LSE - Small Logo
LSE - Small Logo

Elaine Coburn

January 21st, 2025

How the super-rich shape economies and societies

0 comments | 12 shares

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

Elaine Coburn

January 21st, 2025

How the super-rich shape economies and societies

0 comments | 12 shares

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

Are governments doing enough to address today’s widening inequalities, or are they pandering to the wealth elite? Max Steuer‘s Dangerous Guesswork in Economic Policy and Sarah Kerr‘s Wealth, Poverty and Enduring Inequality: Let’s Talk Wealtherty consider this question in different ways, from Steuer’s neoclassical economics approach to Kerr’s humanities-inflected sociology of wealth. As the relationship between the super-rich and formal political power becomes increasingly obvious, these two books convince readers why responsible economic policy is imperative to build more just societies, writes Elaine Coburn.

Dangerous Guesswork in Economic Policy. Max Steuer. Springer. 2024.

Wealth, Poverty and Enduring Inequality: Let’s Talk Wealtherty. Sarah Kerr. Policy Press. 2024.


wealtherty book coverDangerous-guesswork-book-cover

Wealth, power and economics

How do we move to economic fairness in a just society? Is this possible, when economic inequalities are rampant and the wealthy few exercise tremendous power over the many?

Two very different books invite readers to take up economic questions as key to achieving a just society: Dangerous Guesswork in Economic Policy, by the distinguished senior economist Max Steuer and Wealth, Poverty and Enduring Inequality: Let’s Talk about Wealtherty, by the policy sociologist Sarah Kerr. What is at stake in economics is both justice and democracy, which must be wrestled from the grip of the wealthy few, amidst dangerous populisms. Both authors are pessimistic, with reason, since wealth is closely tied to power and the wealthy will resist policies which diminish their own freedoms and influence. Economic knowledge is not sufficient, but it is necessary to empower us to work effectively for more equal societies and a more just world.

Beyond this shared ground, the two authors differ in important ways. Steuer’s writing is clear, direct, if sometimes peremptory in tone. He argues that economists are disinterested technical advisors and necessary to responsible government policymaking: “Economists are facilitators. You tell me what you want, and I’ll tell you how to achieve it” (10). Economists theorise, then develop simplified models and from those, create policies that shape our social life on questions as varied and vital as “inequality, global warming, pandemics” (85). We need economic expertise to move away from amateurish, dangerous and sometimes frankly dishonest populist “guesswork” about the economy – if only senior political advisors will listen.

In contrast, Kerr writes in an elliptical – frankly, sometimes convoluted – style, from an interdisciplinary perspective. For her, inequality, especially the problem of highly concentrated wealth amidst misery, is a matter for social policy makers, not economists. Suggesting a desire for broad reach, she begins and ends with a Manifesto, featuring statements like: “Make extreme wealth a social problem”. Kerr urges researchers, policymakers and publics to stop focusing on poverty, so as to better understand the wealthy and how they convert their wealth into power. This means problematising our contemporary state of “wealtherty”, a social context in which extreme wealth concentration shapes our politics and our legislation, our knowledge and ignorance, and ultimately, our ways of being. Today, the poor are surveilled and disciplined, called upon to speak and divulge their experiences. The rich are left in privacy, allowed to be silent or, if they choose to speak, credited as bringing important insights. To change these unjust realities, we need better social science – beginning by recognising wealth as a problem – and better social policy.

Even at their disinterested best, however, the businessperson’s knowledge is usually limited to a particular field, unlike the professional economist, who is broadly concerned for the economy as a whole.

Given these differences, what are the distinctive strengths and limits of Steuer and Kerr’s arguments? How do they take up economic questions, especially inequality, as important to anyone concerned with the just and democratic society?

Economics as social enquiry

In Dangerous Guesswork, Steuer draws on decades of scholarship to explain the economics profession to politicians. The market cannot be left to itself; the idea of self-regulating markets is an indefensible claim, nothing more than, “ideology gone mad” (19). Non-economist advisors are often dangerous. Businesspeople’s success is taken as proof of their skillful navigation of economic relations. Even at their disinterested best, however, the businessperson’s knowledge is usually limited to a particular field, unlike the professional economist, who is broadly concerned for the economy as a whole. As Steuer explains, “Observing, predicting, and appreciating trends in fashion and in consumer preferences is different from predicting unemployment or economic growth” (22) – and only the economist is trained in the latter.

In Steuer’s telling, the economist is a scientist who keeps an “open mind” (27) in considering diverse theories and models, using them to generate evidence and so develop informed policies. When economic policies do not work, she refines theories and models in light of the evidence.

Economists share important, basic understandings. All economies are a mix of market activity, government policies and informal (sometimes illegal) exchanges. Specialisation, like expertise in international trade, necessarily coexists with an appreciation for “the broader economy” (54) and different types of markets, including rural and urban economies. National economies are not autonomous but linked “through trade, capital movements and migration” (17). For Steuer, the professional scientific economist grounds her analyses in these shared truths, and she does so for the greater wellbeing of the economies and so the societies in which she lives.

Steuer focuses on neoclassical economics but admits that he does so “for no good reason” (26). Many alternative economics are tried – for instance, drawing lessons from historical experiences or focusing on complexity as a key feature of the economy – and rightly so. If Steuer acknowledges a necessary pluralism in the discipline, however, he does not hold back on judgements. John Maynard Keynes is “profoundly wrong” (15) when he argues that the economy is like plumbing, only mattering when it does not work. Rather, the economy is integral to everyday life and deserves sustained, serious attention. Economic decisions like funding good elementary education, for instance, can foster the individual and social virtues of curiosity and courage.

For the same reason, when Thomas Piketty argues that economics is too often separated from other forms of social inquiry, Steuer bluntly agrees (17), because “the economy is intimately interwoven with the whole social system” (87). The sophisticated economist, as opposed to the naïve politician, the ideologue, or worse, the charlatan, shares this insight.

Steuer explains why economic inequality is a key, unavoidable question with characteristic decidedness:

“But is 1% of the population owning over half of the wealth unfair? Not a scientific question, you might say, wrongly. Most people have something approaching a common sense of fairness. If something violates that sense, that is a fact of life, like the speed of light” (82).

Economic questions concern the just society, and the just society cannot tolerate the high levels of inequality that today characterise our nations and our world. To avoid the disincentives and harms arising from extreme inequality, ameliorative taxation policies, among others, are needed – and for that, economists’ expertise, and not the influence of wealthy business leaders, is required.

Overall, Dangerous Guesswork is a clear, admirably succinct and often, lively introduction to mainstream economics. Key approaches, like econometrics and major concepts, like comparative advantage, are briefly explained and illustrated with helpful examples. Steuer’s tendency to stark judgment is less attractive, undercutting his argument that there is a plurality of reasonable approaches to economic questions. His decision to use the male pronoun “almost throughout” (ix), is off-putting. In style and citational practices, Steuer gives the impression that the “economics club” (78) is made up of brilliant men – plus Janet Yellen, head of the United States’ Treasury. More timely is Steuer’s passionate plea for reasoned argument and recourse to evidence against populisms or worse, conspiracies, and his defence of more equal economic relations, as necessary to the just society.

Studying the wealthy to challenge inequality

In Enduring Inequality, Kerr considers the long histories that shape the present, marked by vast inequalities and the concentration of wealth among the few. We punish the poor, seeing them as irresponsible and suspect for their poverty. This was true in the 19th century, when women in workhouses were surveilled and punished. Kerr recalls one woman, Hannah Joyce, who in 1845 was accused of murdering her own baby, because poor women are presumed to be bad mothers; she was later exonerated. In a less extreme form, today, those seeking employment are surveilled and punished, assumed to be irresponsible, likely cheating. Access to Universal Credit, available only to those with less than £16,000 in savings, depends on “cruel and constant pressure to take on more work” – no matter how badly paid or how many different small jobs are required to make up the requisite 36 working hours.

The rich must be compelled to share what they know, especially when they cause social harms, for instance, by contributing disproportionately to global warming.

Meanwhile, the wealthy are either willfully ignored or deferred to as honorable, knowledgeable actors and advisors. Incorrect information supplied on a tax form is not considered fraud, as it would be for a poor person, but an “error”; an accommodating system of “nudges and prompts” encourages more fulsome, accurate disclosure. Wealthy landlords are left alone, even when their rental practices harm less well-off tenants by creating “insecure housing conditions”. They have access to the state, where they are welcomed as credible interlocutors, so directly shaping state policies.

If we reverse this state of affairs by more closely surveilling the rich, Kerr argues, we can better understand inequality. The rich must be compelled to share what they know, especially when they cause social harms, for instance, by contributing disproportionately to global warming.

Unfortunately, Kerr’s book – written from a PhD thesis – still reads like an enthusiastic doctoral student’s pell-mell exploration of ideas about economic inequality, rather than a sustained, clear argument. There are major inconsistencies. The reader is told, unequivocally, to “stop talking about poverty”, and that, “[t]alking about poverty focuses attention on the symptoms of the problem” only to read multiple chapters focused on the poor, from 19th century workhouses to the experiences of women, today, forced into sex work to survive. In fact, Kerr means to say, and elsewhere does say, that the wealthy must be studied in relation to the poor. Avoiding misleading slogans and inconsistent arguments is important in a book that seeks to intervene in policy debates and sway publics.

Unhappily, Kerr’s use of key concepts slips and slides across the text. Borrowing from other scholars, for instance, she distinguishes “ordinary wealth”, or what is minimally required for a good life, like “security”, from “excess” or “surplus” wealth, meaning concentrated assets far beyond what is required to meet needs. Once established, the distinction is not sustained, in the chapter or across the book. Often, Kerr writes simply about “the rich” and “the poor” but elsewhere, she describes the rich as “capitalists”, drawing on a Marxist language of political economy that she otherwise (mostly) eschews. This is not an inevitable feature of interdisciplinarity but significant confusion around a key concept.

Most of Kerr’s discussion of “wealtherty” could have more impact if made more direct. Take this statement:

“Weatherty is a new frame for the state we are in that places the critical analysis of wealth at the heart of social policy debates. It creates new space in which to think. Let’s stop talking about poverty and talk about wealtherty if we want to tackle inequality.”

Why not simply write, “Instead of focusing on poverty, social policy debates must consider the relationship between wealth and poverty if we want to tackle inequality”. Or even, “Instead of focusing exclusively on poverty, let’s talk about inequality.”

Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg, five billionaires, sat together at the inauguration of Donald Trump’s second presidency in the US on January 20, 2025, in front of Trump’s cabinet. The relationship between the very rich and formal political power has never been so obvious.

Finally, the neologism “wealtherty” is unnecessary and worse, actively distracts from (what I take to be) Kerr’s main argument: We live in an unjust society, characterised by a high concentration of wealth and political power amidst terrible poverty and associated powerlessness. We study and discipline the poor, compelling their voices but not listening to their insights, while giving credence to the wealthy as knowledgeable actors, when we do not simply leave them alone to enjoy their privacy. This must end. We need to better understand inequality and in particular, the very wealthy and how they produce and sustain unequal relationships. Kerr’s book has important ideas; the manuscript deserved a more rigorous peer review and editing process in service of her argument.

Critical conversations in an unequal world

These interventions are timely and necessary. In the UK, Rishi Sunak, (Prime Minister from 2022 to 2024) holds a fortune estimated at about £730 million. Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg, five billionaires, sat together at the inauguration of Donald Trump’s second presidency in the US on January 20, 2025, in front of Trump’s cabinet. The relationship between the very rich and formal political power has never been so obvious. In this context, Steuer and Kerr’s books usefully insist that economic inequality is a major problem and that economic questions matter to us all. Rightly, they invite us to challenge inequalities and the concentration of wealth. If we care about living in just, democratic societies, we cannot do less.


Note: This review gives the views of the author and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Main image creditFree Malaysia Today

Enjoyed this post? Subscribe to our newsletter for a round-up of the latest reviews sent straight to your inbox every other Tuesday.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

About the author

Two grey pencils on yellow background

Elaine Coburn

Elaine Coburn is Associate Professor of International Studies at York University in Toronto, Canada. Her writing is concerned with unjust inequalities. She has published in the International Feminist Review of Politics, Philosophy Today and Political Studies, as well as Herizons, the Literary Review of Canada and Philosophy Now, among other places.

Posted In: Book Reviews | Britain and Ireland | Business | Economics | LSE Book | Sociology/Anthropology

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.