The paradox of thrift in an inegalitarian neoclassical economy

• Authors: Mohamed Ben Ridha Mabrouk
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Schilcht (1975) and Bourguignon (1981) studied the case of a convex saving function in the Stiglitz (1969) model. They have shown that if one of the two proportions of the rich or the poor is below a certain threshold, there is a two-class equilibrium. However, they have only proved the existence of this threshold. We give here a system of equations to calculate this threshold which we interpret as the maximum proportion of rich for having a stable two-class configuration. If the proportion of rich exceeds this threshold, the economy enters a phase of decline although the golden-rule capital has not yet been reached. The mechanism of this decline recalls the description given in Keynes (1936), of the decline which happens when there is too much savings in an inegalitarian context. This is an example of what is known as the "paradox of thrift". It is remarkable that this paradox takes place in a neoclassical setting that does not include key Keynesian elements such as saturation of demand, monetization of savings, short-term effects, expectation problems, involuntary unemployment and rigidities. Numerical simulations are given to illustrate and analyze the mechanisms involved.

Keywords

Paradox of thrift, inequality, saving, growth

• Publisher: Prague Development Center, Czech Republic
• Journal: Business and Economic Horizons
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 12
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 75-93

Dates

published

2016-07-15

Contributors

author

Mohamed Ben Ridha Mabrouk

• Ecole Supérieure de Statistique et d’Analyse de l’Information, Université de Carthage, Tunisia

References

• Barro R.J., 2000. "Inequalities and growth in a panel of countries", Journal of Economic Growth, Vol.5(1), pp.5-32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009850119329
• Boushey H., Hersh A.S., 2012, "The American middle class, income inequality and the strength of our economy", Center for American Progress, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ economy/reports/2012/05/17/11628/the-american-middle-class-income-inequality-and-the-strength-of-our-economy/, date of access: 2016/3/31
• Bourguignon F., 1981. "Pareto superiority of unegalitarian equilibria in Stiglitz' model of wealth distribution with convex saving function", Econometrica, Vol. 49, No.6, pp. 1469-1475. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911412
• Dynan K.E., Skinner J., Zeldes S.P., 2004. "Do the rich save more?", Journal of Political Economy, Vol.112(2), pp.397-444. https://doi.org/10.1086/381475
• Earley J.S., 1994, "Schumpeter and Keynes, dissimilar twin revolutionists", History Economics Review, Vol.21, issue 1, 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10370196.1994.11733147
• Keynes J.M., 1936. "General theory of employment, interest and money", http://cas.umkc.edu/ economics/people/facultypages/kregel/courses/econ645/ winter2011/generaltheory.pdf, date of access: 2016/3/31
• Krugman P., 2009. "The paradox of thrift - for real", New York Times 7/7/2009
• Ostry D.J., Berg A., Tsangarides C.G., 2014. "Redistribution, inequality and growth", IMF discussion note, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/ 2014/sdn1402.pdf, date of access: 2016/3/31
• Oxfam Report, 2014. "Even it up", http://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/oxfam/ bitstream/10546/333012/43/cr-even-it-up-extreme-inequality-291014-en.pdf, date of access: 2016/3/31
• Schilcht E., 1975. "A neoclassical theory of wealth distribution", Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, Vol.189, pp.78-96
• Stiglitz J., 1969. "Distribution of income and wealth among individuals" Econometrica, Vol.37, pp.382-3997. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912788
• Stiglitz J., 2011. "To cure the economy", Project Syndicate, https://www.projectsyndicate.org/ print/ tocuretheeconomy, date of access: 2016/3/31
• Von Hayek F.A., 1931. "The paradox of saving", Economica, Vol.32, pp.125-169. https://doi.org/10.2307/2547921

Identifiers

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.15208/beh.2016.07