The assumption that economic growth and equality are necessarily at odds is fading fast.
If inequality were the price we paid for growth, you’d expect productivity and income captured by the rich to go hand-in-hand. Instead, we see virtually the opposite.
Sure enough, the conversation here is changing. Suddenly, you’re no longer considered a pollyanna for suggesting we can further growth and equality at the same time. For instance…
Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF in The Boston Globe:
The traditional argument has been that income inequality is a necessary by-product of growth, that redistributive policies to mitigate excessive inequality hinder growth, or that inequality will solve itself if you sustain growth at any cost.
Based upon world-wide research, the IMF has challenged these notions. In fact, we have found that countries that have managed to reduce excessive inequality have enjoyed both faster and more sustainable growth. In addition, our research shows that when redistributive policies have been well designed and implemented, there has been little adverse effect on growth.
Indeed, low growth and high inequality are two sides of the same coin: Economic policies need to pay attention to both prosperity and equity.
And Larry Summers:
Trade-offs have long been at the center of economics. The aphorism “there is no such thing as a free lunch” captures a central economic idea: You cannot get something for nothing. Among the many trade-offs emphasized in economics courses are guns vs. butter, public vs. private, efficiency vs. equity, environmental protection vs. economic growth, consumption vs. investment, inflation vs. unemployment, quality vs. quantity or cost and short-term vs. long-term performance…
Yet I am increasingly convinced that “no free lunch” oversimplifies matters and makes economics too dismal a science. It would be true in a world where all opportunities to make things better had been fully exploited — where, to use another cliché, there were no $100 bills lying on the street. But recent experience suggests that by improving incentives or making strategic investments, we can achieve apparently conflicting objectives to a greater extent than conventional wisdom would suggest…
A quite different example involves the alleged trade-off between equity and efficiency — specifically, the concern that redistribution hurts economic performance and stymies growth. It is true that tax increases produce at least some adverse incentives and that providing income-based government benefits involves implicit taxes. But matters are much more complex than a simple trade-off. Antitrust laws that attack rent-seeking promote both equity and efficiency, as do measures that increase educational opportunity. The rational strengthening of financial regulation reduces the incidence of financial crises, thus improving economic performance while promoting fairness by helping consumers. In demand-short economies, the greater equity achieved through more progressive taxation means more spending and fuller employment of resources. These examples do not deny trade-offs between equity and efficiency. They do, however, suggest that there is nothing ineluctable about them. Both can be enhanced through proper policy.
Whatever the causes of the distressing slowdown in the growth of productivity (the amount of stuff produced for each hour of work) and the increase in inequality, what policies might both increase productivity and decrease inequality?
Many years ago, economist Art Okun argued that we had to choose between policies that increased efficiency and those that increased equity. Perhaps. But if there are policies that could achieve both, it’s time to try them.
Tradeoffs remain real, as do unintended consequences. Here are two examples that challenged my biases. Activist hedge funds seem to represent a tradeoff between rising productivity and rising wages. And there’s some reason to think that new overtime rules won’t work the way they’re intended.
Not everything works out the way you’d hope. But sometimes the interests of growth and equality are happily aligned. Which is good, because we could use a whole lot more of both.