Thomas Piketty: evaluation

Transcript context

…If I look at France in the early 1960s, as you know, the rate of finishing or even starting higher education is extremely low, but France basically is doing fine. Do you view that as evidence for the view that it’s really the continuity of cultural capital that matters and not so much policy? No, because there’s been a huge educational expansion since then. Between 1950 and 1990 and until today, educational expansion in France — and throughout Europe and in most of the world — has been considerable. It is true, in the 1950s, France — but to a large extent, Western Europe — is lagging behind the US in terms of educational achievement. To me, it’s clear that the key reason why the US has been an economic leader at the world level for most of the 20th century is because it was an educational leader. In the 1950s, as you know very well, you have 90 percent of a generation going to high school in the US, whereas in France or in Germany, it’s 20 percent to 30 percent of a generation. You need to wait until the 1980s or ’90s to reach the same kind of 90 percent of growth going to high school and to have universal access to it. It was the same also in the 19th century. The US reached 90 percent primary school attendance rate almost a century before Europe, or at least half a century or two-thirds of a century before Europe. I think that was a key explanation why also economic productivity was so much higher in the United States. I think policy may be a bit different. Especially after World War II, there was an enormous educational push, not only in France and Germany but also, of course, in Japan. Then other countries in Asia also followed this push, and this has completely transformed the economic geography and the geography of productivity. And the huge advantage the US had in the middle of the 20th century, to a large extent, has disappeared today. I think policies, institutions played a major role in these dynamics with specific political and social history in the different countries. Of course, politics is also the product of the belief system and the perceptions that families have about education, about the culture of education. So all these different dimensions have to be studied together, obviously. As you know, Matt Rognlie and a number of other researchers have argued the relevant increase in wealth inequality really is centered in real estate and housing wealth. Do you agree? If so, isn’t it enough just to be a Georgist? Can’t we just do the redistribution there?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.