The central theme of Piketty’s book is on how rising inequality is killing capitalism and, based on the empirical data in the form of tax records of 30 leading world economies for over 300 years, his book argues that only state intervention could check this rising inequality. Though his parents were part of the students’ protest generation of 1960s France, Piketty himself is a believer of free market economy. But his strong argument in favour state intervention has now turned him into the new ‘poster-boy’ among the left and liberal sections, while he is as much at the centre of the debate in right-wing and conservatives circles with his proposal for a ‘global wealth tax.’
The arrival of the Indian edition of his book also comes at an interesting time as the 10-year tenure of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance ends and makes way for the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance under Narendra Modi. What will be the likely economic model his government will pursue is not known yet. However, many of his self-proclaimed economic advisors have tossed up various theories and proposals during the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections that range from doing away with welfare schemes for the poor and under-privileged to abolishing the income-tax.
Taking time off from his extremely heavy schedule, Piketty answers a few questions that may prove to be crucial in the coming days for India in a brief interview with Pranay Sharma.
In the recent past there have been other economists too who have focused on the growing inequality in the US and other countries, say for instance Joseph Stiglitz has been talking about it for a while and also coined the term “one per cent versus the 99 per cent” to show the rising wealth gap. Where do you think you differ from such economists and what is so unique in the conclusion you make?
The main difference is that this book contains a lot more new historical evidence about income and wealth distribution. This is primarily a book about the history of money. Together with many colleagues, we have collected the largest existing historical database on the distribution of income and wealth, ranging over more than 20 countries and two centuries. The primary purpose of my book is to present this evidence in a consistent and readable manner, so as to contribute to a better informed, democratic debate.
With fellow economist Abhijit V. Banerjee, you had a special study on India. What are the broad trends of your finding about wealth distribution among Indians?
I should stress that we know too little about income and wealth distribution in India. With Abhijit, we found that top income shares have been rising in India since the 1980s-1990s. But we do not know much more than that, because the income tax administration has stopped publishing the data. Let me make clear that rising shares going to the top are not necessarily bad— at least until a certain point— assuming that they help to deliver higher growth and poverty reduction. But these are important issues that need to be studied with good data. Otherwise it is impossible to have an informed national conversation about these things.
Many economists in India believe and argue for the removal of ‘welfare measures’ for the poorer section since it hampers national growth and development. Do you agree with that view?
Investing in the education, health and welfare of the poor is certainly not bad for development: it is development. The overall share of tax revenues in GDP is relatively low in India. There is no example of a country in history that has been able to develop without important fiscal resources. It takes money to finance high quality investment in social services and public infrastructures.
Much of your study is based on records of income tax returns. But there are sections in India who keep demanding the abolition of annual income tax. If that happens, will it be a good thing for India?
The consequence is that it will reduce both tax revenues and democratic transparency about income. I think the income tax in India should be extended to broader groups of the population. This is what happened in every country during their development process; this is also what happened in China in recent decades, and this helped finance more social investment than in India, which ultimately was good for growth and for society as a whole. One should also keep in mind that the development of personal income and wealth tax systems is a way to promote more transparency about social inequality. For instance, income and wealth might be useful criteria for determining access to a number of social policies.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
This is neo-liberal propaganda based on nonsense economics. Taxes do not fund the federal govt. Federal govt is a money creator and created money is the DEFICIT. The percentage increase in deficit = percent increase of Net savings. Spend 5 times the deficit to grow net private savings by the same factor = 5. If this does not generate inflation, try 6,7,8....in sequence till you are satisfied. Fpr heaven's sake don't cut the deficit, the life blood of the economy. If you want proof go to http://pic.twitter.com/mIvjkQ18Hh
Long Beach, United States
Wish borrow and spend and grow large deficits is so easy!
And you assume that inflation will stay wherever they are, your currency will not become a toilet paper, and you do not need to pay for imports. Indians have seen high inflation whenever the federal plus state fiscal deficit started climbing as a higher percentage of GDP growth. Remember hyper inflation in Latin America or Zimbabwe!! The root cause was always printing money to bridge the gaping deficit.
American Keynesianism is still working because their borrowings and repayments are still in dollar, they can repay by printing their own currency, and their creditors have no credible alternatives and in a weak economy the inflation has not picked up. (And we still do not know how the reverse will play with the growth and the actual or collateral damage to Fed's money printing euphoria.) Ask Americans of 1970s and 1980s what it was like living with high inflation.
Mr Picketty is a white man from a first world nation with ZERO understanding of INDIA. To start with the problem in India is - 90% of people work outside the so called organized sector, most of the payments are in cash and outside the formal banking system and a lot of wealth transfer/accumulation is done through gold and real estate (physical assets). Clearly in such an economy, whatever maybe taxation levels , even if you tax 97% of incomes of rich, it is is not going to help to fill government coffers...
So the first step is to ensure that people invest in financial assets , participate in formal banking systems and discard cash payments.. And by not giving suggestions for same but simply telling that govt shoudl tax those filthy rich, spend infinitely on education and health, bla bla he is provign to be yet another white marxist refusing to understand that entire world is not a carbon copy of usa or europe.
Did Piketty Get His Math Wrong?
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT