Is the Relationship of Wealth Inequality with the Real, Financial and Housing Cycle Country-Specific?

  • Connor Bryant
  • Bernd SüssmuthEmail author
Original Paper


Relying on the methodology of deviation cycle dynamics, we analyze whether the association of wealth inequality measures and the real, financial and housing cycle are nationally idiosyncratic. Making use of recently available long time series for France, the United Kingdom (U.K.) and the United States (U.S.), we establish evidence in support of stock market returns co-moving with wealth concentration. However, this holds only for time series of the two studied Anglo-Saxon economies. The top one percent wealth share dynamics evolve procyclically across the housing, real and financial cycle dimension for the U.S. only. Cyclical growth of the French national product coincides with a falling wealth share of top and bottom percentiles and an increasing share of the middle class. No corresponding relationship was found for the U.S. and the U.K. Vector autoregressions (VAR) with single-shock identification confirm our frequency domain results. In the VAR(X) estimates, controlling for the subprime mortgage crisis statistically matters for the wealth concentration response to shocks in housing and stock prices and gross domestic product for the U.S. A control for the European sovereign debt crisis in the case of France is statistically insignificant.


Wealth inequality dynamics Economic fluctuations Frequency domain analysis 


C22 D31 E32 



We thank Gregor von Schweinitz, the editor, and two anonymous referees for very helpful comments and suggestions that markedly improved our paper.

Supplementary material

11293_2019_9630_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (74 kb)
(PDF 73.8 KB)


  1. Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., Zucman, G. (2017). Global inequality dynamics: New findings from WID world. American Economic Review, 107 (5), 404–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Artis, M., Marcellino, M., Proietti, T. (2004). Dating business cycles: A methodological contribution with an application to the euro area. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 66(4), 537–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter, M., & King, R.G. (1999). Measuring business cycles:, Approximate band-pass filters for economic time series. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(4), 575–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernanke, B. S., Boivin, J., Eliasz, P. (2005). Measuring the effects of monetary policy: A factor-augmented vector autoregressive (FAVAR) approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(1), 387–422.Google Scholar
  5. Cagetti, M., & De Nardi, M. (2008). Wealth inequality: Data and models. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 12(s2), 285–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christiano, L.J., Eichenbaum, M., Evans, C.L. (1999). Monetary policy shocks: What have we learned and to what end? In Woodford, M., & Taylor, J. (Eds.) Handbook of Macroeconomics, 1(A), North Holland: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 66–147.Google Scholar
  7. Christiano, L. J., & Fitzgerald, T.J. (2003). The band pass filter. International Economic Review, 44(2), 435–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fagereng, A., Guiso, L., Malacrino, D., Pistaferri, L. (2016). Heterogeneity and persistence in returns to wealth. NBER Working Paper, 22822,
  9. Hodrick, R. J., & Prescott, E.C. (1997). Postwar U.S. business cycles:, An empirical investigation. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 29(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Igan, D., & Loungani, P. (2012). Global housing cycles. International Monetary Fund (IMF) Working Paper 2012/217,
  11. Knoll, K., Schularick, M., Steger, T. (2017). No price like home: Global house prices, 1870-2012. American Economic Review, 107(2), 331–353. dataset: Scholar
  12. Kohl, S. (2019). The political economy of homeownership: a comparative analysis of homeownership ideology through party manifestos. forthcoming in Socio-Economic Review; ahead of print access:
  13. Komlos, J. (2019). Reaganomics: A historical watershed moment on the road to Trumpism. forthcoming in The Economists’ Voice; ahead of print access:
  14. Kuhn, M., Schularick, M., Steins, U.I. (2017). Income and wealth inequality in America, 1949-2016. CESifo Working Paper, 6608,
  15. Milanovic, B. (2014). The return of “patrimonial capitalism”: A review of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Economic Literature, 52 (2), 519–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Multpl. (2018). Inflation adjusted S&P 500. Open source economic data provider, original source: Standard & Poor’s (; dataset:
  17. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2008). Growing unequal? Income distribution and poverty in OECD countries. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): Paris, France.Google Scholar
  18. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). Main economic indicators: Finance (edition 2017/04). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): Paris, France; dataset:
  19. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital is back: Wealth-income ratios in rich countries 1700–2010. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3), 1255–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2016). Wealth inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from capitalized income tax data. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(2), 519–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schüler, Y.S., Hiebert, P.P., Peltonen, T.A. (2017). Coherent financial cycles for G-7 countries: Why extending credit can be an asset. European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) Working Paper, 43,
  23. World Inequality Database. (2018). World inequality database; dataset:

Copyright information

© International Atlantic Economic Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economic & Social Development, EKOSGlasgowScotland
  2. 2.University of Leipzig, Institute for Empirical Research in EconomicsLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.CESifoMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations