Alas no, AFIK not in a neat single package (one reason why I urged work in this politically key area). Overall, we actually have VERY little research on the impact of today's neo-liberalism on income distribution and wealth distribution (aside from the pro-neo sources which is genuinely very weak and even apologist). Some things are only now beginning to be written. I don't need to elaborate on the importance of being able to show this in a concise way in a 15 page paper, but then we must also boil it down to get it out to the public. For now, I think some elements of what Yoshie wants can be found in a draft paper from Dumenil&Levy - "Trends in Capital Ownership and Income" (it should be on their website http://www.cepremap.ens.fr/~levy/index.htm or, if not, people can contact me offlist). I am also trying to put together some fragements; I am painfully slow but could try some brief postings to pen-l - if and when I get there, and if there is an interest. Sorry not to have more to offer.
I gather Yoshie is mostly interested in the last point about the timing of wage inequality vs wage\profit shifts (right?). I don't think I am making a very sophisticated point: just that neo-liberalism first affects the weaker sectors of workers (susceptible to imports, outsourcing, temp workers) etc. Later, changes are made that affect the "working class" (very broadly and loosely defined) as a whole, especially as political power shifts and the "rules" change. The unevenesss of the initial process means that at first there is there is both a rising inequality in profit vs wage income AND a rising inequality within the working class. Later the inequality within the working class reaches a plateau but their situation continues to deteriorate relative to those that share in profit income. The "official" version of these events (e.g. the Census Bureau reports and mainstream economists) has been misleadingly portrayed as rising inequality in the '80s that ended '92-2000.
Hope this responds Paul
Yoshi F. writes:
At 10:42 AM -0500 11/30/04, Paul wrote:But people shouldn't feel that there is no other space left for their own research :-) Galbraith's project *mostly* focuses on inequality in "pay" or salary. The data it uses (like the US Census Bureau) exclude profit income (income from stocks, bonds, capital gains, etc). This is usually true even when the studies misleadingly refer to "income inequality" - profit income is excluded. Likewise, perhaps by necessity, the project doesn't include work on wealth inequality (and so also misses some key recent changes like pensions, assets, etc).
As a result, a lot of what JKG often captures is the rising inequality *within* the "working class", very broadly defined. This sort of rising inequality has often been a serious factor in the early stages of a neo-liberal opening (leading to a fragmented political response) such as the US in the 1980's, but it is less a factor as the changes proceed (eg the US in the '90s). In the "mature" phases of a neo-liberal process, the big changes, seem to be between salary income and profit income (or asset wealth).
Is there a neat 15-25-page paper that makes Paul's point above? -- Yoshie
