of the analyses 45 6.2 Conclusions 48 6.3 Answers to the research questions and future developments 52

The European commission

Existence of fair allocations in economies with production

Fruit de quinze ans de recherches, cette etude, la plus ambitieuse jamais entreprise sur cette question, s'appuie sur des donnees historiques et comparatives bien plus vastes que tous les travaux anterieurs. Parcourant trois siecles et plus de vingt pays, elle renouvelle entierement notre comprehension de la dynamique du capitalisme en situant sa contradiction fondamentale dans le rapport entre la croissance economique et le rendement du capital.

Le capital au 21e siècle

This paper presents post-tax Distributional National Accounts (DINA) for France. That is, we combine national accounts, tax and survey data in a comprehensive and consistent manner to build homogenous annual series on the post-tax, post-transfer distribution of national income by percentiles over the 1990-2018 period, with detailed breakdown by age, tax and transfer categories. We come with three main findings. First, taxes and transfers reduce total income inequality (as measured by the ratio between average incomes of the top 10% and bottom 50% groups) by 23% on average in France over this period. This is significant, but less than in the US (34%). The reason why overall inequality is much smaller in France than in the US (more than twice as small, according to this indicator) is entirely due to differences in pretax inequality (themselves due to a complex combination of factors: access to education, wage formation, etc.) rather than in fiscal redistribution. Next, due to the large role of indirect taxes, social contributions, and income capital exemptions, the overall profile of taxation is structurally regressive in France (i.e. very top groups pay lower effective tax rates than groups just below them), a feature that has been reinforced in 2017-2018. Third, monetary transfers benefit mostly older age groups in France, and leave unaffected the low relative position of younger age groups. These series are currently being extended to cover the entire 1900-2018 period and to better take into account in-kind transfers.

Inequality and Redistribution in France, 1990-2018: Evidence from Post-Tax Distributional National Accounts (DINA)

How do aggregate wealth-to-income ratios evolve in the long run and why? We address this question using 1970-2010 national balance sheets recently compiled in the top eight developed economies. For the U.S., U.K., Germany, and France, we are able to extend our analysis as far back as 1700. We find in every country a gradual rise of wealth-income ratios in recent decades, from about 200-300% in 1970 to 400-600% in 2010. In effect, today's ratios appear to be returning to the high values observed in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (600-700%). This can be explained by a long run asset price recovery (itself driven by changes in capital policies since the world wars) and by the slowdown of productivity and population growth, in line with the β=s/g Harrod-Domar-Solow formula. That is, for a given net saving rate s=10%, the long run wealth-income ratio β is about 300% if g=3% and 600% if g=1.5%. Our results have important implications for capital taxation and regulation and shed new light on the changing nature of wealth, the shape of the production function, and the rise of capital shares.

Capital is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries, 1700-2010

This book is an in-depth discussion of rising inequalities in the western world. It explores the extent to which rising inequalities are the mechanical consequence of changes in economic fundamentals (such as changes in technological or demographic parameters), and to what extent they are the contingent consequences of country-specific and time-specific changes in institutions. Both the 'fundamentalist' view and the 'institutionalist' view have some relevance. For instance, the decline of traditional manufacturing employment since the 1970s has been associated in every developed country with a rise of labor-market inequality (the inequality of labor earnings within the working-age population has gone up in all countries), which lends support to the fundamentalist view. But, on the other hand, everybody agrees that institutional differences (minimum wage, collective bargaining, tax and transfer policy, etc.) between Continental European countries and Anglo-Saxon countries explain why disposable income inequality trajectories have been so different in those two groups of countries during the 1980s-90s, which lends support to the institutionalist view. The chapters in this volume show the strength of both views. Through empirical evidence and new theoretical insights the contributors argue that institutions always play a crucial role in shaping inequalities, and sometimes preventing them, but that inequalities across age, sex, and skills often recur. From Sweden to Spain and Portugal, from Italy to Japan and the USA, the volume explores the diversity of the interplay between market forces and institutions. Contributors to this volume - Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Manuel Arellano (CEMFI) Roland Benabou (New York University) Samuel Bentolila (CEMFI) Anders Bjorkland (Stockholm University) Richard Blundell (University College London) Olympia Bover (Banco de Espana) Andrea Brandolini (Bank of Italy) Giorgio Brunello (Padua University, Italy) Olga Canto (Universidad de Vigo) Ana R. Cardoso (Universidade do Minho) Piero Cippollone (Bank of Italy) Peter Gottschalk (Boston College) John Hassler (Stockholm University) Tsuneo Ishikawa (University of Tokyo) Juan F. Jimeno (Universidad de Alcala FEDEA; CEPR) Susan E. Mayer (University of Chicago) Javier Ortega (Universite des Sciences Sociales de Toulouse) Marten Palme (Stockholm School of Economics) Ian Preston (University College London) Jose V. Rodriguez Mora (Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) Paolo Sestito (Bank of Italy) Kjetil Storesletten (Stockholm University) Etienne Wasmer (ECARE; CEPR) Fabrizio Zilibotti (Stockholm University)

Thomas Piketty

Papers

Existence of fair allocations in economies with production

Le capital au 21e siècle

Inequality and Redistribution in France, 1990-2018: Evidence from Post-Tax Distributional National Accounts (DINA)

Capital is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries, 1700-2010

The Economics of Rising Inequalities