Fogel, Kuznets repeatedly warned that his “allusions to fragmentary data were not evidence but ‘pure guesswork.’”60 Kuznets, in other words, was all too well aware that his findings in the 1950s may have been only valid in very specific circumstances, which indeed this golden era of capitalism turned out to be. Fogel also noted that even at the time, Kuznets found “factors that arose during the course of growth, and that created pressures both to increase and to reduce inequality.”
Branko Milanovic, a former lead economist at the World Bank, recently tried to build a new Kuznets curve in light of these insights. Kuznets notably pointed to technology as a factor that could have a positive or a negative effect on inequality. Milanovic derived from it an inequality curve that seems much more complete, given the evolution we've seen in recent decades. He calls it the Kuznets Wave, and it shows that inequality fluctuates, as waves of technological progress and policy responses to them take hold (see Figure 2.5 below).
In this graph, Milanovic's First Technological Revolution roughly equates to the first two Industrial Revolutions, which saw the implementation of trains and steam power, and the internal combustion engine and electricity, respectively. The second technological revolution equates roughly to the Third and Fourth Industrial Revolutions, which brought us the computer and artificial intelligence, among other innovations. His point is clear: technology has a tendency to increase inequality, but as we adapt to it and take measures to deal with the inequality it creates, we can achieve a reduction of inequality later. We will come back to this notion in Part II of the book.
Figure 2.5 Expected Pattern of Changes in Inequality versus Income per Capita, Based on State of Technological Revolution
Source: Redrawn from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman (2018), World Inequality Report 2018..
But in spite of Kuznets’ early warnings and Milanovic's more recent work, policymakers around the world went ahead and implemented policies that favored top-line growth over inclusive development and quick technological deployment over more considered technological governance. That was a mistake, because the current times of rapid technological development have a natural tendency to increase inequality. It has therefore become much more important for policymakers to take countermeasures to slow or halt this trend. That we haven't done so constitutes Kuznets’ second curse and implies many people around the world are paying a very high price for the technological progress we have made recently.
The Third Kuznets Curse: The Environment
There is a third and final Kuznets curse, and it has to do with the environment. As the Kuznets curve was gaining traction in the 1960s and 1970s, some people started to worry about externalities caused by the West's high economic growth rates: an increase in pollution, environmental degradation, and depletion of resources. With consumerism taking hold in the West and populations growing quickly globally, one could reasonably ask what toll our socioeconomic system took on our global commons. This was the age of cars and factories laying a thick layer of smoke over cities, the discovery of a growing hole in the protecting ozone layer of the earth's sky, the introduction of nuclear plants and waste, and the widespread use of plastics and other harmful materials such as asbestos in construction.
In a similar vein to Kuznets’ temporary observation on inequality, however, some economists thought there was not all too much to worry about: no sooner had they discovered the environmental pollution had been rising than hopeful signs emerged that it too would go down over time. Indeed, as production methods became more sophisticated, they also became cleaner and more resource efficient. On a per-product basis, environmental harm seemed to follow an environmental Kuznets curve. Give it another few years or decades, the thought went, and this problem, like inequality before it, would solve itself. Unfortunately, that isn't how things turned out.
A Degrading Environment
The final reality we must confront, and perhaps the most devastating, is the continued and increasing degradation of the environment caused by our economic system and the life-threatening risks posed by global warming, extreme weather events, and continued overproduction of waste and pollution.
While most reports on the environment today home in on global warming, that is only a subset of a much larger issue. The economic system we have created is utterly unsustainable, notwithstanding the hopeful signs in environmental Kuznets curves. The World Economic Forum first raised awareness on this emerging problem in 1973. Then, Aurelio Peccei, who was the president of the Club of Rome, a think tank, gave a speech in Davos about his famous study on “The Limits to Growth.” The publication of this study a year earlier had “caused a sensation for calling into question the sustainability of global economic growth.” The authors, who had “examined several scenarios for the global economy,” outlined in Davos “the choices that society had to make to reconcile economic development and environmental constraints.”61
They warned that with the current growth trajectory, there would be a “sudden and serious shortage” of arable land in the next decades.62 They warned that there was only a limited supply of freshwater on earth and that with increasing demand, competition and conflict would arise over who would get access to it.63 And they warned that many natural resources, such as oil and gas, were overused and that they led to exponential rates of pollution.64
But their warnings were to no avail. The worst of the scenarios the Club of Rome laid out did not come true, so much of the message was forgotten. After a lull in the 1970s, economic production has reached record levels almost every single year since, and left an ever-larger ecological footprint. Despite the Club of Rome's inaccuracies about short-term resource depletion, today we can see just how much foresight the Club of Rome had. In 1970, a mere two years before The Limits to Growth was published, humanity's global ecological footprint was still below what the earth could regenerate, albeit only by a small margin. If we had continued to produce and consume the way we did then, we may have stayed in equilibrium, keeping the earth habitable and fertile for many generations to come.
But things took another turn as the global population kept rising. Today, the world has about double the number of people it did in the early 1970s. And with standards of living going up as well, the Global Footprint Network (GFN) calculated65 that by 2020 humanity had used “nature's resource budget” for the entire year by sometime in August, meaning that we overused natural resources during the equivalent of four to five months each year (see Figure 2.6). (The COVID-19 crisis, including the months of mandatory confinement and the halting of many economic activities, did positively affect the “overshoot day,”66 though it certainly wasn't sustainable.) The caveat, as GFN's chief science officer David Lin told us, is that our “ecological footprint” is of course only an accounting measure: there is no way of saying for sure just how detrimental our economic production and consumption processes really are. But it is clear the world's use of natural resources is unsustainable and is exacerbating many other harmful trends, such as global warming. What exactly is our record on this front?
