Inequality, Leverage, and Crises (with M. Kumhof and Pablo Winant, AER 2015) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Inequality, leverage and crises
2010
The paper studies how high household leverage and crises can be caused by changes in the income distribution. Empirically, the periods 1920-1929 and 1983-2008 both exhibited a large increase in the income share of high-income households, a large increase in debt leverage of low-and middle-income households, and an eventual financial and real crisis. The paper presents a theoretical model where higher leverage and crises are the endogenous result of a growing income share of high-income households. The model matches the profiles of the income distribution, the debt-to-income ratio and crisis risk for the three decades preceding the Great Recession.
Does Income Inequality Have a Role in Financial Crises
Empirical evidence has identified that an increase in aggregate debt compared to aggregate income increases the risk of financial crises. At the same time, several authors have placed the blame for the Financial Crisis of 2008 on widening income inequality in developed countries, with a focus on its role in driving the extension of credit to households. This analysis therefore seeks to establish whether the aggregate bank loans to GDP ratio is dependent on inequality.
Income Inequality and Wealth Concentration in the Recent Crisis
Development and Change, 2016
This article shows that the increase of income inequality and global wealth concentration was an important driver for the financial and Eurozone crisis. The high levels of income inequality resulted in balance of payment imbalances and growing debt levels. Rising wealth concentration contributed to the crisis because the increasing asset demand from the rich played a key role in the growth of the structured credit market and enabled poor and middle-income households to accumulate increasing amounts of debt. This analysis thereby puts both income and wealth inequality to the epicentre of the recent crisis, and is crucial for social scientists analysing the causes of the crisis. Our findings suggest that the policy response to the crisis must not be limited to financial regulation but has to involve policies to address inequality by increasing the bargaining power of labour as well as redistributive tax policies. ________________________________________ We would like to thank Matt Vidal and three anonymous referees for their helpful comments. Moreover, we are grateful to Photis Lysandrou without whom this article would not have been possible. Engelbert Stockhammer acknowledges financial support from the INET project 'Rising inequality as a structural cause of the present financial and economic crisis' (INO13-00012).
Inequality, credit and financial crises
Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2015
In the three decades leading up to the financial crisis of 2008/09, income inequality rose across much of the developed world. This has led to a vigorous debate as to whether widening inequality was somehow to blame for the crisis. At the heart of this debate is the question of whether rising inequality leads to private sector credit booms, which are, in turn, widely accepted as a macroeconomic risk factor. Despite growing interest, empirical evidence on an inequality-fragility relationship is limited. That which does exist fails to tip the balance of evidence conclusively one way or the other. This research adds to this scarce body of evidence. Based on an econometric analysis of a panel of eighteen OECD countries covering the period 1970-2007, this study finds a statistically significant, positive relationship between income concentration and private sector indebtedness when controlling for conventional credit determinants. The implications of such a relationship are twofold. First, the view that the distribution of income is irrelevant to macroeconomic outcomes (implicit in mainstream economic thought) needs a second look. Second, if policy makers wish to make the financial system more robust, they should cast the net wider than regulatory and monetary policy reforms, and consider the effects of changes to the distribution income.
The Role of Income Inequality in Crisis Theories and in the Subprime Crisis
PKSG Working Paper, No. 1305 , 2013
An increasing number of economists argue that income inequality was a root cause behind the subprime crisis of 2007. The aim of this paper is to outline and contrast the theoretical underpinnings of Marxian, Post Keynesian and mainstream crisis theories and to compare their viewpoints regarding the role that inequality plays. The main finding of this paper is that despite important theoretical differences, economists from all three strands provide a similar explanation for the link between inequality and the subprime crisis (even though conventional mainstream crisis theories do not regard inequality as destabilizing factor). This suggests that the rise in income inequality indeed played an important role in the build-up of the crisis. To ensure that a wider audience accepts inequality as a prominent causal factor for the crisis it is however necessary that the negative effects of wealth concentration are also taken into account.
International Conference on Eurasian Economies 2021, 2021
In the neoliberal era, financialization of the economies is associated both with large-scale speculative movements in the financial sector and over-indebtedness. The fact that there were significant increases in household indebtedness in the United States before the 2008/09 global financial crisis made the growing indebtedness an outstanding issue that should be examined in terms of its supply and demand-side causes and its distributive consequences. Increasing inequality in income distribution has been an important consideration associated with the increase in household indebtedness. In a sense, the borrowing opportunities enable working households to maintain their consumption and living standards in the short term despite the stagnation in wages and thus increasing inequality, but it does not prevent them from undergoing an unsustainable debt burden. This debt burden creates a feedback effect by deepening the existing inequality. The purpose of this study is to reveal the macro a...
Revista Finanzas y Politica Economica, 2017
It is widely accepted that inequality has increased sharply recently in developed countries, but no consensus exists so far about the importance of inequality in the financial crisis of 2007-2009. The aim of this article is to outline and contrast the theoretical underpinnings of Marxian, post-Keynesian, and mainstream crisis theories, and to compare their viewpoints regarding the role that income inequality played in the crisis. The results of this review suggest that, despite important differences in their theoretical concepts, several economists of these three strands offer a similar explanation on why income inequality was an important contributing factor to the financial crisis.
A case for redistribution? Income inequality and wealth concentration in the recent crisis
2014
Several Nobel laureates economists have called for redistributive policies. This paper shows that there is a strong case for redistributive policies because the global increase of income inequality and wealth concentration was an important driver for the financial and Eurozone crisis. The high levels of income inequality resulted in balance of payment imbalances and rising debt levels. Rising wealth concentration contributed to the crisis because the increasing asset demand from the rich played a key role in the rise of the structured credit market and enabled poor and middle-income households to accumulate increasing amounts of debt. To tame the inherent instability of the current mode of capitalism it is necessary to reduce inequality.
Can Income Inequality Affects Household Debt?
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
The present study aims to evaluate the influence of income inequality on household debt by applying the dynamic GMM estimator to a database covering advanced and emerging countries over the period 1994 to 2019. The result shows that income inequality promotes the growth of household debt. Furthermore, higher house prices and financial development increase the household debt. Meanwhile, the economic growth, interest rate and unemployment have negative and significant effect on household debt. The finding of the study suggests the involved authorities formulate suitable policies and initiatives in order to monitor the increase in household debt. Indirectly, this measure can be useful to consider as an early warning signal for crises.