Gurjap Singh[1], The London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom
Acknowledgement: A sincere thanks to Dr. Micheal Vaughan at the London School of Economics and Professor Mike Savage at the London School of Economics for their valuable comments and suggestions.
For much of the twentieth century, the study of economic inequality revolved around the search for a singular and secular trend, whether framed as Simon Kuznets’ optimistic inverted‑U[2] (whereby inequality would naturally fall with maturity) or, more recently, as Thomas Piketty’s formulation of r > g[3] as a driver of inexorable divergence. In recent years, a subtle but consequential consensus has taken shape within the field that attempts to reconcile these opposing visions by conceding that inequality can fall but insisting that it does so almost exclusively through the exogenous violence of war, revolution, or economic depression. This view finds its most influential expression in Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty‑First Century (2014), where the great compression of the mid‑twentieth century is presented as a historical aberration—a temporary suspension of the normal logic of capitalism made possible by the unique destructive force of two world wars and the Great Depression. The implication, drawn explicitly by Piketty and widespread across a wide literature, is that absent such cataclysmic shocks, the tendency of wealth to concentrate is essentially unchecked. This essay develops a critical intervention against that specific claim. It does not dispute that wars and depressions have been powerful levellers, nor does it deny the importance of r > g as a structural tendency. Rather, it challenges the inference that political and institutional efforts to reduce inequality in peacetime are necessarily swimming against an inexorable tide. Drawing on a range of historical evidence and theoretical traditions including Milanovic’s “Kuznets waves” (2016), the institutionalist framework of Acemoglu and Robinson (2012), and Polanyi’s (1944) analysis of the double movement, this essay argues that inequality is endogenously cyclical: the very mechanisms that drive accumulation upward eventually generate countervailing political and institutional pressures that push it downward, and this cyclical logic has operated across multiple historical episodes, not only in the shadow of world war. The intervention, then, is to reclaim a space for sustained political agency within the dynamics of long‑run distributional change.
In the United Kingdom, the United States, and France, the trajectory of top income shares demonstrates a striking undulation that a steep ascent during the first era of industrialisation and globalisation, culminating in a pre‑World War I peak; a precipitous collapse during the interwar years and the Second World War; a sustained trough during the post‑war “Golden Age” of the mid‑twentieth century; and a pronounced resurgence from the 1980s onwards (Piketty, 2014; Atkinson, 2015; World Inequality Database, 2024). The standard interpretation, articulated especially by Piketty, treats the decline as a direct function of the wars themselves such as physical destruction of capital, the imposition of high progressive taxes to finance the war effort, and the subsequent reconstruction period. However, this interpretation struggles to account for three main observations. First, in several countries the decline in top income shares began before the Second World War[4], especially during the 1920s and early 1930s, which suggests that factors beyond wartime destruction were already active or at work (Scheve and Stasavage, 2016). Second, the decline persisted for three decades after the war’s end, sustained by a set of institutions, high marginal tax rates, strong trade unions, financial regulation, and social welfare systems that were not only wartime remnants but were actively maintained and expanded through political struggle in the post‑war decades (Lindert, 2004; Hacker, 2006; Pierson, 1994). Third, the reversal of this trend from the 1980s was not the automatic resumption of r > g but was actively made through neoliberalism that deliberately dismantled the institutional structure of the post‑war settlement (Harvey, 2005; Bivens and Mishel, 2013). These observations suggest that the decline in inequality was not only a consequence of violence but was institutionalised through the creation of new social contracts, and its eventual reversal was likewise the product of political agency. The wars created a window, but that window was filled by political choices and institutional constructions that outlasted the crises that gave birth to them.
The existing framework, for all its empirical richness, remains trapped within what might be called an “exogenous‑shock” logic. Inequality rises because of internal economic dynamics (r > g, skill‑biased technological change, globalisation) but falls only because of external interventions (war, revolution, depression) that interrupt the normal course of capitalist development. The implication, often made explicit in policy discussions, is that the normal state of capitalism is rising inequality, and equality is an abnormality imposed from without. The alternative view developed in this article is that this classification mistakes correlation for causation. Wars and depressions are not exogenous in any meaningful sense rather they emerge from the very economic and political structures that inequality theorists study. The world wars were not something different but they were the products of geopolitical tensions rooted in industrialisation, imperialism, and class conflict (Mann, 1986; Hobson, 1902). More importantly, the mechanisms that produced the mid‑century compression such as mass mobilisation, union organisation, the expansion of suffrage, the construction of welfare states, are not unique to wartime. They operate in peacetime as well, albeit with different intensities and tempos. The cyclical framework proposed in this essay treats these mechanisms as endogenous to the system, revolving around the long intellectual genealogy that includes not only Polanyi but also earlier theorists such as Marx, who conceptualised capitalist accumulation as generating its own antagonistic forces, and sociologists like Tilly (1990), who demonstrated how war-making and state-building processes themselves shaped distributive outcomes. This tradition has most influential expression in Polanyi’s (1944) analysis of the double movement, in which the expansion of market forces generates a counter-movement of social protection. The rise of industrial capitalism in the nineteenth century produced not only vast fortunes but also labour movements, socialist parties, and demands for regulation that, over time, transformed the distribution of income and wealth (Brenner, 1977; Katznelson and Zolberg, 1986). The rise of the information economy in the late twentieth century has produced not only a new class of tech billionaires but also movements for universal basic income, antitrust enforcement, and wealth taxation that, if history is any guide, will eventually reshape the distributional landscape once again (Milanovic, 2016; Piketty, 2020).
It is also important to identify the specific mechanisms through which the cycle operates and acknowledge that “cycle” here does not imply strict periodicity but rather recurrent patterns of rise, stabilisation, and decline. The intensity and length of these cycles vary across historical contexts, and these variations are precisely the aspects that political action and institutional choices can shape. Three drivers interact in a non‑linear manner. First, technological disruption acts as a primal mover. New technologies such as steam, electricity, information technology initially confer concentrated rents to capital and to a narrow stratum of skilled labour, widening the gap between innovators and the workforce. Yet this concentration generates countervailing pressures. Workers displaced by technology organize for retraining and social protection; small businesses threatened by monopolistic platforms demand antitrust enforcement; citizens witnessing the concentration of wealth mobilise for redistributive taxation (Kuznets, 1955; Acemoglu and Robinson, 2012). Second, institutional transformation mediates whether these pressures translate into durable distributional change. The mid‑twentieth‑century compression was not automatic phenomena but was anchored in institutions through progressive taxation, collective bargaining rights, financial regulation, that were constructed through sustained political organisation (Lindert, 2004; Faricy and Ellis, 2014). Third, political feedback completes the cycle. When inequality is high, mass mobilisation demands redistribution; when inequality is low, the political salience of distributional conflict declines, creating a window for counter‑mobilisation that can dismantle egalitarian institutions (Bartels, 2008; Kelly and Enns, 2010). The cycle thus unfolds through a cycle of mobilisation and demobilisation, accumulation and compression, that operates across decades rather than electoral cycles and it does so in peacetime as well as during the war.
However, there are several cases that complicate the cyclical framework. The Nordic countries[5] present a challenge as they have sustained high levels of equality and robust welfare states for decades without the “political demobilisation” the model might predict. Yet the Nordic case, upon closer inspection, does not refute the cyclical logic so much as reveal the importance of institutional design. The Nordic model embeds automatic stabilisers (universal social programmes, strong collective bargaining institutions, high union density) that are less vulnerable to the erosion that occurs when inequality is low and political pressure for redistribution wanes (Barth and Moene, 2013; Pontusson, 2011). This suggests that cycles are not deterministic as an institutional design can dampen their amplitude and extend periods of equality. Rapidly developing economies such as China and India also complicate the picture, having experienced sharp increases in inequality during market transitions without the clear “counter‑movement” phase that the Polanyian framework would anticipate[6]. Yet again the timing play a pivotal role because the political and institutional responses to rising inequality in these contexts are still unfolding, and some evidence suggests that pressures for redistribution are intensifying as inequality reaches politically salient thresholds (Khan, 2020; Piketty, 2020). In India, inequality rose sharply after economic liberalisation in 1991, and while the country has a democratic political system that might be expected to generate redistributive pressures, the counter-movement has been fragmented. This fragmentation reflects the intersection of inequality with caste, religion, and regional coalition politics (pre-existing social cleavages that mediate whether the pressures generated by the cycle can coalesce into effective political action). Nevertheless, evidence suggests that pressures for redistribution are intensifying as inequality reaches politically salient thresholds. Electoral politics in India has seen increasing appeals to economic grievances, and programmes such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (2005) represent a form of institutional response to the social dislocations produced by market liberalisation (Drèze and Sen, 2013). The political and institutional responses to rising inequality in these contexts are still unfolding, and whether they will crystallise into durable institutional change remains an open question. What the cases of China and India suggest is that the cyclical logic is mediated by political regime type, state capacity, and the structure of social cleavages, conditions that shape whether countervailing pressures succeed or fail in translating into institutional change.
If this cyclical interpretation is valid, its implications for ongoing scholarly debates are substantial. First, it reframes the relationship between Piketty’s r > g and the historical record. Piketty is correct that without countervailing forces, the return on capital will tend to exceed the growth rate, generating concentration. But the historical evidence suggests that countervailing forces are not rare exogenous exceptions rather they are systematically generated by the political and social consequences of concentration itself (Milanovic, 2016). Second, it challenges the implicit fatalism that can accompany exogenous‑shock models. If only war or revolution can reverse inequality, then democratic politics in peacetime is largely powerless. The cyclical framework, by contrast, emphasizes the role of sustained political agency in making history rather than only responding to it. The great equalizations of the past were not handed down by impersonal forces alone; they were won through political struggle, through the construction of institutions that outlasted the crises that gave birth to them, and through the articulation of alternative visions of economic organisation (Acemoglu and Robinson, 2012; Katznelson, 2013). Third, it opens space for comparative institutional analysis. The Nordic case suggests that well‑designed institutions can moderate the cycle, while the volatility of inequality in liberal market economies suggests that institutional choices have real consequences for distributional dynamics (Hall and Soskice, 2001). The task for future research is to specify more precisely the conditions under which countervailing pressures succeed or fail in translating into durable institutional change. This question requires close attention to the political, legal, and organisational contexts in which inequality is contested.
The turn towards a cyclical understanding of inequality is therefore more than an academic exercise in model selection. It is a reclamation of historical contingency against deterministic certainties, whether those certainties are Kuznets’ optimism that inequality would naturally fall or the more recent pessimism that it would naturally rise without catastrophic interruption. The great undulations of inequality are not the result of impersonal forces alone but are the product of human agency, of choices made in moments of crisis and, perhaps more importantly, of choices made during periods of calm that either entrench or erode the institutions that shape distribution. For contemporary policy, the cyclical perspective suggests that efforts to reduce inequality are not futile gestures against an inexorable tide. The historical record offers no guarantee of success, but it does offer evidence that sustained political organisation, institutional design, and democratic mobilisation have, in the past, altered the trajectory of the cycle—and they can do so again. The arc of distributional history does not bend towards justice by itself, but neither does it bend inexorably away from it; it bends in response to the institutions we build, the movements we sustain, and the choices we make. The task of the economic and political historian is to illuminate the mechanisms of that bending, so that scholars and citizens alike might navigate the cycles of inequality with greater foresight and with the understanding that the course of distributional change is neither predetermined nor beyond the reach of human action.
Notes
[1] Gurjap Singh is graduate candidate at the London School of Economics and Political Science and can be contacted at gurjapsingh823@gmail.com
[2] Simon Kuznets (1955) proposed that inequality follows an inverted U shape cycle over the course of development as it rises in early industrialisation and falling thereafter. The universality of this pattern has since been contested (Piketty, 2014; Milanovic, 2016).
[3] Piketty (2014) uses r > g to denote the condition in which the average return on capital (r) exceeds the rate of economic growth (g). Under this condition, wealth accumulated from the past grows faster than national income, producing a structural tendency towards rising inequality absent countervailing institutional or political forces.
[4] Piketty (2014) shows that in France, top income shares peaked around 1918 and declined steadily through the 1920s and 1930s, before the outbreak of the Second World War. Similarly, Atkinson (2005) documents that the decline in UK top shares began in the 1910s, while Piketty and Saez (2003) locate the onset of decline in the US during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
[5] The Nordic countries have sustained relatively low inequality across several decades, historical evidences reveals that they experienced the same mid-century compression and late century rise as other advanced economies but with shallow amplitude. The resilience of the Nordic mode is better understood as a product of institutional design such as universal welfare programmes that creates political constituencies for continued egalitarian policy even during periods when inequality is low and redistribution might otherwise lose political salience. Rather than refuting the cyclical framework, the Nordic case suggests that institutional design can dampen the amplitude of cycles and extend periods of equality, but it does nor render cycles absent entirely.
[6] The experience of China and India since their respective market transitions (China in post 1978 and India post 1991) presents a challenge to the cyclical framework in so far as both countries have experienced sustained increases in inequality for over three decades without clear Polanyian “counter movement” emerging. Yet the recent evidences suggests that counter- pressures may be emerging such as in China, the Xi administration has emphasised “common prosperity” and implemented regulatory crackdowns on technology and real estate sectors. In India, recent electoral politics have featured increased rhetoric around wealth taxation and redistributive transfers.
References
Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. A. (2012) Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. London: Profile Books.
Atkinson, A. B. (2015) Inequality: What Can Be Done? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barth, E. and Moene, K. O. (2013) ‘The political economy of the Nordic model’, Nordic Economic Policy Review, 1, pp. 13–47.
Bartels, L. M. (2008) Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bivens, J. and Mishel, L. (2013) ‘The pay of corporate executives and financial professionals: Evidence from the 2009–2012 top incomes dataset’, Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper, 361.
Brenner, R. (1977) ‘The origins of capitalist development: A critique of neo‑Smithian Marxism’, New Left Review, 104, pp. 25–92.
Drèze, J. and Sen, A. (2013) An Uncertain Glory: India and its Contradictions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Faricy, C. and Ellis, C. (2014) ‘Public attitudes toward social spending and their determinants’, Political Behavior, 36(3), pp. 521–547.
Hacker, J. S. (2006) The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D. (eds) (2001) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobson, J. A. (1902) Imperialism: A Study. London: James Nisbet.
Katznelson, I. (2013) Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time. New York: Liveright.
Katznelson, I. and Zolberg, A. R. (eds) (1986) Working‑Class Formation: Nineteenth‑Century Patterns in Western Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kelly, N. J. and Enns, P. K. (2010) ‘Inequality and the dynamics of public opinion: The self‑reinforcing link between economic inequality and mass preferences’, American Journal of Political Science, 54(4), pp. 855–870.
Khan, M. (2020) ‘Political settlements and the analysis of institutions’, African Affairs, 119(475), pp. 343–357.
Kuznets, S. (1955) ‘Economic growth and income inequality’, American Economic Review, 45(1), pp. 1–28.
Lindert, P. H. (2004) Growing Public: Social Spending and Economic Growth since the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindert, P. H. and Williamson, J. G. (2016) Unequal Gains: American Growth and Inequality since 1700. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mann, M. (1986) The Sources of Social Power, Volume 1: A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Milanovic, B. (2016) Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pierson, P. (1994) Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Piketty, T. (2014) Capital in the Twenty‑First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Piketty, T. (2020) Capital and Ideology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Polanyi, K. (1944) The Great Transformation. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.
Pontusson, J. (2011) ‘Once again a model: Nordic social democracy in a globalized world’, in Cronin, J. E., Ross, G. and Shoch, J. (eds) What’s Left of the Left: Democrats and Social Democrats in Challenging Times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 89–115.
Scheve, K. and Stasavage, D. (2016) Taxing the Rich: A History of Fiscal Fairness in the United States and Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schofield, P. R. and Vincent, N. (eds) (2020) Inequality and the State in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tilly, C. (1990) Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1992. Oxford: Blackwell.
World Inequality Database (2024) World Inequality Report 2024. Paris: World Inequality Lab.