Krugman v Stiglitz on what’s holding back the recovery


BBC Chief Business Correspondent Linda Yueh investigates claims that inequality is hampering growth

Two of the leading economists in the world disagree over whether inequality hampers the economic recovery.

It relates primarily to the US where the top 1% has captured 95% of the income gained since the financial crisis. Since 2009, the top 1% of incomes grew by 31.4% while the bottom 99% saw their incomes rise by only 0.4%, according to a study from the University of California at Berkeley.

The main cause of the slow recovery is certainly worth knowing.

I sat down with two of the most eminent economists in the world, Nobel Laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, who disagree over the issue.

Stiglitz maintains that those sorts of inequality figures are the main impediments to economic growth. The rich pay less tax, so higher inequality depresses tax receipts. Also, most importantly, the poor consume more of their income than the rich.

This lower "marginal propensity to consume" of the rich was originally pointed out by John Maynard Keynes.

Rich v poor?

In other words, poorer people have less disposable income, and spend more of it on necessities such as food.

Richer people tend to spend proportionately less of their income since they have more money to spend.

It implies that raising incomes for the poor would generate proportionately more consumption.

But, Krugman says that he hasn't seen evidence that the rich "under-consume".

In one sense, of course, the rich spend more absolutely than the poor. If the poor spend 20% of, say, £10,000 of income, then that would add £2,000 to the economy. If the rich spend 3% of £100,000, then that would add £3,000.

Slow recovery

Krugman's point is that this comparison is a static one: if you took two people at a point in time with two different levels of income, then that's what they are doing.

But, if you were raise the income of, say, the poor person, then it's harder to know how their spending would change. Stiglitz maintains that there is a large body of evidence that supports his position.

Stiglitz and Krugman may disagree over how important inequality is to the slow recovery. But they agree that high levels of income inequality are clearly a problem for economic as well as social reasons.

They also agree that most governments have not got it right in terms of the balance of austerity and growth, and don't see the crisis-affected economies of the US, Britain and eurozone getting back to more normal rates of growth anytime soon.

For the rest of us trying to understand why this recovery is so slow five years on from the crisis, it's worth having these debates, since the answer could provide guidance on what needs to be done.

For the full interviews with Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, tune into Talking Business with Linda Yueh on Friday. Details of when to watch are at:

Linda Yueh Article written by Linda Yueh Linda Yueh Chief business correspondent

Is Hong Kong's future as a financial centre threatened?

As protesters take to the streets in Hong Kong demanding democracy, what implications are there for Hong Kong's future as a financial hub?

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Linda


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 19.

    For recovery you also need to MAKE things, bankers don't - they just accumulate wealth from those who don't have much and give it to those who have a lot, further unbalancing the world.
    The UK worships bankers and pointless non-productive 'celebrities' where once upon a time we worshiped engineers and manufacture! Just look at some 1950's government films showing engineers making things to export

  • rate this

    Comment number 5.

    well for 30 years after ww2
    steady growth and less than 2% unemployment
    wages rising inline with GDP and productivity
    higher rate of tax on high incomes
    and then the advance of neo classical economics
    Wages as a share of GDP falling
    massive growth of inequality
    7% unemployment a target to increase interest rates
    chronic weak aggregate demand
    west is sleepwalking into decline led by inequality

  • rate this

    Comment number 14.

    I would imagine they would agree on one further very important issue.

    That the Thatcherite - Reagan neoliberal revolution has been a complete disaster.

    No one has any confidence in the criminally infested banker, IMF, WTO and World Bank dominated world economic system.

    As Bill Shankly used to say success depends on getting the fundamentals right.

  • rate this

    Comment number 15.

    "the top 1% of incomes grew by 31.4% while the bottom 99% saw their incomes rise by only 0.4%"

    So 99% of people still have no disposable income. It doesn't matter how you manipulate the figures to create the illusion of an economic recovery, the figures above prevent a real recovery.

  • rate this

    Comment number 16.

    The main thing holding back recovery is the inequality of wealth and income. 50% earn less than £25000 in the UK, the richest 1% are given millions. They can't possibly spend it so they 'invest it' - creating spikes in prices of oil, gas, power, houses etc etc which means the rest of us have to spend most of our meagre income just surviving.


Comments 5 of 46



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.