Joseph E. Stiglitz

Nobel 2001 | Can economics solve income inequality?

Joseph Stiglitz doesn’t shy away from tough questions. The Nobel Laureate of 2001 has been the chief economist of the World Bank as well as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors to former US president Bill Clinton. Whatever arena he enters, 'Gentleman Joe' reaches the top.

As a public speaker, he hits the headlines by tackling the most hostile issues of our time. With brutal honesty, he debates topics like climate change, financial crises, the eurozone and the widening gap between the rich and poor. He’s been published in the Financial Times and interviewed by nearly every TV network across the globe. The economist is a thought leader whose sharp mind is paired with a high moral standard and it’s his voice for the poor that comes up whenever he talks about the imperfections of markets.

Joseph E. Stiglitz

Joseph E. Stiglitz

Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences, 2001

At a glance

Born: 1943, Gary, Indiana, USA

Field: Macroeconomics

Prize-winning work: Pioneering theory on markets with asymmetric information

Quirks: Chewing his undershirt while reading, sticks pencils in his ears while thinking

Irritating: Pronounces "United States" like "United Steaks"

How can you convince people that being selfish helps no one?

Stiglitz sees the inequality of global societies as the root of the worst conflicts in what he refers to as our "wrongly ruled economy."

Selfishness leads to even the selfish people being worse off.

Why should we pick up the tab for other people?

Has this question inspired you?

Get the latest Nobel perspectives delivered to you.

The economist points to the one percent of our society, who in his opinion, are responsible for the growing gap between rich and poor.

"Let me give you an example," he says, straightening up his chair to talk about quantitative easing which is when a country’s central bank introduces new cash into the economy. "I understand the drive for it but think about how that works. It basically floods the economy with liquidity. In fact, investment is lower as a percentage of GDP, which props up stock prices.”

“And who wins when the stock price goes up?” he asks. “Those who own the shares. Who is that? The people at the top. What about the poor retirees depending on government bonds for their retirement? Their interest rates have gone down. This is a policy that has not led to more growth but more inequality."

How can we solve income inequality?

Why can’t we create jobs for people who want to work?

Stiglitz focuses on statistics, instead of economic development headlines.

“Income in the middle of the United States is lower than it was 25 years ago,” he says. “Medium income of a full-time male worker is lower than it was 40 years ago, and the real wages at the bottom are lower than they were 60 years ago.”

The economist seethes at politicians who rave about welfare programs. "These people don’t wanna be on welfare, they wanna work for a living,” he says. “And yet our economic system has failed them. They’re right to be angry.”

Who’s to blame for the financial crisis?

Stiglitz believes that this anger – the anger of those who feel left behind – is a natural social repercussion of a market that doesn’t work. The most recent case being the financial crisis of 2008. When it comes to who’s responsible, Stiglitz doesn’t hesitate.

"My theories had explained why it was so important to regulate and since one of the central problems with the financial market was gathering information, we shouldn’t expect the financial sector to work well,” Stiglitz says. “Anybody who studied history knew that they had repeatedly behaved badly. So, to me, the economists who said we didn’t need regulations were in part to blame for the deregulation that allowed the bankers to behave so badly."

Paul Donovan
Paul Donovan Global Chief Economist UBS Wealth Management

In the aftermath of any major economic upheaval there’s a tendency to look for a single culprit, a scapegoat who can carry the burden of responsibility. This offers a conveniently simple narrative, and a conveniently simple solution: one thing is wrong, redress that wrong and the problem can never occur again. The danger with the scapegoat approach is that it’s incomplete. Crises are complex events with complex causes, and taking a simple scapegoat approach may create a dangerous complacency when other causes of the problems are overlooked.

Joseph Stiglitz correctly identifies the banking sector as a major cause of the 2008 / 2009 financial crisis. There is no doubt that people working in banks made huge errors. However, putting all of the blame on banks and banks lobbying for deregulation, and putting faith in future reregulation as a bulwark against future crises, seems a dangerously narrow interpretation of the factors building the crisis.

The idea that banks collectively pursued a common goal of deregulation, leading to the crisis, suggests a degree of direction and coordination that anyone who has worked in a bank can testify does not exist. Banks did want deregulation, but many politicians were ideologically in favor as well. The credit cycle was supporting prosperity and prosperity is always politically popular. Indeed politicians went so far as to castigate banks for not doing enough to lend to low-income earners in the years before the crisis. Banks were told to stop using ‘unreasonable measures of creditworthiness’. There were threats of fines for banks that did not lend to certain lower income groups.


In addition to politicians, two other groups must take some responsibility. In the years before the financial crisis, the media (in particular the financial media) were aggressive in support of leverage and castigated those who pursued more staid banking policies. As media stories, regardless of their accuracy, have an impact on the share price of a company, the management of banks was judged by a standard that was skewed in favor of risk-taking. The behavior of bank managements was shaped by this climate.


And finally, when it comes to the borrowers themselves, some may have been borrowing unrealistic amounts - and while social pressures and rising income inequality might have aggravated this, they should share some of the responsibility.

None of this is to deny that banks and limited regulation conspired to create the crisis. But an approach which focuses on the banking sector and ignores or exonerates other factors, risks creating another crisis. Media and politicians pushed banks to take risks, perhaps excessive risks. Society pushed borrowers to borrow unrealistic amounts of money. A somewhat broader assessment of the causes of the crisis than those offered by Joseph Stilglitz would be prudent.

What role did economists play in the financial crisis?

Can we create a more equal world?

Stiglitz doesn’t believe that there’s an overnight fix for the economy but there is an agenda, he says, that can bring the economy back to strong growth. As a growing number of disenfranchised citizens search for hope in right-wing parties, it’s needed now more than ever.

We wrote the rules once before to make the economy more unequal, he says. “And now we have to rewrite them once again to make them more equal.

"Give workers more bargaining rights, curb the power of corporations, create better corporate governance,” he says. “Curb the power of the financial sector, which grew from 2.5 percent to 8 percent of GDP with no evidence of any increase in productivity of our economy as a whole, and plenty of evidence of increased instability and inequality."

Has this question inspired you?

Get the latest Nobel perspectives delivered to you.

Where does this voice for the poor come from?

Born in 1943, only a few years after the Great Depression, Stiglitz spent his childhood in Gary, Indiana, a poor, industrial town defined by racial discrimination, high levels of inequality and episodic unemployment. It was his parents who encouraged him to do something to benefit all members of society.

Joseph Stiglitz
Stiglitz High School Portrait 1953-1954

Stiglitz earned a full scholarship to Amherst College, where he originally had his heart set on physics. He later realized that a degree in economics would be the best way for him to tackle social inequality, so he began working on his PhD at the elite Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

After studying, and living through, recessions, depressions and financial crises, Stiglitz succeeded in undermining the presumption that markets always work. To him, it’s because they operate on imperfect or asymmetric information – in other words, markets in which one party has better or more information than the other. This, in Stiglitz’s view, was a primary contributor to economic inequality. The research won him the Nobel Prize in 2001, shared with George Akerlof and Michael Spence. Together they defined an alternative school of thought which changed the field profoundly.

Was economics based on fraud? 

Is globalization responsible for suffering?

With the help of his Nobel-winning economic framework, Stiglitz uncovered more gaps in the system and found possible solutions to fill them. He swings back and forth from studying microeconomics to macroeconomics. "Different countries are in different situations and we need basic norms that apply to everywhere," he says.

"Developing countries need to be able to pursue their development. So in my mind, we need global rules about climate change, to say if you pollute, you can’t trade. You can’t sell us goods produced in your factories that are contributing to global warming."

How can we make globalization work for everyone?

If you ask Stiglitz how he stays focused on all the different issues of our future economy, he remembers refers to one pivotal moment in his life. Washington D.C., August 28, 1963. Stiglitz was one of 250,000 people who stood in front of the Lincoln Memorial to hear Martin Luther King declare his famous words "I have a dream."

"It was such a moment, a moment not only of a speech, it was a moment of faith in American democracy." But the economist becomes reflective when he admits that King’s dream has yet to be realized. "I don’t think he fully realized how bad things were going to get in the area of economic divides. And his speech is, in a sense, a marker in our history and something that all of us need to consider when we think about where our country is going."

What’s the most important thing for people to learn?

This moment of emotional introspection is quickly interrupted by his assistant, a meeting with some other professors is next on the agenda. The workaholic takes his last moment to give advice to the younger generation and shares an important message he received from his parents.

First, they said ‘Money will never make you happy.’ Secondly, they said ‘God has given you a great brain. Use it.’ And the third thing they said is ‘Be a service to others.

Are these words the foundation of his success? “I guess it was that mixture of idealism,” he says smiling. “What mattered was what you did and your ideas. And maybe a mild dose of overconfidence."

Why do countries have to find better ways to grow?

Hear Michael Spence's view on how countries can grow sustainably while having a long-lasting positive impact.

UBS Nobel Perspectives Webinar Series

Joseph Stiglitz featured in our second UBS Nobel Perspectives webinar as part of the series. He joined Evan Brown, Head of Multi-Asset Strategy, in a webinar to discuss in detail the implications of the pandemic and what it means for investors.

More Nobel Laureate stories

Paul R. Krugman

Does globalization lead to inequality?

Paul R. Krugman

Nobel Laureate, 2008

Sir Arthur Lewis

Why does it not pay to exploit the poor?

Sir Arthur Lewis

Nobel Laureate, 1979

Has this question inspired you?

Get the latest Nobel Perspectives updates delivered to you.