What do you think?
Rate this book
Superrika och jämlika : hur kapital och ägande lyfter alla
För länge sedan fanns prinsar och bönder, och mycket få däremellan. Klyftorna mellan rika och fattiga finns fortfarande kvar i vårt samhälle, men den stora berättelsen är en annan. Idag är vi rikare än någonsin tidigare – och trots ett stigande antal miljardärer också jämlikare.
I Superrika och jämlika berättas en ny historia om denna fascinerande historiska utveckling, och en riktning pekas ut för framtiden: Vägen mot jämlikhet handlar inte främst om att beskatta framgångsrika entreprenörer – utan om att tvärtom göra det möjligt för fler att bygga en privat förmögenhet.
Daniel Waldenström är professor i ekonomi vid Institutet för Näringslivsforskning, där han leder forskningsprogrammet Skatter och samhälle. Tidigare har han undervisat vid Uppsala universitet, Paris School of Economics och UCLA. Hans forskning handlar om ekonomisk ojämlikhet, finanspolitik och ekonomisk historia.
I Superrika och jämlika berättas en ny historia om denna fascinerande historiska utveckling, och en riktning pekas ut för framtiden: Vägen mot jämlikhet handlar inte främst om att beskatta framgångsrika entreprenörer – utan om att tvärtom göra det möjligt för fler att bygga en privat förmögenhet.
Daniel Waldenström är professor i ekonomi vid Institutet för Näringslivsforskning, där han leder forskningsprogrammet Skatter och samhälle. Tidigare har han undervisat vid Uppsala universitet, Paris School of Economics och UCLA. Hans forskning handlar om ekonomisk ojämlikhet, finanspolitik och ekonomisk historia.
308 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2024
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
September 8, 2025
Andra boken jag läser som substitut för att läsa NEK. Mer Piketty-bashing! Men jag vill ge den minuspoäng för sitt väldigt tråkiga omslag. Ser ut som en självhjälpsbok
November 1, 2025
En hel del intressant fakta om vår ekonomi men jag köper inte tesen alls. Argumenten och datan presenteras ohederligt och känns inte som om det är applicerbart alls för att blicka framåt. Full recension i avsnitt 45 av Boktokiga.
May 30, 2026
A must-read for anyone interested in the discussion of economic inequality.
The book is very empirically oriented, with time-series charts of various wealth-associated trends in many western nations (the US, UK, Germany, Spain, Sweden, France) on every other page. Professor Waldenström often draws on Piketty and Zucmans dataseries, but adds research findings that add to their lenght and also compliments them with additional aspects of wealth and wealth inequality.
It's a relatively short book, with clear and flowing prose. It maintains throughout its focus on the matter of trends and mechanisms in inequality, and ways of measuring it, largely without delving into the many associated discussions of consequences or justifications.
There's been a perception that wealth inequality is sort of a necessary and progressing evil, and a reality -- "If capitalism lifts all boats, who cares if some get lifted even higher?". While that's an argument that in my view stands on it own, this book argues that even the conventional wisdom of increasing wealth gaps is largely wrong, in the international perspective. The moderate exception is the US in recent years (presumably a lot due to it's many gargantuan tech companies, with earnings and valuations that dwarf those of companies elsewhere).
Waldenström calls that central argument in the book "The Great Wealth Equalization": of such magnitude is the historical trend. The main mechanisms driving this is increased real wages giving households financial room to save, pay off mortgages, and save in pension funds. Starting from the late nineteenth century, when regular folks owned almost nothing and inequality was extreme, inequality has reduced drastically. It makes sense when you think about it: when a large share of the population starts to own something, like 50% of a house or a pensionfund worth decades of expenses, the sum total of this is a huge equalization in relative wealth.
Waldenström points out that Pikettys theory about wars being what reduces inequality doesn't hold, because the effect of the world wars on inequality metrics show no difference between war-torn countries and neutral countries like Sweden. The equalization was not because of wars cutting down the wealthiest, but because of productivity raising the common folks.
Towards the end of the book, as an addition to an already convincingly made case, Waldenström brings in a usually entirely overlooked aspect of wealth -- that of individial shares in government wealth like unfunded pension rights and social security wealth. If you have a share of or right to something controlled by government, this affects your financial situation and should be accounted for, at least to some justified extent, when measuring wealth. Comparisons become outright skewed if this is not taken into account when comparing across countries and time. Waldenström shows that when "social wealth" is accounted for, it has a profound effect on inequality statistics:
"The repercussions are seismic when we account for the full scope of governmental growth in Western countries in our wealth inequality metrics. The Gini index falls by approximately one-quarter, and the top percentile of wealth drops nearly in half upon adding unfunded pensions or social security wealth. This outcome is consistent across numerous studies and is anticipated, as social security incomes are often tied to labor earnings and have a broader, sometimes universal, base of beneficiaries."
There are many aspects of welth inequality worth adressing, that require thought and nuance and open-mindedness. For example, land reform in densely populated countries, or extents of rights to private luxury consumption, or differentiation between passive and active wealth. This is an important work to help us progress towards such more intelligent, open-ended discussions, and away from crude, populist "eat the rich"-type slogans that pander to ignorance, envy and ressentiment.
The book is very empirically oriented, with time-series charts of various wealth-associated trends in many western nations (the US, UK, Germany, Spain, Sweden, France) on every other page. Professor Waldenström often draws on Piketty and Zucmans dataseries, but adds research findings that add to their lenght and also compliments them with additional aspects of wealth and wealth inequality.
It's a relatively short book, with clear and flowing prose. It maintains throughout its focus on the matter of trends and mechanisms in inequality, and ways of measuring it, largely without delving into the many associated discussions of consequences or justifications.
There's been a perception that wealth inequality is sort of a necessary and progressing evil, and a reality -- "If capitalism lifts all boats, who cares if some get lifted even higher?". While that's an argument that in my view stands on it own, this book argues that even the conventional wisdom of increasing wealth gaps is largely wrong, in the international perspective. The moderate exception is the US in recent years (presumably a lot due to it's many gargantuan tech companies, with earnings and valuations that dwarf those of companies elsewhere).
Waldenström calls that central argument in the book "The Great Wealth Equalization": of such magnitude is the historical trend. The main mechanisms driving this is increased real wages giving households financial room to save, pay off mortgages, and save in pension funds. Starting from the late nineteenth century, when regular folks owned almost nothing and inequality was extreme, inequality has reduced drastically. It makes sense when you think about it: when a large share of the population starts to own something, like 50% of a house or a pensionfund worth decades of expenses, the sum total of this is a huge equalization in relative wealth.
Waldenström points out that Pikettys theory about wars being what reduces inequality doesn't hold, because the effect of the world wars on inequality metrics show no difference between war-torn countries and neutral countries like Sweden. The equalization was not because of wars cutting down the wealthiest, but because of productivity raising the common folks.
Towards the end of the book, as an addition to an already convincingly made case, Waldenström brings in a usually entirely overlooked aspect of wealth -- that of individial shares in government wealth like unfunded pension rights and social security wealth. If you have a share of or right to something controlled by government, this affects your financial situation and should be accounted for, at least to some justified extent, when measuring wealth. Comparisons become outright skewed if this is not taken into account when comparing across countries and time. Waldenström shows that when "social wealth" is accounted for, it has a profound effect on inequality statistics:
"The repercussions are seismic when we account for the full scope of governmental growth in Western countries in our wealth inequality metrics. The Gini index falls by approximately one-quarter, and the top percentile of wealth drops nearly in half upon adding unfunded pensions or social security wealth. This outcome is consistent across numerous studies and is anticipated, as social security incomes are often tied to labor earnings and have a broader, sometimes universal, base of beneficiaries."
There are many aspects of welth inequality worth adressing, that require thought and nuance and open-mindedness. For example, land reform in densely populated countries, or extents of rights to private luxury consumption, or differentiation between passive and active wealth. This is an important work to help us progress towards such more intelligent, open-ended discussions, and away from crude, populist "eat the rich"-type slogans that pander to ignorance, envy and ressentiment.
December 15, 2024
Waldenstrom tries to dismantle what he calls Piketty and Co.'s outdated narrative about the evolution of inequality since the 19th century. He argues that we are today more equal than at any point in the past. However, there are several issues with this argument. For instance, the data he shows, more than disproving Piketty, show the same overall trend, thus enhancing the "outdated" narrative.
One strong point of the book is its policy orientation, something that economic historians often forget. I should say that, in general, the policy recommendations are sound: enact policies that enhance house ownership, promote access to financial instruments, invest in public pensions, opt for capital rather than wealth taxes, etc.
Waldenstrom argues that wealth democratization via pension funds and home ownership produced the great leveling of the 20th century, not wars and taxes. Economic growth, he claims, is the great leveling source. However, he fails to recognize that not all growth episodes achieve equalization, thus making generalizations that do not match empirical research. He claims that education, healthcare, and infrastructure are the real heroes. However, those things require public investment, thus financing tax revenues. In my opinion, this sloppiness in the arguments works against the author's goal in his crusade to promote a new narrative.
It is a good book, but it punches below its weight.
One strong point of the book is its policy orientation, something that economic historians often forget. I should say that, in general, the policy recommendations are sound: enact policies that enhance house ownership, promote access to financial instruments, invest in public pensions, opt for capital rather than wealth taxes, etc.
Waldenstrom argues that wealth democratization via pension funds and home ownership produced the great leveling of the 20th century, not wars and taxes. Economic growth, he claims, is the great leveling source. However, he fails to recognize that not all growth episodes achieve equalization, thus making generalizations that do not match empirical research. He claims that education, healthcare, and infrastructure are the real heroes. However, those things require public investment, thus financing tax revenues. In my opinion, this sloppiness in the arguments works against the author's goal in his crusade to promote a new narrative.
It is a good book, but it punches below its weight.
October 19, 2024
I would say 3.7. I am friendly to the argument, which is that wealth largely has become democratised over the 20th century, primarily due to homeownership and pension funds. This runs somewhat counter to Piketty, although much of the data points overlap.
I think the problem is a lack of theory or perhaps more parsimonious argument to explain why this is going on. Piketty had the influential r > g, that when rents grow faster than income, then wealth inequality becomes intractable. To my reading, Waldenström engages with some of the exisiting argument, but his book is primarily empirical. That's also great, and one learns a lot, but since a lot of the results are based on a narrow set of cases (US, UK, France and Sweden), and a lot is carried by studies of Swedish wealth history and data, one can't help but speculate on how well the argument travels through time and space.
That being said, the book distinguishes itself in having a very keen eye for policy, and stating what the implications of the empirical results are for existing scholarship (and hence policy-advice), and what the more appropriate policy-recommendations then are.
All in all, a short and efficient book that gets to the point, which definitely is a useful piece on your shelf the next time people uncritically state that wealth inequality has run amok.
I think the problem is a lack of theory or perhaps more parsimonious argument to explain why this is going on. Piketty had the influential r > g, that when rents grow faster than income, then wealth inequality becomes intractable. To my reading, Waldenström engages with some of the exisiting argument, but his book is primarily empirical. That's also great, and one learns a lot, but since a lot of the results are based on a narrow set of cases (US, UK, France and Sweden), and a lot is carried by studies of Swedish wealth history and data, one can't help but speculate on how well the argument travels through time and space.
That being said, the book distinguishes itself in having a very keen eye for policy, and stating what the implications of the empirical results are for existing scholarship (and hence policy-advice), and what the more appropriate policy-recommendations then are.
All in all, a short and efficient book that gets to the point, which definitely is a useful piece on your shelf the next time people uncritically state that wealth inequality has run amok.
November 24, 2024
This is a great book. It provides ample evidence showing how the world has become richer and more equal in the last century compared to the past. The book is a must-read for everyone interested in serious arguments about wealth inequality. The core findings of the book deeply challenge Piketty's thesis about inequality. It is a timely book to correct the distorted and ideologically laden narrative of wealth inequality during the 20th century.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews