by Why So Few American Economists Are Studying Inequality—Alana Semuels at the Atlantic provides a nice summary of the problems in the profession, and cites the work by a few economists like Jamie Galbraith and the two cited below (Milanovic and DeLong)Chinese income distribution in 2002-3 and 2013—Branko Milanovic on how Chinese inequality, did not increase much in that period, even though it is high, and how it converged to the US levelsGlobalization: What Did Paul Krugman Miss?—Brad DeLong more on globalization really, but there again, globalization has been at the core of the debates on inequality (how much it hurt the Rust Belt here, or how it raised incomes in the South, China and India mostly)
Topics:
Matias Vernengo considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
New Economics Foundation writes New Economics Podcast: Why is the benefits system failing disabled people
Michael Hudson writes Jill Stein: Splitting the Pro-Imperial Vote
Editor writes In search of radical alternatives
Stavros Mavroudeas writes «Οι καταστροφικές επιπτώσεις της ΕΕ στην Ελλάδα και τους εργαζόμενους» – Στ.Μαυρουδέας ΠΡΙΝ 20-21/4/2024
Why So Few American Economists Are Studying Inequality—Alana Semuels at the Atlantic provides a nice summary of the problems in the profession, and cites the work by a few economists like Jamie Galbraith and the two cited below (Milanovic and DeLong)
Chinese income distribution in 2002-3 and 2013—Branko Milanovic on how Chinese inequality, did not increase much in that period, even though it is high, and how it converged to the US levels
Globalization: What Did Paul Krugman Miss?—Brad DeLong more on globalization really, but there again, globalization has been at the core of the debates on inequality (how much it hurt the Rust Belt here, or how it raised incomes in the South, China and India mostly)