Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:29:38.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An allegory of the political influence of the top 1%

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John E. Roemer
Affiliation:
Yale University, PO Box 208301, New Haven, CT 06520, USA

Abstract

We study how rich shareholders use their political influence to deregulate firms that they own, thus skewing the income distribution towards themselves. Individuals differ in productivity and choose how much labor to supply. High productivity individuals also own shares in the productive sector and thus earn capital income. All individuals vote over a linear tax rate on (labor and capital) income whose proceeds are redistributed lump sum. Shareholders also lobby in order to ease the price cap imposed on the private firm. We first solve analytically for the Kantian equilibrium of this lobbying game together with the majority voting equilibrium over the tax rate. We then proceed to a comparative statics analysis of the model with the help of numerical simulations. We obtain that, as the capital income distribution becomes more concentrated among the top productivity individuals, increased lobbying effort generates efficiency as well as equity costs, with lower labor supply and lower average utility levels in society.

Type
Research Note
Copyright
Copyright © V.K. Aggarwal 2016 and published under exclusive license to Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvaredo, Facundo, Atkinson, Anthony B., Piketty, Thomas, and Saez, Emmanuel. 2012. The World Top Income Data Base. topincomes.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/#Database:.Google Scholar
Alvaredo, Facundo, Atkinson, Anthony B., Piketty, Thomas, and Saez, Emmanuel, 2013. “The Top 1% in International and Historical Perspective.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (3): 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Donder, Philippe, and Roemer, John E. 2015. The Dynamics of Capital Accumulation in the US: Simulations after Piketty, TSE WP2015/568 and CESifo WP 2015/5329.Google Scholar
Magill, Michael, Quinzii, Martine, and Rochet, Jean-Charles. 2013. A Critique of Shareholder Value Maximization, Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper No. 13–16. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2246797 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2246797.Google Scholar
Roemer, John E. 2006. “Party Competition Under Private and Public Financing: A Comparison of Institutions.” Advances in Theoretical Economics 6 (1): 131.Google Scholar
Roemer, John E. 2015. “Kantian Optimization: A Microfoundation for Cooperation.” Journal of Public Economics 127: 4557.Google Scholar