![]() ![]() Overall, Milanovic’s analysis and argument – well-written and engaging as it is – would benefit from a deeper survey of pre-modern historical periods and the world outside the West. The book is still, therefore, underread, but despite it falling foul of current Twitter trends, it somehow feels timely. The arguments over economic inequality now feel traditional and unfashionable. Since then, we have had Trump, Brexit, the ‘cultural wars’ and Covid-19. It is only with hindsight that many now claim that it was historically predictable that the populist right would capitalise. Many, after Occupy, public sector cuts and the (initial) electoral success of Syriza in Greece, thought it would be the political left that would make hay. The public of many countries, after nearly seven years of economic decline, wage pressure and austerity policies, were feeling restless. ![]() The world was just beginning to creep out of the Great Recession. The Occupy movement had ended but was still in the mind’s eye. At the time, inequality both within and between countries felt important. ![]() So much has happened since that it can feel like another world, already part of ‘history’. Despite the fact that it was published relatively recently, it still feels necessary to recount the context in which Milanovic wrote and released it. Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalisation is not a new book. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |