What do you think?
Rate this book
Visionen der Ungleichheit: Von der Französischen Revolution bis zur Gegenwart
A sweeping and original history of how economists across two centuries have thought about inequality, told through portraits of six key figures.
“How do you see income distribution in your time, and how and why do you expect it to change?” That is the question Branko Milanovic imagines posing to six of history's most influential François Quesnay, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto, and Simon Kuznets. Probing their works in the context of their lives, he charts the evolution of thinking about inequality, showing just how much views have varied among ages and societies. Indeed, Milanovic argues, we cannot speak of “inequality” as a general any analysis of it is inextricably linked to a particular time and place.
Visions of Inequality takes us from Quesnay and the physiocrats, for whom social classes were prescribed by law, through the classic nineteenth-century treatises of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, who saw class as a purely economic category driven by means of production. It shows how Pareto reconceived class as a matter of elites versus the rest of the population, while Kuznets saw inequality arising from the urban-rural divide. And it explains why inequality studies were eclipsed during the Cold War, before their remarkable resurgence as a central preoccupation in economics today.
Meticulously extracting each author’s view of income distribution from their often voluminous writings, Milanovic offers an invaluable genealogy of the discourse surrounding inequality. These intellectual portraits are infused not only with a deep understanding of economic theory but also with psychological nuance, reconstructing each thinker’s outlook given what was unknowable to them within their historical contexts and methodologies.
“How do you see income distribution in your time, and how and why do you expect it to change?” That is the question Branko Milanovic imagines posing to six of history's most influential François Quesnay, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto, and Simon Kuznets. Probing their works in the context of their lives, he charts the evolution of thinking about inequality, showing just how much views have varied among ages and societies. Indeed, Milanovic argues, we cannot speak of “inequality” as a general any analysis of it is inextricably linked to a particular time and place.
Visions of Inequality takes us from Quesnay and the physiocrats, for whom social classes were prescribed by law, through the classic nineteenth-century treatises of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, who saw class as a purely economic category driven by means of production. It shows how Pareto reconceived class as a matter of elites versus the rest of the population, while Kuznets saw inequality arising from the urban-rural divide. And it explains why inequality studies were eclipsed during the Cold War, before their remarkable resurgence as a central preoccupation in economics today.
Meticulously extracting each author’s view of income distribution from their often voluminous writings, Milanovic offers an invaluable genealogy of the discourse surrounding inequality. These intellectual portraits are infused not only with a deep understanding of economic theory but also with psychological nuance, reconstructing each thinker’s outlook given what was unknowable to them within their historical contexts and methodologies.
400 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 2024
68 people are currently reading
1277 people want to read
About the author
Branko Milanović
17 books254 followersBranko Milanović (Serbian Cyrillic: Бранко Милановић, IPA: [brǎːŋko mǐlanoʋitɕ; milǎːn-]) is a Serbian-American economist. He is most known for his work on income distribution and inequality. Since January 2014, he is a visiting presidential professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and an affiliated senior scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS). He also teaches at the London School of Economics and the Barcelona Institute for International Studies. In 2019 he has been appointed the honorary Maddison Chair at the University of Groningen.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
January 27, 2025
llevaba sin disfrutar tanto un libro de economía desde que estaba en primero o segundo de carrera. branko milanovic me ha caído siempre genial, es el único bloguero al que respeto y llevo muchos años leyendo sus heterodoxas opiniones sobre variedad de temas, pero nunca me había enfrentado a ningún libro suyo y menudo error porque lo único mejor que leerle en entraditas cortas es leer un capítulo de 70 páginas sobre su interpretación de las principales tesis de marx en el capital. es un friki que parece genuinamente disfrutar que le rebatan, le lleven la contraria y le apostillen y aprecio enormemente su honestidad intelectual y el respeto que muestra por variedad de pensadores que probablemente se odiarían entre ellos. creo que es un tío que de verdad se preocupa por la generación de conocimiento económico e histórico y nunca siento leyéndole que esté intentando colarme nada, sino que siempre va de frente y no tiene miedo de expresar dudas o de decir "no hay suficientes datos sobre esto como para considerar que mi hipótesis queda probada". me encanta que invierta tanto tiempo en contextualizar biográfica e históricamente a los autores y su pensamiento y el esfuerzo que hace por ser didáctico sin perder un ápice de rigurosidad. en fin, de verdad que más allá de que me parezca una mente interesantísima es también un escritor muy guay y qué pena que este libro tenga tan pocas puntuaciones en goodreads porque me ha parecido una delicia absoluta y me ha hecho aprender un montón
June 26, 2024
Hubo un tiempo en que los banqueros ricos de Wall Street gastaban miles de dólares en retratos del presidente de la Reserva Federal, Alan Greenspan, con los que decoraban sus mansiones de Martha's Vineyard y Cape Cod. El llamado Gran Moderador era el profeta de un Edén capitalista que había superado para siempre las crisis y refulgía ya en todo el planeta alzándose sobre las estatuas derribadas de Lenin y Stalin. Y de pronto, en 2008, todo se vino abajo, nadie podía pagar sus deudas, Greenspan confesaba desolado que había cometido un error fatal al confiar en la autorregulación de los mercados y una vieja conocida, olvidada desde hacía más de medio siglo, irrumpía de nuevo en escena para desconcierto de los fúnebres economistas.
La desigualdad ha vuelto para ya no abandonar el lugar principal del debate público, y a ella se interpela para aclarar, o enredar aún más, los grandes debates de nuestro tiempo. Todo ha ocurrido antes. Tal vez los seis grandes fundadores de la ciencia económica -Quesnay, Adam Smith, Marx, Pareto y Kuznets- que se ocuparon de las fallas y disfunciones de la distribución de la renta en su época puedan enseñarnos algo. Es lo que defienda Branko Milanovic (1953) en Miradas sobre la desigualdad: de la Revolución Francesa al final de la Guerra Fría(Taurus). El profesor serboestadounidense de la Universidad de Nueva York es a la economía actual lo que Slavoj Zizek a la filosofía: fulgurante, heterodoxo, imaginativo, didáctico y muy divertido.
Continúa leyendo la reseña / entrevista aquí:
https://www.elmundo.es/la-lectura/202...
La desigualdad ha vuelto para ya no abandonar el lugar principal del debate público, y a ella se interpela para aclarar, o enredar aún más, los grandes debates de nuestro tiempo. Todo ha ocurrido antes. Tal vez los seis grandes fundadores de la ciencia económica -Quesnay, Adam Smith, Marx, Pareto y Kuznets- que se ocuparon de las fallas y disfunciones de la distribución de la renta en su época puedan enseñarnos algo. Es lo que defienda Branko Milanovic (1953) en Miradas sobre la desigualdad: de la Revolución Francesa al final de la Guerra Fría(Taurus). El profesor serboestadounidense de la Universidad de Nueva York es a la economía actual lo que Slavoj Zizek a la filosofía: fulgurante, heterodoxo, imaginativo, didáctico y muy divertido.
Continúa leyendo la reseña / entrevista aquí:
https://www.elmundo.es/la-lectura/202...
June 11, 2024
Predominantly for economists
November 13, 2023
Made it through all 297 pages and I know the same amount as I did in the introduction. Apparently there are multiple economists who wrote about income inequality, and not many were doing that work during the Cold War. That’s it. That’s all I got.
March 26, 2024
I enjoy Milanovic’s blog but this was just… fine? The portraits of the 6 economists are interesting (I appreciated his take on Adam Smith’s development thinking and his wonderfully clear exposition of Marx) but there is a lack of structure unifying the chapters other than “here are a bunch of important thinkers and their thought in chronological order”.
Oddly I feel like the perfect audience for this book—as a PhD student I know the datasets he’s describing, I am broadly interested in socialist political economy, I have the training to follow the mathematical theory—and yet I found myself trudging to the finish line.
Oddly I feel like the perfect audience for this book—as a PhD student I know the datasets he’s describing, I am broadly interested in socialist political economy, I have the training to follow the mathematical theory—and yet I found myself trudging to the finish line.
October 22, 2024
Este libro demuestra que es posible escribir de Economía sin aburrir al (sufrido) lector. No soy un experto en el tema y, sin embargo, disfruté este libro más que una buena novela.
Milanovic analiza la visión de Quesnay, Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Pareto y Kuznets sobre la desigualdad, aderezado de anécdotas pertinentes sobre la vida de estos grandes economistas.
La visión de cada uno de ellos, como era de esperar, está influida por el contexto histórico, social y económico que les tocó vivir. Lección que debe tenerse siempre presente.
Milanovic analiza la visión de Quesnay, Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Pareto y Kuznets sobre la desigualdad, aderezado de anécdotas pertinentes sobre la vida de estos grandes economistas.
La visión de cada uno de ellos, como era de esperar, está influida por el contexto histórico, social y económico que les tocó vivir. Lección que debe tenerse siempre presente.
December 24, 2023
Looking forward to introducing this book in the second semester for the World Humanities class. We will be adding Gini coefficients to our analyses of countries in Asia and Latin America. Here are my notes
Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War by Branko Milanovic
Tight focus on income distribution
P.9 Marx also rejected the idea that his critique of capitalism was based on moral grounds, and wrote rather dismissively of many who criticized capitalism from that point of view
P.62 Noting that “servants, labourers and workment of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society,” Smith added tat “what improves the circumstance of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.” It was a truly revolutionary idea and it remains so, even if it has acquired the status of common sense by now
P.67 The Wealth of Nations is realistic and severe. It openly criticizes the rich, how they have acquired their wealth, and how they use it to further enrich and empower themselves. In some of their behavior, Smith sees only sanctimonious posturing: “ I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need to be employed in dissuading them from it.” In some passages he treats them with scathing sarcasm: “The late resolution of the Quakers in Pennsylvania to set at liberty all their negro slaves, may satisfy us that their number cannot be very great.
P.68 The rich may well be at the top of the pyramid, but that does not mean that they are worthy of it, or that their incomes and the way they got to the top should be left unstudied and uncriticized. A high income is indeed often a product of collusion, monopoly, plunder, or use of political influence.
P.69 On plunder, merchant companies (the British East India Company and its Dutch equivalent Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie, or VOC) and the merchant republics are targeted for particular opprobrium because their profits are the result of a barefaced plunder
P.71 When the welfare of the majority, which essentially means high wages for workers, becomes the criterion to judge how well a society is doing, we are in the presence of a new and very modern view of what the good society is.
P.75 Smith’s implicit theory of income distribution is intimately related to his distrust of capitalists as influencers of economic policy. This is because, in Smith’s view, the higher incomes of workers and landlords that come as the result of societal advance align interests of these two classes with those of the society as a whole.
P.92 Ricardo’s goal was increased production: he would support whichever social class had interests most aligned with higher output. In this interpretation of Ricardo, there is but one step to supporting the rise of the proletariat if its interest can be shown to coincide with faster economic growth.
P.96 If the rate of profit goes down, there are simply less savings and investments: the growth rate of the economy slows down. Ricardo’s greatest fear was that the wage would eventually become so high (not because the real wage was becoming higher but simply because of the increasing cost of food) that wages might exhaust the entire net income, leaving nothing for profit. And as the profit rate fell to zero, capitalists would cease to invest, and the economy would grind to a halt.
P.100 Principles presents a very stark picture of class struggle over net product among three classes. The main conflict , however, is not so much between capitalists and workers (because workers are simply supposed to live on a subsistence wage which is fixed) as between landlords and capitalists. “The interest of the landlord is always opposed to the interest of every other class in the community,” wrote Ricardo in his Essay on the Influence of a Low Price of Corn….Contrast that with Smith’s contention that the interests of capitalists are opposed to the interests of all other classes.”
P.101 The picture of the economy and distribution offered by Ricardo is very different from that drawn by Adam Smith, who, as we have seen, believed that the prosperity of the most numerous class, workers, was synonymous with overall prosperity. In Ricardo, however, it is growth that is the most important goal, and consequently the income of capitalists that matters. Capitalists are the only active agents. They differ from landlords, who simply collect rent through no contribution of their own (because rent is determined by price, and does not determine the price). And they differ from workers, who are also not active agents, because they cannot invest (their wages being too low) and because their incomes are “passive,” in the sense that they are always at the customary subsistence level.
P.127 Peasantry is, according to Marx, a class with contradictory interests: it is not composed only of landless farmers and hired labor, but also of small and even moderately prosperous owners. Marx does not evince much sympathy for peasantry , which he calls …”a class that represents barbarism within civilisation…. A class of barbarians standing half outside society.”
P.155 The overall picture that emerges from Marx’s writings is certainly less sanguine than Smith’s, but it is far from the simplified state of society that many Marxists saw: an ever-deeper split between a small group of immensely rich capitalists and masses of impoverished workers. This may be true only if the inequality-increasing forces operate both in the realm of capital and labor.
P.156 The immiseration of the labor force went together, according to this reading of Marx, with the deskilling of labor as many of the more skilled functions were mechanized. Technological progress was seen as low-skill biased, in contrast to the opposite view today. It might reduce income differentiation among workers, while widening the average gap between workers and capitalists. At the other end of the spectrum, the tendency of the profit rate to fall would not affect the incomes of the richest capitalists since lower rate of profit was, according to this reading of Marx, accompanied by concentration of capital ownership, and the increased wealth of the few. The outcome was therefore a deep polarization of the population, increasing inequality, and– it was reasonable to suppose– ever more likely revolution spelling the end of capitalist relations of production.
P.176 Pareto’s sociological theory of the “circulation of the elites” was reinforced by his finding of a fundamentally stable distribution of incomes (regardless of political institutions). This meant that, while the type of ruling elite, its origin, and its characteristics might vary, the underlying distribution of wealth and income could not be affected.
P.177 Still, whatever the means by which the elites exercise their rule, if there is an immutable distribution of income, then they are incapable of changing it… The findings that gave rise to “Pareto’s law” justified for many a shift in emphasis away from classes and toward the elites’ competition for power. It is also aligned quite well with Pareto’s stern view of political competition– that it was not driven b y competing values and sincere beliefs but mostly by the competing players’ interests.
P.187 Simon Kuznets would, about a half century after Pareto, go precisely in the direction Pareto refused to take: he would argue that income inequality changes in a regular and predictable fashion with development or increased wealth of society. Rich societies, Kuznets would hold, have different distributions than poor societies.
P.192 Kuznets thought that every income distribution should be judged by three criteria: adequacy, equity, and efficiency. Adequacy is ensuring that even the poorest have an income level consonant with local customs and the society’s level of economic development. Equity is absence of discrimination, whether it is discrimination, whether itis discrimination in terms of current incomes ( as, for example, in racial and gender gaps) or in future possibilities (constraining what we call equality of opportunity). Efficiency is achievement of high growth rates.
P.257 Samir Amin opened eyes to the enormous chasm in income between rich countries and the “third world”, and to the historic origins of this gap…. Amin thought that the capitalist catchup was impossible because the system governing relations between the metropolis and the periphery was structured in such a way as to permanently discriminate against the periphery.
P.261 Thomas Piketty is this correct in arguing that the Kuznets hypothesis was used during the Cold War as a justification for ignoring inequalities (in both developed and developing countries) because it allowed everyone to pretend that growth alone would take care of them. Even more important is to notice that the very concern with inequality was applied only to the developing nations. Inequality, many proponents of the Cold War economics thought, really did not matter in the rich world.
P.279 It is only the neo-Marxist or heterodox approaches that have broken new ground in the work on inequality in the period of the Cold War. They have done it through a research program that had NorthSouth inequality, rather than inequality within nations, as its main concern. The concern was with “unequal exchange” (transfer of the Southern surplus to the North) and arrested development of the South because of rich countries’ economic dominance or imperialism.
P.282 [Amin] North-South structural inequality influenced class inequality in the countries of the periphery.
P.283 [Egypt example] excessive inequality, presided over by a tiny and rich “comprador” bourgeoisie , was, according to the dependency doctrine, both a consequence of world inequalities and a condition for their maintenance.
P.285 There are two aspects of inequality that were thus linked: the between-nation inequality that produced a specific type of domestic class structure, and the domestic inequality in turn perpetuated the gap between rich and poor countries.It is was in the interest of the ruling classes in the South that the South should remain underdeveloped. [the development of underdevelopment]
Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War by Branko Milanovic
Tight focus on income distribution
P.9 Marx also rejected the idea that his critique of capitalism was based on moral grounds, and wrote rather dismissively of many who criticized capitalism from that point of view
P.62 Noting that “servants, labourers and workment of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society,” Smith added tat “what improves the circumstance of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.” It was a truly revolutionary idea and it remains so, even if it has acquired the status of common sense by now
P.67 The Wealth of Nations is realistic and severe. It openly criticizes the rich, how they have acquired their wealth, and how they use it to further enrich and empower themselves. In some of their behavior, Smith sees only sanctimonious posturing: “ I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need to be employed in dissuading them from it.” In some passages he treats them with scathing sarcasm: “The late resolution of the Quakers in Pennsylvania to set at liberty all their negro slaves, may satisfy us that their number cannot be very great.
P.68 The rich may well be at the top of the pyramid, but that does not mean that they are worthy of it, or that their incomes and the way they got to the top should be left unstudied and uncriticized. A high income is indeed often a product of collusion, monopoly, plunder, or use of political influence.
P.69 On plunder, merchant companies (the British East India Company and its Dutch equivalent Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie, or VOC) and the merchant republics are targeted for particular opprobrium because their profits are the result of a barefaced plunder
P.71 When the welfare of the majority, which essentially means high wages for workers, becomes the criterion to judge how well a society is doing, we are in the presence of a new and very modern view of what the good society is.
P.75 Smith’s implicit theory of income distribution is intimately related to his distrust of capitalists as influencers of economic policy. This is because, in Smith’s view, the higher incomes of workers and landlords that come as the result of societal advance align interests of these two classes with those of the society as a whole.
P.92 Ricardo’s goal was increased production: he would support whichever social class had interests most aligned with higher output. In this interpretation of Ricardo, there is but one step to supporting the rise of the proletariat if its interest can be shown to coincide with faster economic growth.
P.96 If the rate of profit goes down, there are simply less savings and investments: the growth rate of the economy slows down. Ricardo’s greatest fear was that the wage would eventually become so high (not because the real wage was becoming higher but simply because of the increasing cost of food) that wages might exhaust the entire net income, leaving nothing for profit. And as the profit rate fell to zero, capitalists would cease to invest, and the economy would grind to a halt.
P.100 Principles presents a very stark picture of class struggle over net product among three classes. The main conflict , however, is not so much between capitalists and workers (because workers are simply supposed to live on a subsistence wage which is fixed) as between landlords and capitalists. “The interest of the landlord is always opposed to the interest of every other class in the community,” wrote Ricardo in his Essay on the Influence of a Low Price of Corn….Contrast that with Smith’s contention that the interests of capitalists are opposed to the interests of all other classes.”
P.101 The picture of the economy and distribution offered by Ricardo is very different from that drawn by Adam Smith, who, as we have seen, believed that the prosperity of the most numerous class, workers, was synonymous with overall prosperity. In Ricardo, however, it is growth that is the most important goal, and consequently the income of capitalists that matters. Capitalists are the only active agents. They differ from landlords, who simply collect rent through no contribution of their own (because rent is determined by price, and does not determine the price). And they differ from workers, who are also not active agents, because they cannot invest (their wages being too low) and because their incomes are “passive,” in the sense that they are always at the customary subsistence level.
P.127 Peasantry is, according to Marx, a class with contradictory interests: it is not composed only of landless farmers and hired labor, but also of small and even moderately prosperous owners. Marx does not evince much sympathy for peasantry , which he calls …”a class that represents barbarism within civilisation…. A class of barbarians standing half outside society.”
P.155 The overall picture that emerges from Marx’s writings is certainly less sanguine than Smith’s, but it is far from the simplified state of society that many Marxists saw: an ever-deeper split between a small group of immensely rich capitalists and masses of impoverished workers. This may be true only if the inequality-increasing forces operate both in the realm of capital and labor.
P.156 The immiseration of the labor force went together, according to this reading of Marx, with the deskilling of labor as many of the more skilled functions were mechanized. Technological progress was seen as low-skill biased, in contrast to the opposite view today. It might reduce income differentiation among workers, while widening the average gap between workers and capitalists. At the other end of the spectrum, the tendency of the profit rate to fall would not affect the incomes of the richest capitalists since lower rate of profit was, according to this reading of Marx, accompanied by concentration of capital ownership, and the increased wealth of the few. The outcome was therefore a deep polarization of the population, increasing inequality, and– it was reasonable to suppose– ever more likely revolution spelling the end of capitalist relations of production.
P.176 Pareto’s sociological theory of the “circulation of the elites” was reinforced by his finding of a fundamentally stable distribution of incomes (regardless of political institutions). This meant that, while the type of ruling elite, its origin, and its characteristics might vary, the underlying distribution of wealth and income could not be affected.
P.177 Still, whatever the means by which the elites exercise their rule, if there is an immutable distribution of income, then they are incapable of changing it… The findings that gave rise to “Pareto’s law” justified for many a shift in emphasis away from classes and toward the elites’ competition for power. It is also aligned quite well with Pareto’s stern view of political competition– that it was not driven b y competing values and sincere beliefs but mostly by the competing players’ interests.
P.187 Simon Kuznets would, about a half century after Pareto, go precisely in the direction Pareto refused to take: he would argue that income inequality changes in a regular and predictable fashion with development or increased wealth of society. Rich societies, Kuznets would hold, have different distributions than poor societies.
P.192 Kuznets thought that every income distribution should be judged by three criteria: adequacy, equity, and efficiency. Adequacy is ensuring that even the poorest have an income level consonant with local customs and the society’s level of economic development. Equity is absence of discrimination, whether it is discrimination, whether itis discrimination in terms of current incomes ( as, for example, in racial and gender gaps) or in future possibilities (constraining what we call equality of opportunity). Efficiency is achievement of high growth rates.
P.257 Samir Amin opened eyes to the enormous chasm in income between rich countries and the “third world”, and to the historic origins of this gap…. Amin thought that the capitalist catchup was impossible because the system governing relations between the metropolis and the periphery was structured in such a way as to permanently discriminate against the periphery.
P.261 Thomas Piketty is this correct in arguing that the Kuznets hypothesis was used during the Cold War as a justification for ignoring inequalities (in both developed and developing countries) because it allowed everyone to pretend that growth alone would take care of them. Even more important is to notice that the very concern with inequality was applied only to the developing nations. Inequality, many proponents of the Cold War economics thought, really did not matter in the rich world.
P.279 It is only the neo-Marxist or heterodox approaches that have broken new ground in the work on inequality in the period of the Cold War. They have done it through a research program that had NorthSouth inequality, rather than inequality within nations, as its main concern. The concern was with “unequal exchange” (transfer of the Southern surplus to the North) and arrested development of the South because of rich countries’ economic dominance or imperialism.
P.282 [Amin] North-South structural inequality influenced class inequality in the countries of the periphery.
P.283 [Egypt example] excessive inequality, presided over by a tiny and rich “comprador” bourgeoisie , was, according to the dependency doctrine, both a consequence of world inequalities and a condition for their maintenance.
P.285 There are two aspects of inequality that were thus linked: the between-nation inequality that produced a specific type of domestic class structure, and the domestic inequality in turn perpetuated the gap between rich and poor countries.It is was in the interest of the ruling classes in the South that the South should remain underdeveloped. [the development of underdevelopment]
January 26, 2024
A very good introduction to the study of inequality and it was nice to see a discussion of the lives of these scholars. Gave me motivation to read further.
April 28, 2024
I really enjoyed this read!
It came out last Fall and I assigned it to my course this Spring semester. The course is History of Economic Thought on Inequality. What a perfect book for it!
Milanovic covers the inequality economic theories of six economists. He spatters some of the recent empirical work showing inequality levels. What first jumps out is Quesnay, Smith, Ricardo, and Marx all built their theories around class. Later, with Pareto, and especially Kuznets, class is gone replaced entirely by the individual. Some of this is changing ideology in the 20th century. But other was the rise of the middle class and increased economic mobility compared to centuries earlier.
The chapters are uneven. Some short, while others quite long. This, I presume is because their relative writings are thinner or more expansive, and therefore, there is less to comment on.
My favorite section of the book is the seventh chapter focusing on the long Cold War absence of inequality studies from BOTH! the Soviets and the West. Both had ideological reasons to ignore serious measure and study of inequality. In the U.S., we had to argue our individualism was superior, and in the USSR, they had to argue that they abolished class.
There were lots of little tidbits along the way. I learned that wage redistribution happened under capitalist economies. In the communist countries, wages were already equalized - mitigating any need for post-market redistribution. So, redistribution is a capitalist practice, not a socialist one!
Milanovic argues for a new interpretation of the Kuznet's curve. For reference, this is a hill shaped curve. The horizontal axis is GDP per capita, the vertical axis is inequality. As a country begins to develop, inequality rises as the capitalists become rich first. Eventually labor starts to improve, the welfare state expands, and there is a greater appetite for taxes and redistribution. Kuznets, writing in the mid 20th century ends there. Unfortunately, since the 1970's, we've seen inequality grow again. Milanovic argues for Kuznets waves, rather than a definitive one-time historical occurrence. Given the slowing of inequality in the U.S. over the last decade after a 40 year rise, there may be something to this.
Great book. It requires a little preparation and knowledge before diving in. (he never defines the Gini coefficient, for example.) But that's what I'm there for. I'll assign this again next year.
It came out last Fall and I assigned it to my course this Spring semester. The course is History of Economic Thought on Inequality. What a perfect book for it!
Milanovic covers the inequality economic theories of six economists. He spatters some of the recent empirical work showing inequality levels. What first jumps out is Quesnay, Smith, Ricardo, and Marx all built their theories around class. Later, with Pareto, and especially Kuznets, class is gone replaced entirely by the individual. Some of this is changing ideology in the 20th century. But other was the rise of the middle class and increased economic mobility compared to centuries earlier.
The chapters are uneven. Some short, while others quite long. This, I presume is because their relative writings are thinner or more expansive, and therefore, there is less to comment on.
My favorite section of the book is the seventh chapter focusing on the long Cold War absence of inequality studies from BOTH! the Soviets and the West. Both had ideological reasons to ignore serious measure and study of inequality. In the U.S., we had to argue our individualism was superior, and in the USSR, they had to argue that they abolished class.
There were lots of little tidbits along the way. I learned that wage redistribution happened under capitalist economies. In the communist countries, wages were already equalized - mitigating any need for post-market redistribution. So, redistribution is a capitalist practice, not a socialist one!
Milanovic argues for a new interpretation of the Kuznet's curve. For reference, this is a hill shaped curve. The horizontal axis is GDP per capita, the vertical axis is inequality. As a country begins to develop, inequality rises as the capitalists become rich first. Eventually labor starts to improve, the welfare state expands, and there is a greater appetite for taxes and redistribution. Kuznets, writing in the mid 20th century ends there. Unfortunately, since the 1970's, we've seen inequality grow again. Milanovic argues for Kuznets waves, rather than a definitive one-time historical occurrence. Given the slowing of inequality in the U.S. over the last decade after a 40 year rise, there may be something to this.
Great book. It requires a little preparation and knowledge before diving in. (he never defines the Gini coefficient, for example.) But that's what I'm there for. I'll assign this again next year.
April 19, 2025
Este libro es un muy buen repaso sobre cómo distintos autores y escuelas de pensamiento económico abordaron el estudio de la desigualdad. No se trata de una historia linea, pues muchas veces han evolucionado aisladamente entre ellas o se trata de cambios de paradigma (à la Khun)
Esta dividido en 7 capítulos y un epilogo. Los primeros seis capítulos están dedicados a autores individuales que aparecen por orden histórico: Francois Quesnay, Adam SMith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto y Simon Kuznets.
Todos estos autores tratan la desigualdad económica de cierta manera. De lo más relevante es que autores clásicos y procapitalistas aceptaran la existencia de clases sociales, la teoría del valor-trabajo y que la desigualdad representaba un problema. Mientras para Marx, su análisis no estaba centrado en la desigualdad económica, sino en la explotación capitalista. Aunque es posible a partir de Marx discutir sobre la desigualdad económica.
Posteriormente, en el séptimo capítulo menciona como las ideologías imperantes de la guerra fría buscaron anular los estudios de la desigualdad económica. Por un lado en occidente, hablar de la misma se pensaba como una crítica al capitalismo y una ruptura a la narrativa oficial del progreso y desarrollo occidental. Además, desde la escuela neoclásica, el estudio de la desigualdad es imposible, dado que no se considera la existencia de clases sociales, una forma de evadir la "guerra de clases" realmente existente. En otras palabras, constituye una ideología de la guerra fría.
Por otro lado, en los países del llamado bloque socialista, se consideraba superada la desigualdad al no considerarse países capitalistas - una versión dogmática del marxismo (o mejor dicho, el materialismo histórico de Stalin). Por lo que su estudio y análisis era relegado o negado. Sólo los teóricos del subdesarrollo en latinoamericana, de corte neomarxista, continuaron con los estudios sobre la desigualdad.
Es hasta la caída del bloque soviético y el ascenso neoliberal que se recuperan los estudios de la desigualdad. La obra de Pikkety, El Capital en el siglo XXI, sin duda fue un parteaguas que permitió retomar la importancia de estos estudios. Así como los estudios de desigualdad global (entre naciones) y las tablas sociales que permiten conocer las clases y su distribución de recursos de manera histórica.
Un libro que aporta una amplia visión teórica sobre los estudios de la desigualdad. Tiene un lenguaje técnico en ciertos momentos que puede hacer árida su lectura, por lo que pareciera estar más enfocado en un sector más académico que en el público en general. A pesar de ello, es totalmente recomendable su lectura para situar las distintas posturas sobre la desigualdad económica, tanto a lo largo e la historia, como actualmente.
Esta dividido en 7 capítulos y un epilogo. Los primeros seis capítulos están dedicados a autores individuales que aparecen por orden histórico: Francois Quesnay, Adam SMith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto y Simon Kuznets.
Todos estos autores tratan la desigualdad económica de cierta manera. De lo más relevante es que autores clásicos y procapitalistas aceptaran la existencia de clases sociales, la teoría del valor-trabajo y que la desigualdad representaba un problema. Mientras para Marx, su análisis no estaba centrado en la desigualdad económica, sino en la explotación capitalista. Aunque es posible a partir de Marx discutir sobre la desigualdad económica.
Posteriormente, en el séptimo capítulo menciona como las ideologías imperantes de la guerra fría buscaron anular los estudios de la desigualdad económica. Por un lado en occidente, hablar de la misma se pensaba como una crítica al capitalismo y una ruptura a la narrativa oficial del progreso y desarrollo occidental. Además, desde la escuela neoclásica, el estudio de la desigualdad es imposible, dado que no se considera la existencia de clases sociales, una forma de evadir la "guerra de clases" realmente existente. En otras palabras, constituye una ideología de la guerra fría.
Por otro lado, en los países del llamado bloque socialista, se consideraba superada la desigualdad al no considerarse países capitalistas - una versión dogmática del marxismo (o mejor dicho, el materialismo histórico de Stalin). Por lo que su estudio y análisis era relegado o negado. Sólo los teóricos del subdesarrollo en latinoamericana, de corte neomarxista, continuaron con los estudios sobre la desigualdad.
Es hasta la caída del bloque soviético y el ascenso neoliberal que se recuperan los estudios de la desigualdad. La obra de Pikkety, El Capital en el siglo XXI, sin duda fue un parteaguas que permitió retomar la importancia de estos estudios. Así como los estudios de desigualdad global (entre naciones) y las tablas sociales que permiten conocer las clases y su distribución de recursos de manera histórica.
Un libro que aporta una amplia visión teórica sobre los estudios de la desigualdad. Tiene un lenguaje técnico en ciertos momentos que puede hacer árida su lectura, por lo que pareciera estar más enfocado en un sector más académico que en el público en general. A pesar de ello, es totalmente recomendable su lectura para situar las distintas posturas sobre la desigualdad económica, tanto a lo largo e la historia, como actualmente.
November 7, 2025
Visioni della disuguaglianza è un testo eccellente, denso e rigoroso, che affronta in modo sistematico il tema della disuguaglianza di reddito. Milanovic analizza come i principali economisti – da quelli classici fino agli autori contemporanei – abbiano trattato questo problema nei loro scritti, interrogandone le teorie e mostrando come la questione distributiva sia sempre stata al centro delle preoccupazioni economiche, anche quando sembrava passata in secondo piano.
Secondo l’autore, una buona analisi della disuguaglianza deve fondarsi su tre pilastri: una narrazione capace di collocare i fenomeni nel loro contesto storico e sociale, un ampio stock di dati empirici che permetta di leggere i mutamenti concreti, e infine una teoria che leghi insieme racconto e numeri, restituendo una visione coerente. Questo equilibrio tra racconto, dato e concetto è forse la più grande forza del libro.
Oltre alla grande perizia analitica, colpisce la chiarezza espositiva di Milanovic: la scrittura è limpida e accessibile anche nei passaggi più tecnici, pur presupponendo talvolta una certa familiarità con il linguaggio economico. Nulla che una rapida ricerca online non possa chiarire, segno della volontà dell’autore di mantenere un registro divulgativo senza rinunciare alla precisione.
Infine, il volume non si limita a fotografare il presente, ma indica le rotte future della ricerca economica. Milanovic riflette sulle novità introdotte da studiosi come Thomas Piketty, sulla crescente attenzione agli studi globali e sull’importanza di sviluppare nuove capacità di analisi empirica in un mondo sempre più interconnesso.
In sintesi, Visioni della disuguaglianza è una lettura imprescindibile per chiunque voglia comprendere come nascono, si misurano e si interpretano le differenze economiche che segnano le nostre società.
Secondo l’autore, una buona analisi della disuguaglianza deve fondarsi su tre pilastri: una narrazione capace di collocare i fenomeni nel loro contesto storico e sociale, un ampio stock di dati empirici che permetta di leggere i mutamenti concreti, e infine una teoria che leghi insieme racconto e numeri, restituendo una visione coerente. Questo equilibrio tra racconto, dato e concetto è forse la più grande forza del libro.
Oltre alla grande perizia analitica, colpisce la chiarezza espositiva di Milanovic: la scrittura è limpida e accessibile anche nei passaggi più tecnici, pur presupponendo talvolta una certa familiarità con il linguaggio economico. Nulla che una rapida ricerca online non possa chiarire, segno della volontà dell’autore di mantenere un registro divulgativo senza rinunciare alla precisione.
Infine, il volume non si limita a fotografare il presente, ma indica le rotte future della ricerca economica. Milanovic riflette sulle novità introdotte da studiosi come Thomas Piketty, sulla crescente attenzione agli studi globali e sull’importanza di sviluppare nuove capacità di analisi empirica in un mondo sempre più interconnesso.
In sintesi, Visioni della disuguaglianza è una lettura imprescindibile per chiunque voglia comprendere come nascono, si misurano e si interpretano le differenze economiche che segnano le nostre società.
July 21, 2024
Branko Milanovic es un economista serbioestadounidense especialista en desigualdad económica. En "Miradas...", hace una síntesis sobre la visión de varios economistas acerca de este tema: Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto y Simon Kuznets. Es interesante lo que señala acerca de la opinión de Adam Smith sobre la necesidad de un nivel alto de los salarios de los trabajadores para que la economía crezca y se mantenga en un nivel sostenido. Este aspecto no es el que más se resalta habitualmente de las ideas de Smith. Pero lo mejor está al final. En el capítulo 7, "El largo eclipse de los estudios sobre la desigualdad durante la Guerra Fría", Milanovic hace un repaso de las razones por las que, tanto en los países socialistas como en los capitalistas, el tema de la desigualdad no tuvo interés académico entre el fin de la Segunda Guerra Mundial y los años '90. Critica con argumentos la falacia de los modelos neoclásicos por sus supuestos irreales y su falta de marco histórico. Señala que "los estudios sobre la desigualdad que se desarrollaron entre mediados de la década de 1960 y la década de 1990... fueron víctimas de la Guerra Fría, de un desafortunado giro hacia la abstracción de las ciencias económicas, del deseo de presentar una imagen maquillada de la realidad y, lo que no es menos importante, de la financiación de la investigación por parte de los ricos". Es una excelente puerta de entrada para iniciar o completar la lectura de las obras de Piketty.
January 19, 2025
Branko Milanovic’s Visions of Inequality provides a chronological overview of how key thinkers, from Quesnay to Piketty, have understood economic inequality. By analyzing their views, Milanovic reveals how theories evolved alongside historical and economic contexts. The book showcases Quesnay’s focus on landowners, Smith’s optimism about markets, Ricardo’s theory of rent, Marx’s critique of exploitation, Pareto’s statistical contributions, Kuznets’ economic transitions and Piketty’s insights on wealth concentration.
A notable aspect of the book is its discussion of the gap between Kuznets (1960's) and Piketty (2010's), which Milanovic attributes to the absence of theories that fully meet his three criteria for a good theory: a compelling political and economic narrative, solid theoretical grounding, and robust empirical evidence. After Kuznets (inequality rises with economic growth, peaks, then declines as economies mature), economic thought largely shifted toward growth, stability, and microeconomic issues. The optimistic acceptance of Kuznets’ hypothesis and the lack of comprehensive global data further hindered the development of new frameworks on inequality. It wasn’t until Piketty combined narrative (capital-driven inequality), theory (r > g), and extensive historical data that inequality regained prominence in economic discourse.
A notable aspect of the book is its discussion of the gap between Kuznets (1960's) and Piketty (2010's), which Milanovic attributes to the absence of theories that fully meet his three criteria for a good theory: a compelling political and economic narrative, solid theoretical grounding, and robust empirical evidence. After Kuznets (inequality rises with economic growth, peaks, then declines as economies mature), economic thought largely shifted toward growth, stability, and microeconomic issues. The optimistic acceptance of Kuznets’ hypothesis and the lack of comprehensive global data further hindered the development of new frameworks on inequality. It wasn’t until Piketty combined narrative (capital-driven inequality), theory (r > g), and extensive historical data that inequality regained prominence in economic discourse.
September 18, 2025
Es un libro muy interesante sobre desigualdad, escrito desde la historia del pensamiento económico. El autor revisa las miradas sobre la desigualdad desde el nacimiento de la economía política hasta nuestros días. Resulta interesante cómo se habilita un diálogo entre los pensamientos de Smith, Ricardo, Marx y otros autores. Se destaca también la revisión de lo acontecido con el desinterés en los estudios sobre desigualdad durante la Guerra Fría en el mundo acádemico Occidental y Soviético. Cómo críticas: el autor se extiende desproporcionalmente en la parte de Marx y no dedica ningún capítulo a la escuela estructuralista latinoamericana (cuestión que advierte pero que en un libro de estas características no debería faltar).
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 2, 2024
Definitely not a book for the masses, especially since the relatively high entry threshold is not justified by the payoff (or payload, if you will). Of uneven quality throughout - the Quesnay and Ricardo chapters are fairly slight compared to the ones on Smith, Marx, or Pareto, sometimes getting all too chummy (can't really say what was the point of mentioning that Pareto's first wife had eloped with the cook), only to fire off salvos of what economists believe is algebra a few pages later.
Basically, I came out of this with the strengthened conviction that economics is the new and improved shamanism, with added capability of messing with my mortgage payments. Thanks, I guess.
Basically, I came out of this with the strengthened conviction that economics is the new and improved shamanism, with added capability of messing with my mortgage payments. Thanks, I guess.
November 12, 2025
eclectic, repetitive, sometimes just strange, and for all those reasons much better than Piketty and any other anodyne Keynesian who talks like the ruling class might gift their wealth to the state (and that if they did this would solve the problem). I appreciate then from this point of view Milanović's methodological fatalism - the concentration of wealth doesn't stop until there's a war - which is a comforting thought. also has more interest in different kinds of societies e.g. state communist ones, the differences between Moscow and Beijing wage differentials and institutional regulations were very interesting
July 17, 2024
A great book about income inequality from a historical perspective and with quite a strong economical theory background. You definitely don’t need to know about Economy from a professional perspective, but some economical concepts, and even equations, are used throughout the book which makes it a bit harder to read.
Excellent introductory text for other books on the topic like Pikkety’s.
Excellent introductory text for other books on the topic like Pikkety’s.
June 23, 2024
Librazo, aunque probablemente restringido hacia personas con conocimientos de teoría económica.
December 14, 2024
Regular. No parece tener ninguna idea particularmente novedosa
February 4, 2025
Ben escrit, didàctic, il·lustratiu… Aborda amb claretat la teoria, les dades empíriques, les qüestions metodològiques. Francament molt bé
May 19, 2025
Interesting, but very hard to follow if you don't have some previous knowledge of the history of economic thought. A book for the specialists.
July 6, 2024
Me llevé una sorpresa cuando hacía el final comentó sobre Paul Samuelson y su libro de Economía, que es un tocho de 900 páginas que fue muy popular en los 90's... y que por supuesto nos tocó estudiar un año completo en la Universidad... para concluir que (bueno, creo que esto ya lo había leído en otra parte) era pura propaganda capitalista... apenas menciona el importante asunto de la desigualdad en un par de líneas casi en el epílogo.. y es que durante la Guerra Fría a nadie le importaba la desigualdad, nadie la estudiaba, si en ambos lados no existía!
Interesante libro, aunque creo que se necesita tener un conocimiento mínimo de teoría económica para leerlo. Me gustó poder ver los puntos fuertes y débiles de cada economista revisado. Buen prólogo y por lo que se concluye, hay nuevas luces para abordar el problema, con estudios recientes surgidos especialmente después de la crisis subprime.
Interesante libro, aunque creo que se necesita tener un conocimiento mínimo de teoría económica para leerlo. Me gustó poder ver los puntos fuertes y débiles de cada economista revisado. Buen prólogo y por lo que se concluye, hay nuevas luces para abordar el problema, con estudios recientes surgidos especialmente después de la crisis subprime.
March 6, 2024
Over the last few years, I have read many books on inequality - and this one strikes me for adopting a very original perspective: that of the history of economic thought. Of course, this leads Milanovic to focus on the classical economists (and even pre-classical: he dedicates a lot of attention to Quesnay), as modern neo-classical economists have been trying hard to convince us that inequality does not matter. Pity is, they are wrong - and, generally speaking, more than a bit ideological.
So: what happens when economic theory *really* becomes engaged with inequality and distribution? this books explains that to us, and in a rather accessible way (this being said, if you have no knowledge whatsoever of economics, probably this is not a book for you)
So: what happens when economic theory *really* becomes engaged with inequality and distribution? this books explains that to us, and in a rather accessible way (this being said, if you have no knowledge whatsoever of economics, probably this is not a book for you)
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews