Piketty after some tough book reviews

In one of his most recent articles, Thomas Piketty states that he considers his book A Brief History of Equality the best expression of his thinking on inequality. It is shorter than his previous works, offers a broader—indeed, global—perspective, and is more optimistic and forward-looking.

In this book, the French economist argues that the past two centuries, and especially the twentieth, have been marked by overall progress in reducing income and wealth inequality. This progress has certainly not been linear, but it demonstrates that social mobilization and the power of ideas can foster policies and institutions that promote both economic and political equality. Yet this progress remains incomplete, as current levels of inequality are still morally indefensible.

Over the course of his intellectual journey—from Capital in the Twenty-First Century to A Brief History of Equality—Piketty has moved from pessimistic laws to optimistic ideas. In my habit of reading book reviews after finishing books I enjoy, I revisited the tough review written by Blume and Durlauf on Capital in the Twenty-First Century, in which they criticized Piketty’s use of macroeconomic theory—never his strongest field.

After reading A Brief History of Equality, I then turned to Paul Seabright’s review, which is perhaps even harsher than that of Blume and Durlauf. Although Piketty avoids delving into the technicalities of macroeconomic theory in this shorter work, Seabright challenges, among other things, some of Piketty’s empirical claims about slavery and colonialism.

There exists a continuum between a scientific book and a political manifesto. One could draw an analogy between Marx’s Capital and the Communist Manifesto: A Brief History of Equality stands closer to the latter. Perhaps it should even have been marketed as such—as Piketty’s political program.

The ongoing debate about Piketty’s contribution can also be followed in the chapter that John Cassidy devotes to him in Capitalism and Its Critics, which includes several interesting biographical details. Cassidy, however, does not mention the reviews by Blume and Durlauf or by Seabright.

I find myself sympathetic to many of Piketty’s political ideas, which I do not think are undermined by the reviewers’ criticisms. The French author defends a genuinely democratic and decentralized socialism—based on shared ownership—which stands in complete opposition to Soviet communism. He also advocates what he calls a “federal welfare state” rather than a “national welfare state,” arguing that pursuing social objectives solely at the national level is wholly inadequate.

The weakest part of his political platform, in my view, is his notion of “universalist sovereignism,” which sounds like an oxymoron—a rhetorical attempt to balance the pro-European and communitarian-nationalist wings of the French left. There is still work to be done on that front. Piketty reportedly collaborated some years ago with U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (as noted by Cassidy), and there can be little doubt about the democratic and internationalist credentials of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The broad progressive coalition recently endorsed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, following Mamdani’s victory, might well have room for Piketty and other European intellectual activists.