A review by msrdr
The Economics of Inequality by Thomas Piketty

4.0

The Economics of Inequality by Thomas Piketty is a brief introduction to the principles of inequality and some pertinent theories for its amelioration. In particular, it defines a clear picture of the nature of income inequality and capital inequality as the former began to observably increase in the 90s, the time at which the book was written.

Piketty writes very clearly, explaining advanced economic principles in an accessible and lucid prose. This is a great introduction to the subject of inequality at a level that encourages further indulgence in economic theory (and history, say, in Capital in the Twenty-First Century) or in the now popular conversation of remedial policy in the political sphere.

Of course it is impossible to write a review of this work in English (so, in 2015) without comparing this work to Capital in The Twenty-First Century. The Economics of Inequality is neither an introduction nor a summary to Capital. Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a sweeping, game changing, economic history of capital. It identifies inequality in its historical context. Conversely, The Economics of Inequality assumes inequality is a current issue, one that is undesired and possibly reflective of devolution in capitalism’s history. As such it is a socioeconomic issue to be addressed by more popular understanding, and policy changes.

It is clear from the tone of Economics that this is Piketty’s first sortie into ‘popular economics,’ which Capital essentially revolutionized for our times. As such Piketty’s writing is slightly less charming than in Capital, missing some of the wit and humility that was so well received. Beyond this Economics falls short of Capital’s uniquely insightful perspective, and Piketty’s enormous, and amazing research.

But don’t let a comparison decide the value of this work. To reiterate, independently it is a remarkably accessible work on an important subject. In fact, it would be ideal if this work had the same fanfare as Capital in The Twenty-First Century, if only because its scale and concision would likely have an even greater impact on the debate.