LSE Public Lecture: "Global Inequality in Historical and Comparative Perspective"

Speaker: Thomas Piketty
Host/Chair: Francisco Ferreira (Amartya Sen Professor of Inequality Studies, Director, International Inequalities Institute)
Date: September 19, 2025
Venue: Sheikh Zayed Theatre, London School of Economics
Podcast Series: LSE: Public lectures and events

Overview

This keynote lecture celebrates the tenth anniversary of the International Inequalities Institute (III) at LSE. Renowned economist Thomas Piketty delivers an evidence-rich, historically informed, and forward-looking lecture on the evolution of global inequality. Drawing on data from the World Inequality Database, his own analytical work, and new collaborative projects, Piketty explores the dynamics behind economic and wealth disparities, highlights the role of political and social coalition-building, and challenges listeners to consider bold solutions for a more equitable future.

Main Themes and Structure of the Lecture

1. The Evolution and Current State of Global Inequality
2. Long-Run Trends: Toward More Socioeconomic Equality?
3. Wealth vs. Income Inequality: Historical Progress and Remaining Gaps
4. Prospects for the 21st Century: The Global Justice Project
5. Political Cleavages and the Difficulties of Building New Coalitions
6. Q&A: Technology, Productivity, and the Politics of Redistribution

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Opening and Personal Reflections ([04:46])

• Piketty expresses his pleasure at returning to LSE, referencing his early academic connections and the significance of interdisciplinary research at the III.
• He emphasizes the collective nature of his research, especially the World Inequality Database, with over 200 contributors worldwide.

"It takes time to be short. It took me many years of discussing about my previous book and trying to clarify things. And I think this book [‘A Brief History of Equality’] to me is better than the previous books. Well, first, because it is shorter." (Piketty, [06:09])

2. Global Inequality: What the Data Reveal ([11:10])

• Using a simple indicator—the share of national income going to the top 10%—Piketty demonstrates the vast differences in inequality across the globe:
  • Top 10% share ranges from about 20–25% in Nordic Europe to 70% in South Africa.
  • Bottom 50% share ranges from 5% (South Africa) to 25–30% (Nordic Europe).
• These discrepancies are not explained by per capita GDP alone; income distribution within countries makes a substantial difference to wellbeing.

"If you only want to look at per capita GDP, you know, you miss a lot because for same level of per capita GDP, ... the average income of the bottom 50% is going to vary by a factor of 1 to 5." (Piketty, [13:25])

• Rich countries are now more equal than poorer ones—a reversal from earlier eras, accomplished through policies like progressive taxation and welfare states.

3. The Historic Compression of Inequality in Europe ([15:00])

• Case study: France:
  • In the 19th century, France’s bottom 50% received about 10% of income (similar to present-day Latin America).
  • Now, the bottom 50% receives 20–25%—a result of the welfare state and social spending.
  • Wealth inequality, though diminished since World War I, remains significant: the top 10% share of wealth dropped from ~85% to 50–60%, but this mostly benefited the “patrimonial middle class,” not the bottom half.

"If you just wait for growth and, you know, market forces to deliver the diffusion of wealth ... we don't see much in terms of improvement of the bottom 50%. So I think we need something a bit more radical." ([19:55])

• Piketty proposes radical inheritance redistribution as a mechanism for achieving true wealth equality.

4. Income Inequality: How Far Has Europe Come? ([22:30])

• The income scale between top 10% and bottom 50% in Europe narrowed dramatically:
  • From a ratio of 1:20–1:40 before World War I to about 1:5 today (after tax and transfers).
  • In Denmark and Sweden, the ratio is as compressed as 1:2.5.
• Even the recent uptick in inequality since the 1980s is modest compared to the historic compression.

"If someone had told Europe 100 years ago, okay, you're going to divide the income scale by 10, people would have been shocked and would have said this is communism ... and in fact it worked." ([24:58])

5. Productivity, Growth, and Distribution ([27:40])

• High equality did not slow growth; countries with major reductions in inequality (e.g., the Nordics) have high productivity per hour.
• Cautions against misleading international comparisons that ignore purchasing power and working time.

6. The Future: The Global Justice Project ([31:00])

• Piketty outlines scenarios for the 21st century, questioning the sustainability of current business-as-usual trends:
  • Without radical policy, by 2100, African productivity will substantially lag Europe/North America, despite population booms and the adverse effects of climate change.
  • Calls for massive global investment in education, health, and infrastructure—key to bridging productivity gaps.
• Argues future development must shift towards "immaterial" sectors (education, health services), a global redistribution of resources, shorter working hours, and gender equality.
• Emphasis on both domestic and international coalition-building to achieve these aims.

"This will have to rely on top income, top wage groups ... this will have to come with huge compression of inequality." ([10:40])

7. Political Cleavages and Roadblocks to Redistribution ([38:00])

• Two critical, intertwined cleavages undermine broad redistributive coalitions:
  • Brahmin Left vs. Merchant Right: Higher education voters turned left, but high-income/wealth voters remain right-wing, leading to a split in the traditional left coalition.
  • Territorial Divides: Increasing disparity and resentment between urban and rural/small-town populations, exacerbated by uneven access to services and differential exposure to economic shocks like deindustrialization.

"The left parties are able to convince the urban poor and the rural poor that what they have in common is more important than their differences ... It was possible in the past to reduce this territorial divide ... there's no reason why it should be impossible in the future." ([44:02])

• Asserted need for renewed, broad-based alliances to support redistributive policies.

Notable Quotes and Moments

• On Progress and Optimism:
  “In the long run there is a movement toward more equality, socioeconomic equality, political equality, equality of rights in many different dimensions. … This is a fight that has been won in the past and … can be won in the future.” (Piketty, [07:08])

• On Wealth Distribution:
  “If you don’t do something like this [radical inheritance redistribution], then it probably will continue with quite an extreme distribution like this for a long time.” (Piketty, [19:55])

• On the Role of Inequality in Sustainability:
  “If you want to be able to finance the climate investments, the energy investment, the health education investments … there's no way you can convince the lower income class or the middle income class to get into this path if the burden relies on them.” (Piketty, [10:21])

Timestamps for Major Segments

• [00:14] – Introduction by Francisco Ferreira
• [04:46] – Piketty: Opening and Reflections on the III & Interdisciplinary Research
• [11:10] – Mapping Global Inequality: Top 10%/Bottom 50% Shares
• [15:00] – Historic Income and Wealth Inequality in France
• [19:30] – Wealth Distribution and the Limits of Market-Driven Equalization
• [22:30] – Income Scale Compression: Europe vs. Rest of World
• [27:40] – Productivity and Growth amid Reducing Inequality
• [31:00] – The Global Justice Project: Future Scenarios for Global Equality
• [38:00] – Political Cleavages: Brahmin Left/Merchant Right and Territorial Splits
• [44:02] – Hopeful Lessons from History
• [46:41] – Transition to Q&A

Q&A Highlights

On Technology, Inequality, and Productivity ([47:07] – [54:03])

• Questions centered on the role of high-tech sectors in inequality, the meaning/use of productivity data, and whether a focus on productivity obscures issues of wage stagnation.
• Piketty responded:
  • Productivity per hour is a useful metric because it defines what is available for distribution, but wage determination is political and shaped by the labor share and bargaining power.
  • “If the profit share is rising, then you have wage inequality. … It’s a useful starting point [but not the endpoint].” ([48:43])
  • On AI and tech: The way new technologies are governed and the distribution of ownership will determine their impact on equality; current trends favor privatization and concentration unless there’s a political move for broader, democratic control.
  • Rising wealth inequality isn’t just about technology, but also finance and luxury industries.
  • “This is the caricature of sort of creating a new domain for a private wealth accumulation ... This could be run very differently.” (Piketty, [51:10])

Conclusion ([54:40])

Piketty closes with optimism born of historical precedent: huge strides toward equality were possible—and successful—in the past. He urges ongoing social science research, bold policy inventions, and new coalitions (domestic and international) to confront today’s and tomorrow’s challenges.

“There's been a very substantial and successful historical movement toward more socioeconomic and political equality in the past. I believe this movement can and should continue because this is in the end the only way to address our social environmental challenges and the unending aspiration for equal participation and dignity.” ([45:52])

Further Resources

• World Inequality Database
• Piketty’s recommended readings:
  • Capital in the 21st Century
  • Capital and Ideology
  • A Brief History of Equality
  • Political Cleavages and Social Inequalities (with co-authors)
  • Forthcoming report: Global Justice Project (June 2026, World Inequality Conference, Paris)
• World Political Cleavage and Inequality Database

Note: Ads, non-content segments, and logistics have been omitted for clarity and focus.
Tone and language preserved as in the transcript, with direct attribution of key points and quotes.