The new argument, which Piketty spelled out recently in the French newspaper Le Monde, is this: Inequality is a major driver of Middle Eastern terrorism, including the Islamic State attacks on Paris earlier this month — and Western nations have themselves largely to blame for that inequality.
To say that his views have not been well received might be an understatement. An essay in Quartz says,
But empirical studies suggest that poverty and inequality aren’t behind terror attacks. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Alan Krueger, the Princeton economist and future Obama administration official, examined databases of terror attacks to identify trends among the participants. Surprisingly, he found most were well-educated and not poor.
Even if terrorists are not poor, inequality still might cause terrorism. A terrorist could be a rich person who is jealous of people who are even richer.
Still, Piketty is not my type of thinker. As translated by Google, Piketty’s essay begins
It is obvious that terrorism feeds on the Middle Eastern powder keg of inequality
When I make highly speculative statements, I start out by saying “my guess is that,” not “it is obvious that.” Piketty’s approach may work better with some personality types.
When pressed, he seems to back off of strong claims and concede points to others. But I think that economists should be trained not to make such claims in the first place.
I guess inequality produced Osama bin Laden. Or, maybe he was just jealous of George Soros. There is no limit to possible causes and excuses, so long as it fits the inequality meme.
And, in order to prevent all future terrorism attacks in Western nations, I propose immediately giving all refugees and migrants a median income. To heck with everyone else.
“A terrorist could be a rich person who is jealous of people who are even richer.”
More plausible to me, it seems, is that a terrorist is a rich person who has the comfort and time to reflect on and realize the fact that his or her country is poorer and marginalized, while the countries of others are more richer and running world affairs.
What we have observed so far seem to be individuals (some forming groups) who are seeking significance.
Piketty was (is?) a brilliant theorist. His “economics as mathematics” (theorem-proof) impressed many. But his empirical and policy writings seem very flimsy in comparison; he writes like an op-ed writer and not like a researcher.
My highly speculative notion is that Piketty is right that inequality is a big driver of terrorism, but not the kind of inequality he thinks. The relevant dimension is romantic rather than economic. The practice of polygamy in the Middle East increases the fraction of young men who do not have access to the civilizing effects of marriage and female influence, in general. Think of who commits mass shootings in the US: disturbed, socially isolated young men. What I would posit is that disturbed and socially isolated go hand in hand, much in the same way that extended periods of solitary confinement can cause mental illness in prisoners. Increase the fraction of men who have no chance of finding a marriage partner, via polygamy, and you’ll increase the fraction of men who fall into the socially isolated and thus disturbed category who are prone to committing acts of mass murder or indiscriminate violence.
Again, that’s my hypothesis.
Still takes economic inequality to support those spouses but if they also work, but less significantly.
I suppose that’s true. I would add, though, that in such a patriarchal culture, the civilizing effects of marriage may be blunted, as women exert little influence on the choices ther husbands make, at least relative to the West.
When all Piketty has is a hammer…
When what one sees ( or concentrates on) are nails (of uneven heights) that calls for hammers.
“It is obvious that terrorism feeds on the Middle Eastern powder keg of inequality” Piketty (et all.)
Is there the resulting condition of “capitalism” (or any variant thereof) in the explosive ingredients of that M E “powder keg?”
What is the rate of return on “capital” in that Middle East? Is that capital “secure” enough to produce an expected rate of return?
To what, exactly (or theoretically) do the Piketty-oriented “thinkers” (and wordsmiths) attribute Middle Eastern inequalities (of incomes, goods, “capital,” access to affiliations, opportunities **and** motivations)????
To Pikety every problem with his hammer is an inequality nail. I think terrorism is raising mostly because the world is much more better run and peaceful than ever. The San Bernardino suspects were not poor people and the male had a reasonably successful in his career.
That said I still think Saudia Arabia (who is bombing the shit of Yemen right now and private citizens contribute the most money to terrorist organizations) is still the most potentially dangerous nation in the world if oil prices stay this low in 2017.