The Paradox of Thrift in an Inegalitarian Neoclassical Economy

Mabrouk, Mohamed (2016): The Paradox of Thrift in an Inegalitarian Neoclassical Economy.

Abstract

[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. This decline is due to a specific articulation between the rate of decrease in the productivity of capital and the rate of increase in the depreciation of capital. 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.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Paradox of Thrift, Inequality, Saving, Growth.
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O49 - Other

References

Barro R. (2000), “Inequalities and Growth in a Panel of Countries”, R.J. Journal of Economic Growth 5(1) 5-32, doi: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/

Bourguignon F. (1981), “Pareto-Superiority of Unegalitarian Equilibria in Stiglitz’ Model of Wealth Distribution With Convex Saving Function”, Econometrica, vol. 49, N°6

Dynan K.E., Skinner J. (2004), “Do The Rich Save More”, Journal of Political Economy, vol 112, n°2, 397-444

Earley J.S. (1994), “Schumpeter and Keynes, Dissimilar Twin Revolutionists”, History Economics Review, vol 21, issue 1, 21-33, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10370196.1994.11733147

Krugman P. (2009), “The Paradox of Thrift - for Real”, New York Times 7/7/2009

Keynes J.M. (1936), "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money", http://cas.umkc.edu/economics/ people/facultypages/kregel/courses/econ645/ winter2011/generaltheory.pdf

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

Oxfam report (2014), “Even It Up”, http://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/oxfam/bitstream/10546/333012/43/cr-even-it-up-extreme-inequality-291014-en.pdf

Schilcht E. (1975), “A Neoclassical Theory of Wealth Distribution”, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 189, 78-96

Stiglitz J. (1969), “Distribution of Income and Wealth Among Individuals” Econometrica, 37, 382-3997

Stiglitz J. (2011), “To Cure the Economy”, Project Syndicate, https://www.projectsyndicate. org/print/tocuretheeconomy

Von Hayek F. A. (1931), “The Paradox of Saving”, Economica, n°32, 125-169