From 1909 to 1933 the financial sector was a high-education, high-wage industry. The share of skilled workers was 17 percent points higher than the private sector; these workers were paid more than 50 percent more than in the rest of the private sector, on average. A dramatic shift occurred during the 1930s: the financial sector starts losing its high human capital and high-wage status. Most of the decline occurs by 1950, but continues slowly until 1980. By that time, the relative wage in the financial sector is approximately the same as in the rest of the economy. From 1980 onwards another dramatic shift occurs: the financial sector becomes a high-skill, high-wage industry again. In a striking reversal, its relative wage and skill intensity goes back almost exactly to their levels of the 1930s.
Bankers were the backbone of the super-elite in the first part of the century; then, starting with the Great Depression, their incomes leveled off, continuing in that period between World War II and 1970 when banking was a stable, boring business, like a utility. Then, from 1980, finance got more complicated and income again soared, eventually reaching the level of 1933. What is especially interesting about this data, which Philippon and Reshef were the first to put together, is how closely it follows the rise, fall, and then rise again of income inequality in the United States. Philippon and Reshef find that the rise of finance accounts for 26 percent of the increase in the gap between the top 10 percent and everyone else over the past four decades. This is partly because finance became a magnet for highly educated Americans. But in a trend Goldin and Katz also document, and which seems to have been intuitively understood in Harvard Yard twenty years ago, the same skills and experience deliver a super-return when deployed on Wall Street as compared to anywhere else in the economy. Philippon and Reshef call this the “finance wage premium” and estimate it at 30 percent to 40 percent.
The second important piece of the puzzle is figuring out why the behavior of bankers followed this U-shape. Why was banking far less popular and prestigious than law and medicine for the Harvard men of 1970, while the class of 1990 flocked to Wall Street? The economists measure the impact of various changes, including globalization, the technological revolution, and financial innovations like the creation of mathematically complex credit derivatives. All of them have some impact, but they find that the change with the single greatest explanatory power is deregulation, which they calculate has driven nearly a quarter of the increase in incomes in finance and 40 percent of the increase in the education of workers in that sector. Volcker and his smartest classmates chose to become professors and civil servants. Today, many of Harvard’s smartest economists choose Wall Street.
Emerging market oligarchs who owe their initial fortunes to sweetheart privatizations are perhaps the most obvious beneficiaries of rent-seeking. But through financial deregulation, Western governments, especially in Washington and London, played an even greater role in the rise of the global super-elite. As with the sale of state assets in developing economies, the role of deregulation in creating a plutocracy turns classic thinking about rent- seeking upside down. Deregulation was part of a global liberalization drive whose goal was to pull the state out of the economy and let market forces rule. But one of its consequences was to give the state a direct role in choosing winners and losers—in this case, giving financial engineers a leg up.
Christopher Meyer, a management consultant at the Monitor Group, recently wrote a book about emerging market businesses and how they will reshape the global economy. Rent-seeking is obviously a big part of his story. But when I asked him which country’s businesspeople were the world’s champion rent-seekers, his answer surprised me: “In the financial industry, the United States has the most co-opted regulatory apparatus.” He went on to explain: “They are so innovative. They are driven to do it, and they’re doing a great job of what they’re paid to do. I don’t think this comes out of evil. I think this comes out of what we call runaway effects. The more you get incented to do it, the more you do it. And because so much of our incentive system is financial, then that’s what we got. We’re getting what we pay for, literally. And so Wall Street’s done a fabulous job of making the world safe for Wall Street.”
One telltale sign the state is deciding who gets rich is how much time and money plutocrats spend on selecting their government and influencing its decisions. As before, the answer is hardly contrarian. But when IMF economists Deniz Igan, Prachi Mishra, and Thierry Tressel set out to document how powerful the influence of Wall Street was on Washington, their conclusion, framed in sober academic language, was as incendiary as any agitprop from the Tea Party or OWS. The killer fact was their finding that between 2000 and 2006 laws increasing regulation of the finance and real estate sectors had just a 5 percent chance of passing. Laws that deregulated were three times more likely to pass.
One Russian oligarch told me that a pleasant surprise for him during the privatizations of the 1990s was that you didn’t have to bribe many of the country’s most senior technocrats. “Well, of course, I wrote the law myself, and I took special care with it,” Konstantin Kagalovsky told me, still, a couple of years later, delighted at the power of ideas. That was also true in the first decade of this century in Washington: Igan and Mishra found, predictably, that more conservative politicians, who were ideologically broadly in favor of less regulation, were more likely to back legislation that loosened the rules.
But direct intervention played a key role, too. Igan and Mishra found that the finance and real estate sectors spent $2.2 billion lobbying Washington between 1999 and 2006, reaching a peak of $720 million in the 2005–2006 period. In keeping with the sector’s relatively increasing weight within the super-elite overall, its lobbying spending grew faster than that of business generally, and accounted for more than 15 percent of all lobbying spending in D.C. by 2006. Good news for Wall Street’s government relations officers—their money worked: “Lobbying expenditures by the affected financial firms were significantly associated with how politicians voted on the key bills.”
What’s especially important about this study is that it documents the relationship between Wall Street and Washington before the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent multitrillion-dollar bailout. That rescue is what prompted populist anger on both right and left and claims, as Sarah Palin put it in an op-ed in the
Dani Kaufmann grew up in Chile. He was studying at Hebrew University when Pinochet seized power in a coup in 1973, and elected not to return, ending up instead at Harvard, where he eventually earned a PhD in economics. His next stop was the World Bank, where he worked on Africa and then, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the transition to capitalism in what used to be the Warsaw Pact states. By the time Kaufmann returned to World Bank headquarters in Washington, he knew that his life’s project would be to study corruption and its opposite, good governance, two themes he knew well from his work in Africa and the former Soviet Union, and viscerally from his Latin American roots.
But as Kaufmann looked further into rent-seeking around the world, the ways that it slowed economic development, and how it could be stopped, he discovered something that surprised him. The naked forms of corruption that development organizations and NGOs agonized over most—bribes demanded by government officials with coercive power, like policemen, or required for ordinary state services, like teaching, or even despots extracting their nation’s wealth and sending it to numbered Swiss bank accounts—were only part of the story.
About $1 trillion, by Kaufmann’s estimate, was paid in outright bribes around the world every year. But orders of magnitude more money was being made thanks to what he dubbed “legal corruption”: “The cost to society of bribing a bureaucrat to obtain a permit to operate a small firm pales in comparison with, say, a telecommunications conglomerate that corrupts a politician to shape the rules of the game granting it monopolistic rights, or an investment bank influencing the regulatory and oversight regime governing it.”
As he developed the idea, Kaufmann started to try to measure it. One idea he had was to ask global business leaders themselves, as identified by the World Economic Forum, to rate levels of both explicit corruption, such as bribery, and legal corruption, like campaign contributions and lobbying, in 104 countries. The results confirmed his hunch, especially when it came to the United States. Predictably, the United States was ranked one of the least nakedly corrupt countries in the survey, coming in at twenty-five, just below Canada and well above countries like Italy, Spain, and South Korea. But when it came to legal corruption, the business leaders put the United States at fifty-three, squarely in the middle of the global pack, and worryingly close to countries like Russia, in position seventy-four, and India, at seventy.
Suggestively, the countries where the surge in income at the very top has been most marked—the United States, the United Kingdom, and fast-growing emerging markets like Russia, India, and China—also rank relatively high in Kaufmann’s legal corruption table. That connection is most marked when you compare the high-inequality
