IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

A look at the evolution of income inequality: Piketty against Blacksmith - 60 years later

Listed author(s):
  • Lyubimov, Ivan

    ()

    (Russian presidental academy of national economy and public administration)

The article compares the two interpretations of the evolution of inequality, one of which was presented by Simon Kuznets in 1955, and the other - by Thomas Piketty 2014. If Smith believed that inequality is reduced when the economy is relatively rich, and thus, the mere economic growth enough to, and increase the level of income in the economy, and reduce the level of income inequality, the Piketty shows that inequality in time becomes more and more and requires coordinated efforts of the authorities of different countries to reduce it. In this paper an attempt is made to use some of the results of Kuznets Piketty and to analyze the current situation with the income inequality in Russia.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: ftp://w82.ranepa.ru/rnp/ecopol/ep1605.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration in its journal Economic Policy.

Volume (Year): 1 (2016)
Issue (Month): (February)
Pages: 27-42

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:rnp:ecopol:ep1605
Contact details of provider: Postal:
82, Vernadsky pr., 117571, Moscow

Phone: +7 (499) 956 95 86
Fax: (095) 564-85-80
Web page: http://www.rane.ru/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Saith, A., 1983. "Development and distribution : a critique of the cross-country U-hypothesis," ISS Working Papers - General Series 18763, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
  2. Deininger, Klaus & Squire, Lyn, 1996. "A New Data Set Measuring Income Inequality," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 10(3), pages 565-591, September.
  3. Ahluwalia, Montek S, 1976. "Income Distribution and Development: Some Stylized Facts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 128-135, May.
  4. Matthew Higgins & Jeffrey G. Williamson, 1999. "Explaining Inequality the World Round: Cohort Size, Kuznets Curves, andOpenness," NBER Working Papers 7224, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. Campano, Fred & Salvatore, Dominick, 1988. "Economic development, income inequality and Kuznets' U-shaped hypothesis," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 265-280.
  6. Ahluwalia, Montek S., 1976. "Inequality, poverty and development," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 307-342, December.
  7. Bussolo, Maurizio & De Hoyos, Rafael E. & Medvedev, Denis & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2007. "Global growth and distribution : are China and India reshaping the world?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4392, The World Bank.
  8. Barro, Robert J, 2000. "Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 5-32, March.
  9. Ram, Rati, 1988. "Economic development and income inequality: Further evidence on the U-curve hypothesis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 16(11), pages 1371-1376, November.
  10. Papanek, Gustav F. & Kyn, Oldrich, 1986. "The effect on income distribution of development, the growth rate and economic strategy," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 55-65, September.
  11. Savvides, Andreas & Stengos, Thanasis, 2000. "Income inequality and economic development: evidence from the threshold regression model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 207-212, November.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rnp:ecopol:ep1605. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (RANEPA maintainer)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.