Roma, Italia 

 

DOI:

Abstract

Over the past decades, rising income inequality and persistent global imbalances have become defining features of the international economy. While these phenomena are typically analyzed separately, this article argues that they are closely connected through both economic and political mechanisms.

On the economic side, increasing income concentration raises aggregate savings and weakens consumption, potentially generating excess savings and cross-border capital flows. However, this relationship is not purely mechanical. Similar distributional shifts can produce different macroeconomic outcomes depending on domestic institutions and policy choices.

The article’s main contribution is to show that inequality also shapes the political coalitions underpinning national growth strategies. By influencing preferences over wages, redistribution, and demand management, these coalitions affect whether weak domestic demand is offset through export-led growth, credit expansion, or other mechanisms. Global imbalances, in this perspective, are not only the outcome of international market forces but also the international expression of domestic distributional arrangements. Understanding their persistence therefore requires integrating macroeconomic analysis with a political economy approach to inequality and global adjustment.

Introduction

Over the past four decades, rising income inequality and persistent international imbalances have become two defining features of the global economy. In many advanced economies, a growing share of national income has accrued to top earners, while wage growth for large segments of the population has remained comparatively weak. At the same time, some countries have repeatedly run large current account surpluses, while others have maintained persistent deficits.

These developments are often examined in separate literatures. Inequality is typically studied within national economies, in relation to labor markets, taxation, and distributional change. Global imbalances, by contrast, are usually discussed in terms of trade dynamics, exchange rates, and international capital flows. Yet there are strong reasons to view them as closely connected.

This article argues that the relationship between inequality and global imbalances is not only macroeconomic but also political. Its main contribution is to show that the effects of inequality on external balances are mediated by domestic political coalitions and growth models, which shape how economies respond to weak domestic demand. To understand how this connection works, it is necessary to begin with the effects of inequality on consumption, saving, and aggregate demand.

Inequality, Consumption, and Aggregate Demand

Income distribution has important implications for aggregate demand. Households at different income levels exhibit different consumption and saving patterns. Lower- and middle-income households typically spend a larger share of their income on consumption, while wealthier households tend to save a greater proportion of what they earn.

For this reason, shifts in income distribution can influence overall demand in the economy. When income becomes more concentrated among high-income households, consumption tends to grow more slowly while savings increase. This dynamic can weaken domestic demand and alter the balance between savings and investment.

Recent research has emphasized the importance of this mechanism. Economists such as Atif Mian, Ludwig Straub, and Amir Sufi have shown that high-income households tend to save a significantly larger share of their income than lower-income households. As income becomes more concentrated at the top of the distribution, the aggregate saving rate of the economy tends to rise.

Evidence from the United States illustrates this pattern clearly. Estimates suggest that households in the highest income percentiles save two to three times more of their income than middle-income households. When income shifts toward these groups, the overall level of savings in the economy increases.

In open economies, these dynamics can have international consequences. If domestic savings rise faster than investment opportunities, excess savings may flow abroad through international financial markets. In this way, changes in income distribution can influence not only domestic economic performance but also global patterns of capital flows.

These demand effects are closely linked to changes in aggregate saving, which help explain how domestic distributional shifts can generate external consequences.

Inequality and Saving Behavior

Because higher-income households save a larger share of their income, rising inequality can increase the overall saving rate of the economy.

Higher savings can support domestic investment, but savings and investment do not always move together. When domestic absorption remains weak, excess savings tend to flow abroad.

This dynamic helps explain why some countries have persistently run large current account surpluses. Germany provides a clear example. Over the past decade, the country has recorded some of the largest external surpluses among advanced economies, frequently exceeding 7 percent of GDP. Moderate wage growth and strong export performance have contributed to a situation in which national savings exceed domestic investment.

China has exhibited a somewhat different but related pattern. During the mid-2000s, China’s current account surplus approached 10 percent of GDP while national savings exceeded 40 percent of GDP. Although the surplus has declined since then, China remains one of the world’s largest sources of global savings.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke famously described this phenomenon as part of a broader “global saving glut,” referring to the accumulation of excess savings in some economies that are then invested abroad. A significant portion of these savings has flowed into the financial markets of advanced economies.

In an open and financially integrated world economy, these domestic saving dynamics do not remain confined within national borders but feed into broader patterns of international imbalance.

Inequality and the Persistence of Global Imbalances

The mechanisms discussed above help explain the persistence of global imbalances in the contemporary international economy. Countries with high saving rates tend to accumulate sustained current account surpluses, while others absorb those savings through persistent deficits.

The United States has played a central role in this system. The depth and liquidity of its financial markets, together with the international role of the dollar, have made the United States a major destination for global capital flows. For decades, the country has run persistent current account deficits while attracting large inflows of foreign capital.

Foreign investors hold trillions of dollars in U.S. financial assets, particularly Treasury securities. This process allows surplus economies to invest their excess savings abroad while enabling the United States to sustain higher levels of consumption and investment.

Seen from this perspective, global imbalances reflect deeper structural differences in how economies generate and absorb savings. Differences in consumption patterns, saving behavior, and income distribution can all contribute to the emergence of persistent imbalances in the global economy.

Yet macroeconomic mechanisms alone cannot explain why similar distributional shifts produce different external outcomes across countries. To understand that variation, it is necessary to consider the political coalitions and institutional settings through which inequality is mediated.

Inequality, Political Coalitions, and the Reproduction of Global Imbalances

Rising inequality does not affect global imbalances only through household saving behavior. It can also shape the political choices that define how an economy grows. Once inequality is seen not just as an economic outcome, but also as a source of political influence, the link between domestic income concentration and external imbalances becomes clearer.

As income and wealth become more concentrated, higher-income groups often gain greater influence over economic policy and public debate. These groups tend to prefer low inflation, fiscal restraint, and institutional arrangements that protect returns on capital. They may also be less supportive of redistributive policies aimed at strengthening mass consumption, especially when those policies require higher taxes, faster wage growth, or a more active role for the state.

Over time, these preferences can become embedded in national growth strategies. In some economies, coalitions formed around business interests, export sectors, and affluent households may support wage restraint, limited redistribution, and export competitiveness as the main engines of growth. The result is an economy in which domestic demand remains relatively weak, savings stay high, and current account surpluses persist. In this sense, external imbalances are not simply market outcomes. They are also shaped and sustained politically.

This matters because it shifts the argument away from a purely mechanical story about savings. Inequality does not automatically produce either surpluses or deficits. What matters is how different political economies manage the consequences of weak mass purchasing power. In some cases, this weakness is offset through exports; in others, through household debt or financial expansion. Global imbalances therefore reflect not only differences in savings and investment, but also different political responses to distributional pressures.

Seen in this way, global imbalances are not just the by-product of trade or finance. They are also, at least in part, the international expression of domestic distributional choices. Persistent surpluses and deficits reflect how countries organize wages, redistribution, credit, and demand. A political economy perspective helps explain why these imbalances can endure for so long: they are often tied to domestic growth models that benefit powerful groups at home.

Once global imbalances are understood as politically embedded rather than purely macroeconomic outcomes, their broader geopolitical implications become easier to see.

Inequality, Global Imbalances, and Geopolitical Tensions

Persistent global imbalances can also have important geopolitical consequences. When large surpluses and deficits endure over time, they often become politically contentious, particularly in deficit economies where external imbalances may be perceived as a sign of structural disadvantage or unfair competition.

These tensions can translate into political pressure for protectionist measures, industrial policy, and efforts to rebalance trade. Recent trade disputes between major economies illustrate how persistent imbalances can become central to broader economic and political conflicts, especially when they intersect with concerns about domestic inequality and uneven growth.

Global imbalances may also contribute to financial instability. Large cross-border capital flows increase financial interconnectedness and can expose economies to sudden shifts in investor sentiment. Episodes such as the global financial crisis of 2008 highlighted how persistent differences in saving and investment across countries can create systemic vulnerabilities.

When rooted in domestic distributional dynamics, these imbalances may prove particularly difficult to unwind. Policies that sustain them are often tied to nationally embedded growth models and politically influential groups, making adjustment costly and contested.

In a context of growing geopolitical rivalry, structural imbalances in trade and finance can therefore become part of broader strategic competition between major powers, reinforcing tensions in an already fragile international economic order.

Conclusion

Over the past decades, rising income inequality and persistent global imbalances have become defining features of the international economy. While these phenomena are often analyzed separately, this article has argued that they are closely connected through both economic and political mechanisms.

Changes in income distribution shape how households consume and save, influencing aggregate demand and the balance between domestic spending and external adjustment. As income becomes more concentrated, higher saving rates and weaker consumption can contribute to the emergence of excess savings and cross-border capital flows.

However, the relationship between inequality and global imbalances is not purely mechanical. Similar distributional shifts can lead to different macroeconomic outcomes depending on how they are mediated by domestic institutions and policy choices. Inequality does not automatically translate into either current account surpluses or deficits.

This article has argued that inequality also reshapes the political coalitions that underpin national growth strategies. By influencing preferences over wages, redistribution, credit, and demand management, distributional change affects how economies adjust to weak domestic demand. In some cases, this adjustment takes the form of export-oriented growth and sustained external surpluses; in others, it relies on credit expansion and the persistence of external deficits.

Seen in this light, global imbalances are not only the by-product of international market forces. They are also the international expression of domestic distributional arrangements and politically embedded growth models. This perspective helps explain why such imbalances can persist over time, even when their economic risks are widely recognized.

These dynamics also carry broader implications for the international system. Persistent imbalances can generate political tensions, reinforce financial dependencies, and increase the risk of instability, particularly when they are tied to domestic structures that are difficult to reform. In a context of growing geopolitical rivalry, structural asymmetries in trade and finance may therefore become part of broader strategic competition between major powers.

Addressing persistent global imbalances may therefore require more than exchange rate adjustments or trade policy coordination. If such imbalances are partly rooted in domestic distributional dynamics, policy responses may also need to include measures that strengthen mass purchasing power and reduce structural dependence on either export-led adjustment or debt-driven consumption. In this sense, stronger wage growth, redistributive tax policies, broader social protection, and forms of financial regulation may all play a role in reducing the domestic pressures that sustain external imbalances.

A more balanced international economy may therefore depend not only on international coordination, but also on domestic reforms capable of addressing inequality as a structural source of macroeconomic and geopolitical instability.

References

Baccaro, L. and Pontusson, J. (2016). Rethinking comparative political economy: The growth model perspective. Politics & Society, 44(2), pp. 175-207.

Behringer, J. and van Treeck, T. (2018). Income distribution and the current account: A sectoral perspective. Journal of International Economics, 114, pp. 238-254.

Bernanke, B. S. (2005). The global saving glut and the U.S. current account deficit. Sandridge Lecture, Virginia Association of Economists.

Caballero, R. J., Farhi, E. and Gourinchas, P.-O. (2008). An equilibrium model of “global imbalances” and low interest rates. American Economic Review, 98(1), pp. 358-393.

Chinn, M. D. and Prasad, E. S. (2003). Medium-term determinants of current accounts in industrial and developing countries: An empirical exploration. Journal of International Economics, 59(1), pp. 47-76.

Kumhof, M. and Ranciere, R. (2010). Inequality, leverage and crises. IMF Working Paper No. 10/268.

Kumhof, M., Ranciere, R. and Winant, P. (2015). Inequality, leverage, and crises. American Economic Review Papers & Proceedings, 105(5), pp. 121-125.

Mian, A., Straub, L. and Sufi, A. (2020). The saving glut of the rich. NBER Working Paper No. 26941.

Obstfeld, M. and Rogoff, K. (2009). Global imbalances and the financial crisis: Products of common causes. In: Asia and the Global Financial Crisis. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

Onaran, O. and Galanis, G. (2014). Income distribution and growth: A global model. Environment and Planning A, 46(10), pp. 2489-2513.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rodrik, D. (2011). The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. New York: W.W. Norton.

Stockhammer, E. (2015). Rising inequality as a cause of the present crisis. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39(3), pp. 935-958.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The Price of Inequality. New York: W.W. Norton.

Summers, L. H. (2014). U.S. economic prospects: Secular stagnation, hysteresis, and the zero lower bound. Business Economics, 49(2), pp. 65-73.

***

Autrice dell’articolo:

Filippo Adinolfi, laureato in Economia Politica presso l’Università La Sapienza di Roma.

 

 

***

Nota della redazione del Think Tank Trinità dei Monti

Come sempre pubblichiamo i nostri lavori per stimolare altre riflessioni, che possano portare ad integrazioni e approfondimenti. 

* I contenuti e le valutazioni dell’intervento sono di esclusiva responsabilità dell’autore.

Editor’s Note – Think Tank Trinità dei Monti

As always, we publish our articles to encourage debates, and to spread knowledge and original and alternative points of view.

* The contents and the opinions of this article belong to the author(s) of this article only.