Thomas Piketty. Capital and Ideology, translated by Arthur Goldhammer, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 2020, 1093 p., ISBN 9780674980822

One of the book’s main achievements is the quality of its data, in terms of the statistical sources and the clarity of the figures. It also shows how public policies are key to collection of statistical data. Tax policy is thus key to collection of fiscal data, and our knowledge about inequalities is in line with the quality of tax policies. It is neither possible nor worthwhile to sum up the content of such a large comparative study from the social sciences. Instead, this review will cover Piketty’s “principles” with respect to the inequalities he identifies in the introductory chapter and then suggest possible links with IR. “Ownership societies of the sort that flourished in Europe in the nineteenth century drew a sharp distinction between the property question (with universal property rights theoretically open to all) and the power question (with the centralized state claiming a monopoly of regalian rights)” (pp.5-6). In IR, ownership societies are related to the third and fourth industrial stages described by J.R. Commons in his text about shoemakers. “Inequality today is strongly influenced by the system of borders and national sovereignty, which determines the allocation of social and political rights.” (p. 6). Thus, fiscal issues, labour issues and regulations are mainly defined within a system of borders and national sovereignty. Of course, there are some international forms of regulation through the ILO or international sectoral unions. But it is still difficult to imagine an international labour code. “Inequality is neither economic nor technological: it is ideological and political” (p. 6). On labour and employment issues, the same debate exists between, on the one hand, proponents of external constraints (natural, technological, financial, etc.) as the main explanation of value-added distribution and, on the other hand, proponents of social relations, like conflicts, negotiations and political compromises. “Change is permanent and inevitable” (p. 7). It is hard to understand the historical evolution of stable institutional regimes. A universal category, like inequality or work, is chosen on the implicit assumption that its meaning is sufficiently stable to show continuity between regimes, even though change may take the form of discontinuities, like conflicts or even revolutions. “(…) I am convinced that unbiased examination of the available sources is the only way to make progress.” (p. 9). The statistical examination of inequality in the book is quite impressive. But it is difficult to agree with the idea that progress in the political-ideological sphere depends mainly on facts. In labour and employment regulations, scandalous situations, conflicts, even violence, are usually more important in explaining the evolution of regulations than a mere process of “fact checking.” “Societies create social, fiscal, and legal categories to describe, measure, and transform themselves.” (p. 9). The same idea applies to IR where categories are created by social and political decisions, in the case of unemployment, for example. “The economy is at the heart of politics; responsibility for it cannot be delegated, any more than democracy itself can.” (p. 13). It may be surprising to consider the centrality of economy in politics, no matter what regime or period we are looking at. This hypothesis looks like an implicit Marxist one. But for Piketty, it means that “democratic diffusion of knowledge” is essential for public debate and that the economy should not be seen as a sphere of exclusive influence by experts. Likewise, education of workers, self-management and the role of collective actors in regulations are permanent themes of IR. “[H]uman progress exists, but it is fragile. It is constantly threatened by inegalitarian and identitarian tendencies.” (p. 16). Progress in work and employment relations is also a piece of …