Like whisky, too much inequality is a bad thing

Inequality, like whisky, is better taken in moderation. Margaret Thatcher reportedly liked the latter and didn’t much care about the former. There are those who say, as she did, that inequality does not matter: what matters is whether people are better off, in real terms, than they were before. She said that those who complained about inequality were really saying that they would “rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich” (Hansard, 1990). That argument stops being persuasive right about the time that it becomes obvious that extreme inequality is a drag on growth, and when it becomes clear that incomes are stagnating (see, e.g., Alvaredo, et al, 2017). In other words, inequality is less defensible when it makes people (other than the rich) less well-off than they otherwise might be.

Economic inequalities are and have been increasing, such that inequality is more pronounced than at any time during the post-War period. The view that inequality promotes economic growth does not hold true for extreme inequality. To the contrary, extreme inequality can deter economic activity and curb economic growth.  Further, it seems increased inequality has already led to economic, social and political instability.

It is perfectly orthodox to argue that inequality is a precondition of economic activity – at worst, a necessary evil. The possibility of private reward provides an incentive for innovation. This can be readily admitted, and generally is by those sounding the alarm on inequality. Dabla-Norris et al (2015 at p. 6, see also e.g. Oxfam, 2014, p. 1) of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), acknowledge this argument, citing Lazear and Rosen (1981) as showing that “[i]nequality can … influence growth positively by providing incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship.” Acknowledging that does not, though, necessitate the conclusion that extreme inequality is unproblematic. The proposition that inequality can incentivise innovation and activity has nothing to say about the question of degree: how much inequality is a positive influence on growth, and does there come a time where that effect is neutralised? Saying that inequality provides incentives for innovation is not enough. There’s a movement towards recognising the negative effects of extreme inequality underway at liberal institutions such as the IMF under Lagarde, as is evident from her speeches (see, e.g., Lagarde, 2015), and from the work being done there. For example Dabla-Norris et al of the IMF have argued (2015, p. 6) that “[i]ncome distribution matters for growth,” saying that greater inequality (measured by a higher net Gini coefficient) is “associated with lower output growth over the medium term,” and that there is an inverse relationship between the income share accruing to the rich, and economic growth (with an observable reduction in Gross Domestic Product growth). There is also a growing acknowledgment of the differing consequences of inequality for different people. For example, Lagarde (2015) has acknowledged that women experience more pronounced inequalities than men. Economic inequality is a women’s issue, both because women are more likely to be poor and because women’s political power is diminished when there is greater economic inequality (Bartlett, 2017, p. 269). The same can be said of other intersections between cultural and other forms of relative disadvantage, and economic disadvantage.

This issue of power is central to the way that we should think about inequality, its problems, and the impediments to meaningfully responding. We can’t just leave it to the invisible hand. Inequality is the water and grain of capitalism’s whisky; it is a system whose natural state is the accumulation of more capital by owners of capital. Many economists including Atkinson, Piketty, Leigh, Stiglitz and Krugman have written extensively about the growth in inequality. Alvaredo et al (2017, p. 11) published a report showing that globally, inequality has risen sharply since 1980, both in and between nations. This period coincides with the rise of neoliberalism. Thatcher was influenced by Hayek (Yergin and Stanislaw, 1998, p. 89) and Reagan by Friedman (ibid, p. 130). Under their leadership, neoliberal ideas about the desirability of minimal government intervention in markets, free trade, deregulation and privatisation became dominant. As Bell and Keating have noted (2018, p. 1), there has been a political consensus for most of the last half century about the role of government in capitalist economies. This political consensus has meant that most large Western nations have been governed either by overtly neoliberal leaders or by leaders influenced by neoliberal thought despite their social democratic or other orientations (e.g. the Hawke-Keating Labor government). Now, there is growing recognition of the contribution of neoliberal policies to growing inequality, and of the adverse consequences of extreme inequality.

Stiglitz and others have been heavily critical of the IMF and other liberal bodies. The IMF has become noticeably more concerned with inequality, as has the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Economic Forum. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals include a goal to reduce inequality within and among countries. The release of Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century along with other major books has centred concerns about inequality within the public debate.

There have also been reactions to greater (and extreme) inequality by those experiencing its adverse effects. As Bell and Keating point out (2018, p. 5), there are people “unhappy” at “losing” from the growing inequality trends, and there are “attendant political reactions” including the backlash against globalisation, the rise of the European Right, Brexit, and the election of Donald Trump in the United States. In addition, there has been significant research into the connections between economic inequality and conflict. Cuesta (2017, p. 13), for example, argues that inequality, and redistribution that would exacerbate it, is a key driver of coups. The foregoing examples cannot be considered in isolation from each other. They are arguably all manifestations of the same unrest – that is, political instability arising from the relative economic differences between people in given political contexts.

As noted there is evidence that extreme inequality can cause slower economic growth. This is the basis for the Lagarde (2015) speech and the IMF note (Dabla-Norris et al, 2015, pp. 6-7) referred to above. Dabla-Norris et al attribute (2015, p 8.) this effect to the deprivation of “the ability of lower-income households to stay healthy and accumulate physical and human capital”, which has adverse consequences for labour productivity, and for changes in mobility between generations. They also note that greater concentration of incomes could “reduce aggregate demand and undermine growth, because the wealthy spend a lower fraction of their incomes than middle- and lower-income groups.” In addition they refer to evidence that extreme inequality is linked with financial crises. Similarly, Summers (2016) argued that greater saving had been driven by, inter alia, the increase in inequality and the share of income going to the wealthy. Excessive saving is a drag on demand, reducing growth and inflation, and leading to drastically low real interest rates to the extent that traditional monetary policy becomes ineffective (i.e. secular stagnation). This phenomenon has been destabilising in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis as central banks have turned to unconventional monetary policy to try to respond.

In addition to political and economic instability, increasing inequality is also arguably contributing to social instability. There have been a variety of studies about connections between social instability and other social and related problems, and inequality. Dabla-Norris et al say that extreme inequality contributes to conflicts, because it damages trust and social cohesion, and makes dispute resolution more difficult (Dabla-Norris et al, 2014, p. 9). Khambule and Siswana (2017) have argued that inequalities have undermined social cohesion in South Africa. There has been a study about the connections between inequality, social cohesion and dental health in Brazil which found (Pattussi et al, 2001, p. 922) that relative rather than absolute levels of income were stronger determinants of the onset of dental caries (decay and cavities). That study also cited earlier studies indicating that violence can be linked to income inequality (Pattussi et al, 2001, pp. 921-922). Similarly Wilkinson (1997, p. 1504) cites research showing that more egalitarian countries and states have lower mortality rates, because of the reduced social cohesion associated with inequality.

Inequality has been increasing markedly in the past few decades. Describing inequality as a means by which innovation is incentivised and spread, and by which opportunities are therefore created, tells only part of the story and ignores the damage done when inequality becomes extreme. Extreme inequality is a drag on growth, for the reasons described above, eroding the persuasiveness of arguments that inequality is a necessarily evil, needed for innovation and opportunity. It also gives rise to political, economic and social instability. Accordingly, seeking to curb inequality is not just legitimate but necessary if we wish to avoid a future where a small number of people are owners and the rest of us are left not just relatively poorer than them, but relatively powerless compared to them.

If that is accepted, then action should be taken, to ameliorate rising inequality. Solving an economic problem such as severe or extreme inequality cannot be left to the self-interested acts of individual economic actors alone. Various responses have been proposed. For example, Bell and Keating (2018, pp. 339-340) argue for a focus on demand-side focussed macroeconomic policy, as has Summers (2016) and others. Piketty, and Bell and Keating, have argued for redistributive policy (Bell and Keating, 2018, pp. 339-340), including greater taxation of wealth (Piketty, 2014, p. 663). They have also advocated strongly for greater public investment in education, with Piketty (2014, p. 27) describing the diffusion of knowledge and investment in training and skills as the main forces for convergence. The various prescriptions for responding to inequality will, of course, face opposition, not least because the political and economic neoliberal consensus is only beginning to be eroded, and because, as Oxfam has noted, economic inequality leads to democratic capture which begets policies and settings that reinforce rather than reduce inequality (Oxfam, 2014, p. 2). These impediments must be overcome: too much whisky is a bad thing, but too much inequality is much, much worse.

About Terri Butler

Terri Butler

Terri Butler is the Shadow Minister for the Environment and Water, and the federal Labor Member for Griffith, Queensland.

    CONTRIBUTOR click to Donate

    The Chifley Research Centre relies on contributions from individuals and organisations to fund our operations, events and research. Without your donations, nothing we do would be possible.

  • Andrew Giles & Ryan Batchelor

    Andrew Giles is the Federal Labor Member for Scullin in Victoria. Ryan Batchelor is a director of the Chifley Research

    Ben Hugosson

    Benedict Hugosson is an Organisational Ombudsman for the Swedish Social Democrats, focusing on training and membership development. Benedict has experience

    Cameron Clyne

    Cameron Clyne is the former CEO of National Australia Bank and now chairman of advisory firm Camel Partners and a

    Carol Johnson

    Professor Carol Johnson - Carol is an Adjunct Professor of Politics at the University of Adelaide and has written extensively

    Catherine King

    Catherine King is the Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development.

    David Coats

    David Coats is in Australia as a Visitor at the Chifley Research Centre. He is a research fellow at the

    Gabrielle Kuiper

    Dr Gabrielle Kuiper has a background in science, sustainability and urban planning. She was previously Senior Adviser, Climate Change, Energy

    Emma Maiden

    Emma Maiden is the former Assistant Secretary of Unions NSW. She is currently Head of Advocacy for Uniting, leading their

    Erin Watt

    Erin Watt is the National Secretary of the Labor Environment Action Network. Erin is a National Political Coordinator for United

    Jim Chalmers

    Jim Chalmers MP is Shadow Treasurer, and the federal Labor Member for Rankin. Prior to his election he was

    Jo-anne Schofield

    Jo-anne Schofield is the National President of United Workers Union.

    Josh Burns

    Josh Burns is the federal member for Macnamara in Victoria.

    Linda Tirado

    Linda Tirado is a completely average American. She also has good rants about how much it sucks to be poor

    Lindy Edwards

    Dr Lindy Edwards is the Associate Head of School in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University

    Rebecca White

    Rebecca White, Leader of the Tasmanian Labor Opposition

    Terri Butler

    Terri Butler is the Shadow Minister for the Environment and Water, and the federal Labor Member for Griffith, Queensland.

    Tim Kennedy

    Tim Kennedy is national secretary of the United Workers Union, organising for secure jobs and a fair Australia.

    Website design and development by