Capital in the Twenty-First Century

2 Contents

Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a 2013 book by

French economist Thomas Piketty. It focuses on wealth
and income inequality in Europe and the United States
since the 18th century. It was initially published in French
(as Le Capital au XXIe sicle) in August 2013; an English translation by Arthur Goldhammer followed in April
2014.[1]

The central thesis of the book is that inequality is not an

accident, but rather a feature of capitalism, and can only
be reversed through state interventionism.[17] The book
thus argues that, unless capitalism is reformed, the very
democratic order will be threatened.[17]

The books central thesis is that when the rate of return on

capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g)
over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth,
and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and
economic instability. Piketty proposes a global system
of progressive wealth taxes to help reduce inequality and
avoid the vast majority of wealth coming under the control of a tiny minority.

Piketty bases his argument on a formula that relates the

rate of return on capital (r) to economic growth (g),
where r includes prots, dividends, interest, rents and
other income from capital and g is measured in income
or output. He argues that when the rate of growth is
low, then wealth tends to accumulate more quickly from r
than from labor and tends to accumulate more among the
top 10% and 1%, increasing inequality. Thus the fundaOn May 18, 2014, the English edition reached number mental force for divergence and greater wealth inequality
one on the New York Times Best Seller list for best sell- can be summed up in the inequality r > g. He analyzes
ing hardcover nonction[2] and became the greatest sales inheritance from the perspective of the same formula.
success ever of academic publisher Harvard University
Press.[3] As of January 2015, the book had sold 1.5 million copies in French, English, German, Chinese and
Spanish.[4]
At the 2016 Cannes Film Festival it was announced that
the book is to be made into a feature documentary lm,
directed by New Zealand lmmaker Justin Pemberton.[5]

Publication and initial reception

When initially issued in French in August 2013, it

was characterized by Laurent Mauduit as a political
and theoretical bulldozer.[6][7] As news spread of its
thesis in the English-speaking world, it was hailed by
The Economist as authoritative.[8] Paul Krugman has
called it a landmark,[9] while former senior World Bank
economist Branko Milanovi considers it one of the watershed books in economic thinking.[10] In response to
widespread curiosity abroad aroused by reviews of the
original French edition published by Seuil in September 2013, it was translated rapidly into English and its
publication date was pushed forward to March 2014 by
Belknap. It proved an overnight sensation[11] and ousted
Michael Lewiss nancial expos, Flash Boys: Cracking the Money Code, from the top of the US best-seller
list.[12] Within a year of its publication, Stephanie Kelton spoke of a Piketty phenomenon,[13] and in Germany
three books had been published specically dealing with
Pikettys critique.[14][15][16]

Income inequality as measured by the income of the top 1% in

several countries. Inequality tended to drop in the middle of the
century but has increased in the past several decades.

The book argues that there was a trend towards higher inequality which was reversed between 1930 and 1975 due
to unique circumstances: the two world wars, the Great
Depression and a debt-fueled recession destroyed much
wealth, particularly that owned by the elite.[18] These
events prompted governments to undertake steps towards
redistributing income, especially in the post-World War
II period. The fast, worldwide economic growth of that
time began to reduce the importance of inherited wealth
in the global economy.[18]
The book argues that the world today is returning towards "patrimonial capitalism", in which much of the
economy is dominated by inherited wealth: the power of
1

3 RECEPTION

this economic class is increasing, threatening to create an he concludes.[22]

oligarchy.[19] Piketty cites novels by Honor de Balzac,
Jane Austen and Henry James[18] to describe the rigid
class structure based on accumulated capital that existed 3.1 Appraisal
in England and France in the early 1800s.
Piketty proposes that a progressive annual global wealth
tax of up to 2%, combined with a progressive income tax
reaching as high as 80%, would reduce inequality, [18] although he concedes that such a tax would be politically
impossible.[20]

Piketty believes the growth rate will once again fall below the rate
of return, and the twentieth century will be an aberration in terms
of inequality

Without tax adjustment, Piketty predicts a world of low

economic growth and extreme inequality. His data show
that over long periods of time average return on investment outpaces productivity-based income by a wide
margin.[18] He dismisses the idea that bursts of productivity resulting from technological advances can be relied
on to return sustained economic growth; we should not
expect a more just and rational order to arise based
on caprices of technology,[18] and return on investment can increase when technology can be substituted for
people.[20]

Reception

The books exceptional success was widely attributed to

being about the right subject at the right time, as The
Economist put it. Piketty himself recognized that there is
a common sense that inequality and wealth in the United
States have been widening. The Occupy movement's "We
are the 99%" slogan made talk of inequality the zeitgeist
of our age an age of seemingly permanent crisis and
austerity, as Adam Booth put it.[21]

The author Thomas Piketty.

Paul Krugman called the book a magnicent, sweeping meditation on inequality[23] and the most important economics book of the yearand maybe
of the decade.[19] He distinguishes the book from
other bestsellers on economics as it constitutes serious, discourse-changing scholarship.[24] Krugman also
wrote:
At a time when the concentration of wealth
and income in the hands of a few has resurfaced as a central political issue, Piketty doesnt
just oer invaluable documentation of what is
happening, with unmatched historical depth.
He also oers what amounts to a unied eld
theory of inequality, one that integrates economic growth, the distribution of income between capital and labor, and the distribution
of wealth and income among individuals into
a single frame. [...] Capital in the Twenty-First
Century is an extremely important book on all
fronts. Piketty has transformed our economic
discourse; well never talk about wealth and inequality the same way we used to.[23]

British author Paul Mason dismissed charges of soft

Marxism as completely misplaced, noting that Marx
described social relations trying to unveil capitalisms inner tendencies, where Piketty solely relies on social cat- Steven Pearlstein called it a triumph of economic hisegories and historical data. Piketty rather placed an un- tory over the theoretical, mathematical modeling that has
exploded bomb within mainstream, classical economics, come to dominate the economics profession in recent

3.2

Criticism

years, but also added: Pikettys analysis of the past is because that would mean a slower rise in living standards,
more impressive than his predictions for the future are but because it might [...] worsen inequality.[33]
convincing.[18]
Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson sees Piketty to be seemBranko Milanovi, a former senior economist at the ingly replacing American philosopher John Rawls as the
World Bank, called the book one of the watershed books essential thinker of the left. Apart from questioning comin economic thinking.[25][26]
mon measures of wealth distribution, he however criticizes Piketty as, unlike Rawls, being much more conBritish historian Andrew Hussey called the book epic
and groundbreaking and argues that it proves scientif- cerned with the rich than with the poor. Gissurarson adically that the Occupy movement was correct in its as- mits the rapid rise in the income of the super-rich of the
world, but doesn't see anything wrong about it as long as
sertion that capitalism isn't working.[27]
the poor doesn't get poorer.[35]
According to Robert Solow, Piketty has made a new
and powerful contribution to an old topic: as long as the American libertarian George Leef attacked Pikettys
rate of return exceeds the rate of growth, the income and work as an apology for the use of state coercion to take
wealth of the rich will grow faster than the typical income property away from some people who supposedly have
too much, which in the words of Frdric Bastiat he calls
from work.[28]
legal plunder. Diverting more resources from the volFrench historian and political scientist Emmanuel Todd untary, generally ecient private sector and into the
called Capital in the Twenty-First Century a masterpiece coercive, generally inecient government sector, he
and a seminal book on the economic and social evolution says, was a bad trade-o, especially for poorer people.[36]
of the planet.[29]
The book has been described as a political and theoret3.2.2 Methodological critique
ical bulldozer in the French press.[30]
The Economist wrote: A modern surge in inequality
has new economists wondering, as Marx and Ricardo
did, which forces may be stopping the fruits of capitalism from being more widely distributed. Capital in the
Twenty-First Century [...] is an authoritative guide to the
question.[31]
Will Hutton wrote: Like Friedman, Piketty is a man for
the times. For 1970s anxieties about ination substitute
todays concerns about the emergence of the plutocratic
rich and their impact on economy and society. [...] the
current level of rising wealth inequality, set to grow still
further, now imperils the very future of capitalism. He
has proved it.[32]
Clive Crook, while being strongly critical of the book,
acknowledged that its hard to think of another book
on economics published in the past several decades thats
been praised as lavishly.[33]

3.2
3.2.1

Criticism
Critique of the normative content

One strand of critique faults Piketty for placing inequality

at the center of analysis without any reection on why it
matters.
According to Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf,
he merely assumes that inequality matters, but never explains why. He only demonstrates that it exists and how
it worsens.[34] Or as his colleague Clive Crook put it:
Aside from its other aws, Capital in the 21st Century
invites readers to believe not just that inequality is important, but that nothing else matters. This book wants
you to worry about low growth in the coming decades not

Lawrence Summers criticizes Piketty for underestimating

the diminishing returns on capital, which he believes will
oset the return on capital and hence set an upper limit to
inequality. Summers challenges another of Pikettys assumptions: that returns to wealth are largely reinvested.
A declining ratio of savings to wealth would also set upper limits on inequality in society.[37] Of 400 wealthiest
Americans in 1982, only one in ten remained on the list in
2012, and an increasing share of wealthiest people have
not increased their fortunes. Moreover, top 1% incomes
are now mostly salaries, not capital incomes. Most other
economists explain the rise of top 1% incomes by globalization and technological change.[38]
James K. Galbraith criticizes Piketty for using an
empirical measure that is unrelated to productive physical
capital and whose dollar value depends, in part, on the
return on capital. Where does the rate of return come
from? Piketty never says. Galbraith also says: Despite
its great ambitions, his book is not the accomplished work
of high theory that its title, length and reception (so far)
suggest.[39]
Daron Acemolu and James A. Robinson used the economic histories of Sweden and South Africa to show that
social inequality depends much more on institutional factors than Pikettys factors like the dierence between
rate of return and growth. Cross-country analysis also
shows that the top 1%'s share of income does not depend on that dierence. The professors write that general laws, which is how they characterize Pikettys postulations, are unhelpful as a guide to understand the past
or predict the future because they ignore the central role
of political and economic institutions in shaping the evolution of technology and the distribution of resources in
a society.[40]

3 RECEPTION

Paul Romer criticises that while the data and empirical

analysis is presented with admirable clarity and precision
the theory is presented in less detail. In his opinion the
work was written with the attitude Empirical work is science; theory is entertainment and therefore an example
for Mathiness.[41]

3.2.3

3.2.4 Critique of the proposed measures

Harvey further argues that Pikettys proposals as to the
remedies for the inequalities are nave if not utopian. And
he has certainly not produced a working model for capital
of the twenty-rst century. For that, we still need Marx
or his modern-day equivalent. Harvey also takes Piketty
to task for dismissing Marxs Das Kapital without ever
having read it.[50]

Critique of Pikettys basic concepts

In a similar vein, philosopher Nicholas Vrousalis faults

Pikettys remedies for misconstruing the kind of politiGerman economist Stefan Homburg criticizes Piketty for cal counter-agency required to remove the inequalities
equating wealth with capital. Homburg argues that wealth Piketty criticizes and for thinking that they are compati[51]
does not only embrace capital goods in the sense of ble with capitalism.
produced means of production, but also land and other
natural resources. Homburg argues that observed in- 3.2.5 Critique of the conventional paradigm
creases in wealth income ratios reect rising land prices
and not an accumulation of machinery.[42] Joseph E. Norwegian economist and journalist Maria Reinertsen
Stiglitz endorses this view, pointing out that a large frac- compares the book to the 2014 book Counting on Marilyn
tion of the increase in wealth is an increase in the value Waring: New Advances in Feminist Economics, by Ailsa
of land, not in the amount of capital goods.[43]
McKay and Margunn Bjrnholt, arguing that, while
This idea is furthered by Matthew Rognlie, then a graduate student at M.I.T., who published a paper in March
2015 with the Brookings Institution that argues that
Piketty did not take the eects of depreciation into account enough in his analysis of the growing importance
of capital. Rognlie also found that surging house prices
are almost entirely responsible for growing returns on
capital.[44][45]
Marxist academic David Harvey, while praising the book
for demolishing the widely-held view that free market
capitalism spreads the wealth around and that it is the
great bulwark for the defense of individual liberties and
freedoms, is largely critical of Piketty for, among other
things, his mistaken denition of capital, which Harvey
describes as:

[...] a process, not a thing [...] a process

of circulation in which money is used to make
more money often, but not exclusively through
the exploitation of labor power. Piketty denes
capital as the stock of all assets held by private
individuals, corporations and governments that
can be traded in the market no matter whether
these assets are being used or not.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) researched the

basic thesis put forth by the book -that when the rate of
return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic
growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration
of wealth - and found no empirical support for it. IMF
economist Carlos Ges found that in fact, an opposite
trend was identied in 75% of the countries studied in
depth.[46][47][48][49]

Capital in the Twenty-First Century barely touches the

boundaries of the discipline in its focus on the rich, Counting on Marilyn Waring challenges most limits of what
economists should care about.[52]

3.3 Allegation of data errors

On May 23, 2014, Chris Giles, economics editor of the
Financial Times (FT), identied what he claims are unexplained errors in Pikettys data, in particular regarding
wealth inequality increases since the 1970s.[53] The FT
wrote in part:
The data underpinning Professor Pikettys
577-page tome, which has dominated bestseller lists in recent weeks, contain a series of
errors that skew his ndings. The FT found
mistakes and unexplained entries in his spreadsheets, similar to those which last year undermined the work on public debt and growth of
Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogo.
The central theme of Prof Pikettys work is
that wealth inequalities are heading back up to
levels last seen before the rst world war. The
investigation undercuts this claim, indicating
there is little evidence in Prof Pikettys original
sources to bear out the thesis that an increasing share of total wealth is held by the richest
few.[54]
Piketty wrote a response defending his ndings and arguing that subsequent studies (he links to Emmanuel Saez
and Gabriel Zucman's March 2014 presentation, The Distribution of US Wealth, Capital Income and Returns since
1913) conrm his conclusions about increasing wealth inequality and actually show a greater increase in inequality

5
for the United States than he does in his book.[55] In an interview with Agence-France Presse, he accused the Financial Times of dishonest criticism and said that the paper is being ridiculous because all of its contemporaries
recognise that the biggest fortunes have grown faster.[56]
The
accusation
received
wide
press
coverage.[57][58][59][60] Some sources said the Financial Times has overstated its case. For example, The
Economist, a sister publication to the Financial Times,
wrote:
Mr Giless analysis is impressive, and one
certainly hopes that further work by Mr Giles,
Mr Piketty or others will clarify whether mistakes have been made, how they came to be
introduced and what their eects are. Based
on the information Mr Giles has provided so
far, however, the analysis does not seem to support many of the allegations made by the FT,
or the conclusion that the books argument is
wrong.[61]
Scott Winship, a sociologist at the Manhattan Institute
for Policy Research and critic of Piketty, claims the allegations are not signicant for the fundamental question
of whether Pikettys thesis is right or not [...] Its hard
to think Piketty did something unethical when he put it
up there for people like me to delve into his gures and
nd something that looks sketchy [...] Piketty has been
as good or better than anyone at both making all his data
available and documenting what he does generally.[56]
In addition to Winship, the economists Alan Reynolds,
Justin Wolfers, James Hamilton and Gabriel Zucman
claim that FT's assertions go too far.[62][63] Paul Krugman
noted that anyone imagining that the whole notion of rising wealth inequality has been refuted is almost surely going to be disappointed.[63] Emmanuel Saez, a colleague
of Piketty and one of the economists cited by Giles to
discredit him, stated that Pikettys choice and judgement were quite good and that his own research supports
Pikettys thesis.[64] Piketty released a full point-by-point
rebuttal on his website.[65]
Historian Phillip W. Magness of the libertarian Institute
for Humane Studies and Austrian School economist
Robert P. Murphy challenge many of Pikettys empirical
ndings and think that these may actually be the books
greatest weakness.[66] In particular, Magness and Murphy allege false gures for minimum wages and tax rates,
missing data points and data that have been merely constructed. In their judgement, Piketty cherry-picks those
data which sustain a preconceived narrative.

Awards and honours

2014 Financial Times and McKinsey Business Book
of the Year Award[67]

2014 National Book Critics Circle Award (General

Nonction) nalist[68]

5 Editions
Le Capital au XXIe sicle, ditions du Seuil, Paris,
2013, ISBN 978-2021082289 (French)
Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Harvard University Press, 2014, ISBN 978-0674430006

6 See also
Criticism of capitalism
Gilded Age
Progress and Poverty

7 References
[1] "Pikettys Capital: An Economists Inequality Ideas Are
All the Rage" by Megan McArdle, Bloomberg Businessweek, May 29, 2014
[2] Best Sellers May 18, 2014. New York Times. 18 May
2014. Retrieved 29 January 2015.
[3] Marc Tracy (24 April 2014). Pikettys 'Capital': A Hit
That Was, Wasn't, Then Was Again: How the French
tome has rocked the tiny Harvard University Press. The
New Republic. Retrieved 27 April 2014.
[4] French economist and best-selling author Thomas
Piketty on Thursday refused Frances highest honour the
Lgion d'Honneur.. France 24. 1 January 2015. Retrieved 29 January 2015.
[5] Thomas Pikettys 'Capital In The 21st Century' set for
doc adaptation. May 12, 2016. Retrieved July 31, 2016.
[6] Laurent Mauduit, Piketty ausculte le capitalisme, ses
contradictions et ses violentes ingalits, Mediapart, 03
Septembre 2013: un bulldozer thorique et politique
[7] Thomas B. Edsall, 'Capitalism vs.Democracy.' New York
Times, 28 January 2014.
[8] All men are created unequal: revisiting an old argument
about the impact of capitalism, The Economist, 4 January
2014.
[9] Paul Krugman. Americas Taxation Tradition, in New
York Times, 27 March 2014 .
[10] John Cassidy, Forces of Divergence:Is surging inequality
endemic to capitalism?, in The New Yorker, 31 March
2014
[11] 'Thomas Pikettys blockbuster book is a great piece of
scholarship, but a poor guide to policy,' Economist 3 May
2014.

[12] John Lanchester Flash Boys in London Review of Books

Vol. 36 No. 11, 5 June 2014 pages 7-9
[13] Heidi Moore, 'Why is Thomas Pikettys 700-page book a
bestseller?,' The Guardian 21 September 2014-09-21
[14] Heinz-J. Bontrup, Pikettys Krisen-Analyse. Warum die Reichen immer reicher und die Armen immer rmer werden,
pad-verlag. Bergkamen 2014, ISBN 978-3-88515-260-6.
[15] Albert F. Reiterer, Der Piketty-Hype The great UTurn. Pikettys Kapital und die neoliberale Vermgenskonzentration, pad-Verlag, Bergkamen 2014, ISBN 9783-88515-259-0.
[16] Stephan Kaufmann, Ingo Sttzle, Kapitalismus: Die ersten
200 Jahre. Thomas Pikettys Das Kapital im 21. Jahrhundert": Einfhrung, Debatte, Kritik, Bertz + Fischer Verlag,
Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-86505-730-3.

REFERENCES

[30] Thomas B. Edsall (January 28, 2014). Capitalism vs.

Democracy. The New York Times. Retrieved April 15,
2014.
[31] All Men Are Created Unequal, The Economist, Print Edition, January 4, 2014.
[32] Will Hutton (April 12, 2014). Capitalism simply isn't
working and here are the reasons why. The Guardian. Retrieved April 22, 2014.
[33] The Most Important Book Ever Is All Wrong.
Bloomberg View. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
[34] Martin Wolf, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, by
Thomas Piketty, Financial Times, April 15, 2014, .
[35] Gissurarson, Hannes H. (1 December 2014). A LatterDay Jacobin with a Lot of Data. The Journal of Ayn Rand
Studies. 14 (2): 281290. Retrieved 30 January 2015.

[17] Ryan Cooper (March 25, 2014). Why everyone is talking about Thomas Pikettys Capital in the Twenty-First
Century. The Week.

[36] Leef, George (21 May 2014). Pikettys Book Just

Another Excuse For Legal Plunder And Expanding The
State. Forbes. Retrieved 29 January 2015.

[18] Steven Pearlstein (March 28, 2014). "'Capital in the

Twenty-rst Century' by Thomas Piketty. The Washington Post.

[37] Summers, Lawrence (May 16, 2014). Thomas Piketty Is

Right About the Past and Wrong About the Future. The
Atlantic.

[19] Paul Krugman (March 23, 2014). Wealth Over Work.

The New York Times.

[38] The Inequality Puzzle, Lawrence H. Summers,

Democracy Journal, Issue #33, Summer 2014.

[20] Bigger than Marx.. The Economist. May 3, 2014. Retrieved December 23, 2015.

[39] Galbraith, James K. (Spring 2014). "Kapital for the

Twenty-First Century?". Dissent. Retrieved April 28,
2014.

[21] Booth, Adam (29 August 2014). Pikettys Capital and

the spectre of inequality. In Defence of Marxism. Retrieved 1 May 2015.
[22] Mason, Paul (28 April 2014). Thomas Pikettys Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller. Retrieved 1 May 2015.
[23] Paul Krugman (May 8, 2014). Why Were in a New
Gilded Age. New York Review of Books. Retrieved April
14, 2014.
[24] Paul Krugman (April 24, 2014). The Piketty Panic. The
New York Times. Retrieved April 26, 2014
[25] John Cassidy (March 31, 2014). Forces of Divergence:
Is Surging Inequality Endemic to Capitalism? The New
Yorker. Retrieved April 13, 2014.
[26] Branko Milanovic (October 2013). The return of patrimonial capitalism": review of Thomas Pikettys Capital in
the 21st century, Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Retrieved April 20, 2014.
[27] Andrew Hussey (April 12, 2014). Occupy was right: capitalism has failed the world. The Guardian. Retrieved
April 21, 2014.
[28] Robert M. Solow. Thomas Piketty Is Right. The New
Republic.
[29] Emmanuel Todd (September 14, 2013). Piketty dcrypte
le come-back des hritiers. Marianne.

[40] The Rise and Decline of General Laws of Capitalism,

Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, Abstract and
pages 1, 10, and 19.
[41] Paul Romer, Mathiness in the Theory of Economic
Growth, American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings 2015, Vol. 105, Issue 5, p. 8993, doi:10.1257/
aer.p20151066
[42] Homburg, Stefan (2015).
Critical remarks
on Pikettys Capital in the Twenty-rst Century". Applied Economics. 47 (14): 14011406.
doi:10.1080/00036846.2014.997927.
[43] Stiglitz, Joseph E. (January 3, 2015), Thomas Piketty
gets income inequality wrong, Salon.com, San Francisco:
Salon Media Group Inc., retrieved 2015-04-17
[44] Rognlie, Matthew (2015). Deciphering the Fall and Rise
in the Net Capital Share: Accumulation, or Scarcity?"
(PDF). Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Forthcoming.
[45] Through the roof. The Economist. March 28, 2015.
[46] Ges, Carlos. Testing Pikettys Hypothesis on the
Drivers of Income Inequality: Evidence from Panel VARs
with Heterogeneous Dynamics (PDF). International
Monetary Fund.
[47] Talley, Ian. "'No Empirical Evidence' for Thomas
Pikettys Inequality Theory, IMF Economist Argues. Retrieved 2016-08-13.

[48] David, Javier E. (2016-08-06). An IMF economist

thinks Pikettys inequality theories don't really hold water. CNBC. Retrieved 2016-08-13.

[65] Ryan Grim (May 29, 2014). Thomas Piketty Rebuts FT

Charges: 'Criticism For The Sake Of Criticism'. The
Hungton Post. Retrieved May 29, 2014.

[49] Andrew Mayeda amayeda Subscribe. Wealth Inequality

May Not Work the Way Piketty Thinks. Bloomberg.com.
Retrieved 2016-08-13.

[66] Phillip W. Magness und Robert W. Murphy

[50] David Harvey (May 20, 2014). Taking on Capital Without Marx: What Thomas Piketty misses in his critique of
capitalism. In These Times. Retrieved May 20, 2014.
[51] Vrousalis, Nicholas (September 1, 2014), Pikettys Grandchildren, Social Science Research Network, retrieved January 23, 2015
[52] Reinertsen, Maria (July 4, 2014), Br morsmelk regnes med i bruttonasjonalprodukt? (English: Should
milk be included in the gross domestic product?")" (pdf),
Morgenbladet (26): 67, retrieved January 23, 2015
[53] Giles, Chris (May 23, 2014). Thomas Pikettys exhaustive inequality data turn out to be awed. Financial
Times. Retrieved May 23, 2014.
[54] Weissmann, Jordan (May 23, 2014). Financial Times:
Pikettys Data Is Full of Errors. Slate. Retrieved May
25, 2014.
[55] Thomas Piketty (May 23, 2014). Piketty response to FT
data concerns. Financial Times. May 23, 2014
[56] Jennifer Rankin (May 26, 2014). Thomas Piketty accuses
Financial Times of dishonest criticism. The Guardian.
Retrieved May 26, 2014.
[57] Mark Gonglo (May 23, 2014). Thomas Pikettys Inequality Data Contains 'Unexplained' Errors: FT. The
Hungton Post. Retrieved May 23, 2014.
[58] Kevin Drum (May 23, 2014). Chris Giles Challenges
Thomas Pikettys Data Analysis. Mother Jones. Retrieved
May 23, 2014.
[59] Irwin, Neil (May 23, 2014). Did Thomas Piketty Get His
Math Wrong?". The New York Times. Retrieved May 25,
2014.
[60] Doward, Jamie (May 24, 2014). Thomas Pikettys economic data 'came out of thin air'". The Guardian. Retrieved May 25, 2014.
[61] R.A. (May 24, 2014). A Piketty problem?".
Economist. Retrieved May 25, 2014.

The

[62] Alan Reynolds (July 9, 2014). Why Pikettys Wealth Data

Are Worthless. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July
11, 2014.
[63] Mark Gonglo (May 27, 2014). Economists Rip Apart
FTs Piketty Takedown. The Hungton Post. Retrieved
May 27, 2014.
[64] Ryan Grim (May 27, 2014). The Economists FT Relied
On For Its Thomas Piketty Takedown Don't Buy It. The
Hungton Post. Retrieved May 28, 2014.

[67] Andrew Hill (11 November 2014). Thomas Pikettys

'Capital' wins Business Book of the Year. Financial
Times. Retrieved November 12, 2014.
[68] National Book Critics Circle Announces Finalists for
Publishing Year 2014. National Book Critics Circle.
January 19, 2015. Retrieved January 29, 2015.

8 External links
The books ocial website
Text from Introduction to Capital in the Twenty-First
Century
All the raw data from the book
Newsnights explainer about Capital on YouTube on
BBC Newsnight (3:10)
Video of Thomas Piketty describing Capital in the
Twenty-First Century on YouTube
Pikettys talk about Capital in the Twenty-First Century on YouTube at TED in Berlin in June 2014.
A handy summary of the book with six charts by
John Cassidy
3 Business Best-Sellers Show Inequality Is Now The
Hot Topic. NPR, December 19, 2014.

9 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

9.1

Text

Capital in the Twenty-First Century Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century?oldid=748829539

Contributors: Nealmcb, TakuyaMurata, Alvaro, Bogdangiusca, Tpbradbury, Moncrief, Goethean, Tomruen, DanielDemaret, Vsmith, Bender235, Wiki-uk, Hipocrite, Bobrayner, Deeahbz, Bkwillwm, GregorB, Imersion, Gareth E. Kegg, Volunteer Marek, Bgwhite, Arzel,
Xompanthy, PanchoS, Arthur Rubin, Srnec, AussieLegend, JesseRafe, Brianhenke, Iridescent, JHP, Cunningpal, Anthonyhcole, Nishidani,
Widefox, Engelo, Malik Shabazz, Johnfos, Psheld, C.J. Grin, Lamro, Int21h, Sphilbrick, Infrasonik, Der Golem, Doprendek, SchreiberBike, Kcren, Indopug, RexxS, XLinkBot, Blaylockjam10, Tassedethe, Yobot, AnomieBOT, J JMesserly, Omnipaedista, Green Cardamom,
Dailycare, FrescoBot, Arbraxan, Jikybebna, Trappist the monk, LilyKitty, Underlying lk, MShabazz, Dewritech, DavidMCEddy, Ubikwit,
Pass3456, Justinsight, AndyTheGrump, Amoigni, Wbm1058, Archivingcontext, Piguy101, BattyBot, WiFiEngineer, Cacra, Cwobeel,
Gkornbluh, Claireclear, RaphaelQS, Boarder89, Herbert81, Bernardwoodpecker, Qatenary, SantiLak, Peteshirley, Gati123, Aepyornis~enwiki, ToBk, Donnacha Vito Corleone, Sewonathy, Solancious, Gdhgfgfh, Jamesthompson1985, Absolutelypuremilk, Fishlandia,
KasparBot, Majora, The Chicken Ex-terminator, Stewi101015, Epson Salts and Anonymous: 75

9.2

Images

File:Piketty_in_Cambridge_3_crop.jpg Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Piketty_in_Cambridge_
3_crop.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: <a href='//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Piketty_in_Cambridge_3.jpg'
class='image'><img alt='Piketty in Cambridge 3.jpg' src='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Piketty_
in_Cambridge_3.jpg/100px-Piketty_in_Cambridge_3.jpg' width='100' height='56' srcset='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/thumb/0/02/Piketty_in_Cambridge_3.jpg/150px-Piketty_in_Cambridge_3.jpg
1.5x,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Piketty_in_Cambridge_3.jpg/200px-Piketty_in_Cambridge_3.jpg 2x' data-le-width='4320' data-leheight='2432' /></a> Original artist: Sue Gardner
File:TaxRateAndGrowthPiketty10_10.png
Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/
TaxRateAndGrowthPiketty10_10.png License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Bkwillwm
File:Top1percentIncomePiketty.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Top1percentIncomePiketty.png
License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Bkwillwm

9.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0