Branko MilanovicEdit
Branko Milanovic is a prominent economist whose work on global inequality has shaped how policymakers think about growth, trade, and opportunity. A veteran of the policy world and a respected scholar, he has dedicated decades to measuring income and wealth across borders and tracking how globalization affects living standards from the vast urban centers of rich economies to the rising towns of the developing world. His research helps illuminate why some people gain from trade and technology while others feel left behind, and it remains a touchstone for debates about the proper role of markets, government, and mobility in shaping economic outcomes. His most influential books, including Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization and Capitalism, Alone, along with his work on the World Inequality Database (WID) and the popularization of the so-called Elephant curve, have made him a central figure in discussions about how to reconcile growth with fairer income distribution.
From a policy standpoint, Milanovic’s work is often read as an argument for harnessing globalization to raise living standards while acknowledging and addressing the frictions it creates within countries. He underscores that the decline of extreme global poverty in recent decades rests in large part on market openings, productive investment, and the spread of new technologies—outcomes that align with a pro-growth, market-friendly outlook that values social mobility, skill formation, and fiscal sanity. Yet he also stresses that globalization has produced winners and losers, particularly within advanced economies, and that governments should respond with policies that preserve incentives for entrepreneurship while expanding ladders of opportunity for those who are displaced. His approach tends to favor targeted, evidence-based interventions—policies that promote education, mobility, and competitive markets—over broad, status-quo-preserving redistribution.
Biography
Early life and career
Milanovic’s career bridges the policy world and academia. He spent a significant portion of his professional life as a researcher and policy analyst, including a long period with the World Bank where he contributed to the study of global income distribution and poverty. After leaving the policy institution, he joined the faculty at the City University of New York Graduate Center, where he has instructed and mentored a generation of students in economics. He is also associated with the Luxembourg Income Study project, a key source of cross-country data on household income and inequality, and he has been a central figure in the development and dissemination of data that underpin the World Inequality Database (WID). His scholarly work is marked by a willingness to engage with large-scale data and to translate complex measures of inequality into accessible arguments about policy.
Major works and ideas
Milanovic’s most influential publication is Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization, in which he argues that globalization has altered the landscape of income distribution by combining rapid gains for the global lower middle classes with rising inequality within many rich countries. He also edited and contributed to discussions around The Haves and the Have-nots: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality, which traces the long arc of global disparities from historical to contemporary times. In Capitalism, Alone, he advances a two-track view of the modern economy—one that sees liberal democratic capitalism as one successful path to prosperity, and another (more extractive, less inclusive) path that limits opportunity. These works are grounded in comparisons across national data sets, and in his emphasis on how cross-border income movements interact with national policy choices.
A hallmark of Milanovic’s research is the articulation of the so-called Elephant curve, a graphical summary of how income growth has been distributed across the world since the late 20th century. The curve captures a broad trend: massive gains for the poorest in some large economies transitioning from poverty to the middle class, substantial growth for many in the middle of the global distribution, and a widening share of income accruing to the top tier in several rich countries. While the curve highlights enormous progress in lifting people out of poverty, it also spotlights growing within-country inequality in places with strong growth. This dual picture has become a focal point for debates about how to combine open markets with policies that preserve opportunity and social cohesion.
Milanovic’s work has helped popularize the distinction between global inequality (across all individuals in the world) and national inequality (within any given country). His data-driven approach argues that—even as billions rise out of poverty—marginal workers in large economies face challenges that demand careful policy design, not merely rhetorical calls for redistribution. The World Bank and other international data sources feature prominently in his analyses, and his ongoing engagement with the World Inequality Database underscores his commitment to transparent, comparable distributional statistics.
Controversies and debates
Globalization, growth, and inequality
Supporters credit Milanovic with clarifying how globalization can deliver broad improvements in global welfare while also creating pockets of persistent disadvantage. They argue that his emphasis on data-driven analysis reinforces the case for open markets, investment in human capital, and mobility as the most effective ways to reduce poverty and expand opportunity over time. Critics from some corners of the policy spectrum contend that his portrayal of globalization’s effects can understate the constraints faced by workers in highly regulated or technologically stagnant sectors, or downplay the role of domestic policy choices in shaping outcomes.
Within-country vs. between-country dynamics
A central point of contention is how to interpret the balance between improvements in global living standards and rising inequality within advanced economies. Critics argue that rising inequality in wealthy countries undermines social cohesion and can fuel political backlash, while proponents contend that the overall gains in global welfare—and the absolute improvements for many in the developing world—justify a steadfast commitment to open markets and reform. Milanovic’s framework—emphasizing both global gains and domestic frictions—invites policy designs that aim to preserve growth while strengthening opportunity, rather than retreating into protectionist or identity-focused remedies.
Woke criticisms and data interpretation
From a right-leaning analytic standpoint, some critics allege that focusing on cross-border data or on broad averages may obscure the lived experiences of marginalized groups within nations. Proponents of Milanovic’s approach respond that robust, apolitical measurement of income and wealth is essential to understanding the real drivers of economic opportunity, and that policy should be guided by evidence of what actually raises living standards. Critics who dismiss this view as insufficiently attentive to identity-based harms may argue that global metrics ignore persistent discrimination in wages or access to capital. Supporters of Milanovic’s program counter that the data do not negate the importance of equal rights and anti-discrimination; rather, they suggest that growth, education, and mobility are indispensable foundations for addressing those concerns in a durable way.
Policy implications and criticisms
A recurrent debate centers on suggested policy responses. Milanovic’s framework tends to favor policies that improve competition, tax systems, and safety nets in a way that preserves incentives while expanding opportunity. Critics may push for more aggressive redistribution, more expansive social protections, or more aggressive industrial policies. Proponents argue that, in a globally interconnected economy, the best long-run strategy is to promote entrepreneurship, expand access to education and training, and implement prudent fiscal rules that support investment in human capital without stifling growth. The discussion often returns to a simple question: how to sustain rising living standards for all citizens while maintaining a competitive, dynamic economy?