IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jecomi/v12y2024i9p232-d1467210.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inequality in the Distribution of Wealth and Income as a Natural Consequence of the Equal Opportunity of All Members in the Economic System Represented by a Scale-Free Network

Author

Listed:
  • John G. Ingersoll

    (ECOCORP, Arlington, VA 22202, USA)

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to examine the nature of the historically observed and empirically described by the Pareto law inequality in the distribution of wealth and income in an economic system. This inequality is presumed to be the result of unequal opportunity by its members. An analytical model of the economic system consisting of a large number of actors, all having equal access to its total wealth (or income) has been developed that is formally represented by a scale-free network comprised of nodes (actors) and links (states of wealth or income). The dynamic evolution of the complex network can be mapped in turn, as is known, into a system of quantum particles (links) distributed among various energy levels (nodes) in thermodynamic equilibrium. The distribution of quantum particles (photons) at different energy levels in the physical system is then derived based on statistical thermodynamics with the attainment of maximal entropy for the system to be in a dynamic equilibrium. The resulting Planck-type distribution of the physical system mapped into a scale-free network leads naturally into the Pareto law distribution of the economic system. The conclusions of the scale-free complex network model leading to the analytical derivation of the empirical Pareto law are multifold. First, any complex economic system behaves akin to a scale-free complex network. Second, equal access or opportunity leads to unequal outcomes. Third, the optimal value for the Pareto index is obtained that ensures the optimal, albeit unequal, outcome of wealth and income distribution. Fourth, the optimal value for the Gini coefficient can then be calculated and be compared to the empirical values of that coefficient for wealth and income to ascertain how close an economic system is to its optimal distribution of income and wealth among its members. Fifth, in an economic system with equal opportunity for all its members there should be no difference between the resulting income and wealth distributions. Examination of the wealth and income distributions described by the Gini coefficient of national economies suggests that income and particularly wealth are far off from their optimal value. We conclude that the equality of opportunity should be the fundamental guiding principle of any economic system for the optimal distribution of wealth and income. The practical application of this conclusion is that societies ought to shift focus from policies such as taxation and payment transfers purporting to produce equal outcomes for all, a goal which is unattainable and wasteful, to policies advancing among others education, health care, and affordable housing for all as well as the re-evaluation of rules and institutions such that all members in the economic system have equal opportunity for the optimal utilization of resources and the distribution of wealth and income. Future research efforts should develop the scale-free complex network model of the economy as a complement to the current standard models.

Suggested Citation

  • John G. Ingersoll, 2024. "Inequality in the Distribution of Wealth and Income as a Natural Consequence of the Equal Opportunity of All Members in the Economic System Represented by a Scale-Free Network," Economies, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-32, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jecomi:v:12:y:2024:i:9:p:232-:d:1467210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/12/9/232/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/12/9/232/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Milanovic, Branko, 2009. "Global inequality and global inequality extraction ratio: The story of the last two centuries," MPRA Paper 16535, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, April.
    3. Alan Kirman, 1997. "The economy as an evolving network," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 339-353.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tobias Knabke & Sebastian Olbrich, 2018. "Building novel capabilities to enable business intelligence agility: results from a quantitative study," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 493-546, August.
    2. Sunder Shyam, 2011. "Imagined Worlds of Accounting," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-14, January.
    3. McCown, R. L., 2002. "Changing systems for supporting farmers' decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 179-220, October.
    4. Basile, Luigi Jesus & Carbonara, Nunzia & Pellegrino, Roberta & Panniello, Umberto, 2023. "Business intelligence in the healthcare industry: The utilization of a data-driven approach to support clinical decision making," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Loris Gaio, 2005. "A diversity-based approach to requirements tracing in new product development," ROCK Working Papers 031, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 13 Jun 2008.
    6. B. A. Huberman & N. S. Glance, "undated". "Diversity and Collective Action," Working Papers _001, Xerox Research Park.
    7. Zhewei Zhang & Youngjin Yoo & Kalle Lyytinen & Aron Lindberg, 2021. "The Unknowability of Autonomous Tools and the Liminal Experience of Their Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1192-1213, December.
    8. David Stadelmann & Benno Torgler, 2012. "Bounded Rationality and Voting Decisions Exploring a 160-Year Period," Working Papers 2012.70, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    9. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    10. H. Christopher Frey & Sumeet R. Patil, 2002. "Identification and Review of Sensitivity Analysis Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 553-578, June.
    11. Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic & Michel Gutsatz, 2000. "Managerial Competencies for Organizational Flexibility: The Luxury Goods Industry between Tradition and Postmodernism," Post-Print hal-01892018, HAL.
    12. Rennard, Jean-Philippe, 2006. "Artificiality in Social Sciences," MPRA Paper 1458, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    14. Dalila Cisco Collatto & Aline Dresch & Daniel Pacheco Lacerda & Ione Ghislene Bentz, 2018. "Is Action Design Research Indeed Necessary? Analysis and Synergies Between Action Research and Design Science Research," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 239-267, June.
    15. Nadia Fiorino & Emma Galli & Ilde Rizzo & Marco Valente, 2023. "Public procurement and reputation. An agent‐based model," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(4), pages 806-832, November.
    16. Olivier L. de Weck & Marshall B. Jones, 2006. "Isoperformance: Analysis and design of complex systems with desired outcomes," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 45-61, March.
    17. Hippel, Eric von., 1992. "Adapting market research to the rapid evolution of needs for new products and services," Working papers 3374-92., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    18. Konstantinos S. Boulas & Georgios D. Dounias & Chrissoleon T. Papadopoulos, 2023. "A hybrid evolutionary algorithm approach for estimating the throughput of short reliable approximately balanced production lines," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 823-852, February.
    19. Richard Fellows & Anita M.M. Liu, 2012. "Managing organizational interfaces in engineering construction projects: addressing fragmentation and boundary issues across multiple interfaces," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(8), pages 653-671, February.
    20. Tay, Nicholas S.P. & Lusch, Robert F., 2005. "A preliminary test of Hunt's General Theory of Competition: using artificial adaptive agents to study complex and ill-defined environments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(9), pages 1155-1168, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jecomi:v:12:y:2024:i:9:p:232-:d:1467210. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.