Branko Milanović

1. Introduction

Branko Milanović (b. 1953) is a Serbian-American economist whose work on global income inequality has reshaped debates across economics, political science, and political philosophy. Trained in Yugoslavia and long based in the United States, he is best known for constructing detailed estimates of the interpersonal global income distribution, analyzing how income is distributed among individuals worldwide rather than only within nations.

His research has produced several widely cited concepts. The “elephant curve” graphically depicts how different segments of the world income distribution benefited from late‑20th‑century globalization. The notion of “citizenship rent” frames national membership and place of birth as major, unearned determinants of lifetime income. In later work, he advances a typology of capitalism, contrasting liberal meritocratic capitalism—associated with Western democracies—with political capitalism, linked especially to contemporary China.

Milanović’s books, especially Worlds Apart (2005), The Haves and the Have‑Nots (2011), Global Inequality (2016), and Capitalism, Alone (2019), combine quantitative analysis with historical narrative and conceptual reflection. While written from within economics, they have become central reference points for philosophers concerned with global justice, egalitarianism, migration, and the ethics of capitalism.

Across these contributions, he treats the world as a single distributive space, investigates how capitalism’s evolution shapes that space, and emphasizes the empirical importance of borders, class, and wealth concentration for understanding contemporary inequality.

2. Life and Historical Context

Branko Milanović was born on 24 June 1953 in Belgrade, then part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a non‑aligned socialist state situated between the Western and Soviet blocs. Growing up in a system of self‑managed socialism, he encountered an ideological environment that promoted egalitarian ideals while maintaining a one‑party political structure. Proponents of biographical explanations suggest this duality later sensitized him to both the attractions and limitations of socialist and capitalist arrangements.

Historical Setting

His formative years coincided with Yugoslavia’s relative openness to the West and the Global South. This position in the Non‑Aligned Movement exposed local intellectual life to diverse economic doctrines, from Western neoclassical economics to Marxist and developmentalist perspectives. Some commentators argue that this pluralism encouraged Milanović’s later interest in comparative economic systems.

The broader global context of his early career includes:

Milanović completed his PhD at the University of Belgrade in 1987, focusing on income distribution in Yugoslavia. In 1991 he joined the World Bank Research Department, gaining access to cross‑national household surveys at the moment when post‑socialist transitions and global integration became central empirical and political questions. Observers often link this institutional location and historical timing to his subsequent ability to map global inequality on an unprecedented scale.

3. Intellectual Development

Milanović’s intellectual trajectory is often described in four overlapping phases, each marked by a shift in focus and methods.

Yugoslav Formation and Socialist Studies

During his training and early research in Belgrade (1970s–late 1980s), he worked within debates on income distribution under self‑managed socialism. He analyzed wage structures, social ownership, and the tension between egalitarian goals and actual outcomes. Scholars note that this work grounded his later interest in how different economic systems generate characteristic inequality patterns.

World Bank and Global Inequality (1990s–2000s)

After moving to the World Bank in 1991, his attention shifted from a single socialist country to cross‑national comparisons and then to the global level. He began constructing global income distributions using household surveys and purchasing power parity (PPP) adjustments. This period produced early estimates of world inequality and explorations of transition economies, linking micro‑level data to systemic change.

Synthesis and Public Engagement (2010s)

With The Haves and the Have‑Nots (2011) and Global Inequality (2016), Milanović integrated statistical work with historical vignettes and conceptual tools, such as citizenship as rent. Commentators characterize this phase as a move from technical measurement toward interpretive and narrative analysis, accessible to non‑specialists and increasingly influential in philosophy and public debate.

Systemic Reflections on Capitalism (late 2010s–present)

In Capitalism, Alone (2019) and subsequent essays, he extends his empirical base to theorize varieties of capitalism and their political implications. Here he contrasts liberal meritocratic and political capitalism, examines global plutocracy, and considers the future of capitalism when competing systems (notably socialism) have largely receded. Analysts see this as a shift toward macro‑historical and normative reflection, while still grounded in distributional data.

4. Major Works

Milanović’s major books trace a progression from technical measurement to broader historical and conceptual analysis.

Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality

This book consolidates his early methodological work. It distinguishes concepts of inequality (between countries, between persons, population‑weighted) and evaluates different indices (Gini, Theil, etc.). Proponents see it as foundational for later empirical studies of global inequality.

The Haves and the Have‑Nots

Structured as short essays and “vignettes,” this work interweaves historical episodes (e.g., Roman inequality, industrialization) with quantitative comparisons. It illustrates how inequality shapes social life, serving as a bridge between specialist research and wider debates.

Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization

Often regarded as his central statement on distribution, this book presents long‑run series of global inequality, the elephant curve of income growth, and the idea of citizenship as an economic rent. It connects structural changes in the world economy with class formation and migration pressures.

Capitalism, Alone: The Future of the System That Rules the World

Here Milanović argues that capitalism has become globally dominant, while differentiating between liberal meritocratic and political forms. He analyzes how each organizes inequality, opportunity, and corruption, and how global plutocracies emerge across regimes.

5. Core Ideas on Inequality and Capitalism

Milanović’s core ideas revolve around how income and wealth are distributed in a world dominated by capitalism, and how borders and institutional forms shape that distribution.

Global vs National Inequality

He distinguishes between within‑country inequality, between‑country inequality, and the interpersonal global distribution. His empirical work suggests that much of global inequality is explained by location and citizenship, rather than individual traits alone. This leads to the claim that the world should be analyzed as a single distributive space.

"

“If we take the world as a single unit, most inequality is explained not by class or education, but by location.”
— Branko Milanović, Global Inequality

Citizenship as Economic Rent

A central concept is citizenship rent: the unearned income advantage conferred by being born in a rich country. Analogous to rents from scarce resources, this advantage is seen as independent of individual effort. Supporters argue this reframes debates on migration and global justice; critics question how far it can be separated from state‑created institutions and policies.

The Elephant Curve and Globalization

The elephant curve depicts global income growth by percentile since around 1980. It shows strong gains for the emerging global middle class (notably in Asia), modest or stagnant gains for many lower‑ and middle‑class workers in rich countries, and large gains for the global top 1%. Milanović uses this to link globalization, class restructuring, and political discontent.

Varieties of Capitalism

In Capitalism, Alone, he proposes that capitalism is now the only global system, but exists in distinct forms:

He associates the former with Western democracies and the latter with countries like China, using this typology to analyze how different institutions generate and justify inequality.

6. Methodology and Use of Data

Milanović is widely noted for integrating large‑scale empirical data with distributional analysis. His methodology centers on constructing consistent measures of global income inequality.

Household Surveys and PPP Adjustments

He primarily uses national household income and expenditure surveys, harmonized across countries and years. These are converted into a common standard via purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates to make incomes comparable.

Supporters argue that this approach permits unprecedented analysis of world‑wide interpersonal inequality. Critics highlight potential issues with under‑reporting of top incomes, survey quality in poorer countries, and PPP revisions.

Inequality Metrics

Milanović employs a range of indices:

• Gini coefficient for overall inequality.
• Theil and other entropy measures to decompose within‑ and between‑country components.
• Palma ratio and top‑income shares to capture tail behavior.

He emphasizes that each measure encodes implicit value judgments about sensitivity to extremes and the middle of the distribution, and often presents multiple metrics to illustrate robustness.

Long‑Run and Comparative Series

To analyze trends, he constructs time series of global and national inequality, sometimes combining survey data with national accounts and historical estimates. Some researchers commend the historical breadth; others caution that combining heterogeneous sources may introduce comparability problems.

Visualization and Communication

Graphs such as the elephant curve are central to his work. They translate complex distributions into intuitive visual forms. Advocates view this as a strength in communicating with non‑specialists; some methodologists warn that such visuals can oversimplify or conceal underlying uncertainties if taken without context.

7. Key Contributions to Political Philosophy

Although not a philosopher by training, Milanović has made several contributions that have been taken up in political philosophy and normative theory.

Reframing the Unit of Distributive Analysis

His insistence on the interpersonal global income distribution provides empirical grounding for cosmopolitan approaches that treat persons, rather than states, as the primary units of justice. Philosophers have used his data to interrogate whether justice requires reducing inequalities across borders as well as within them.

Citizenship and the Lottery of Birth

The concept of citizenship rent has informed debates on moral arbitrariness and the “lottery of birth.” It parallels arguments in luck egalitarianism that unchosen circumstances should not determine life prospects. Some theorists deploy his work to argue for more open borders or enhanced duties of global redistribution; others use it to highlight the role of states in legitimately shaping opportunities.

"

“Citizenship in the rich world is a type of rent: an unearned advantage that has nothing to do with individual effort.”
— Branko Milanović, Global Inequality

Inequality, Democracy, and Plutocracy

By documenting the rise of a global plutocracy and changes in class structure, Milanović has supplied empirical material for analyses of oligarchy, political capture, and democratic legitimacy. Normative theorists draw on his findings to discuss how concentrated wealth may distort political equality, both within and across nations.

Capitalism’s Varieties and Moral Evaluation

His distinction between liberal meritocratic and political capitalism has been incorporated into philosophical discussions about whether capitalism can be justified and what reforms might be necessary. Some philosophers use his framework to compare systemic trade‑offs between growth, equality, and rights; others critique the typology as insufficiently attentive to alternative economic arrangements.

Empirical‑Normative Bridge

More broadly, Milanović’s work illustrates how measurement choices (e.g., which inequality index to use, whether to focus on absolute or relative gaps) reflect and influence normative positions. This has encouraged philosophers and economists to scrutinize the value assumptions built into standard statistical practices.

8. Impact on Economics and Global Justice Debates

Milanović’s research has had a notable impact both within economics and in interdisciplinary discussions of global justice.

Within Economics

In economics, he is seen as a central figure in the measurement of global inequality. His work has:

• Helped establish the world income distribution as a standard object of analysis.
• Influenced debates on globalization’s winners and losers, particularly through the elephant curve.
• Contributed to the study of transition economies, using distributional outcomes to evaluate post‑socialist reforms.

Other economists have extended his methods, developed alternative datasets, or re‑estimated global inequality using tax data and top‑income information. Some view his approach as complementary to work by Thomas Piketty and colleagues on wealth and top incomes, while others emphasize differences in data sources and focus.

In Global Justice and Interdisciplinary Debates

In global justice theory, Milanović’s findings are frequently cited in arguments about:

Proponents argue that his work provides a common empirical baseline for normative theorizing, clarifying what patterns of inequality any theory must address. Some philosophers and political theorists also engage his typology of capitalism when evaluating the moral status of global economic regimes.

At the same time, his influence has sparked debates about the appropriate balance between empirical description and moral prescription, with some commentators endorsing his empirically grounded framing of justice questions and others cautioning against reading normative conclusions directly off statistical patterns.

9. Criticisms and Ongoing Debates

Milanović’s work has prompted a range of critical responses, both methodological and conceptual.

Data and Measurement Concerns

Some economists question the reliance on household surveys, noting under‑coverage of the very rich and inconsistencies across countries. Alternatives include combining survey data with tax records or national accounts. Critics argue that global inequality may be higher than his estimates, particularly at the top, while others contend that survey‑based methods better capture lower‑income populations.

Debates also address PPP adjustments and historical series. Revisions to PPP data can substantially alter cross‑country comparisons, leading some to caution against strong claims about long‑run trends. Milanović acknowledges these limitations but defends the overall robustness of major patterns.

Interpretation of the Elephant Curve

The elephant curve has been influential but contested. Critics argue that it may overstate stagnation among rich‑country middle classes or understate domestic policy roles, depending on the time window and deflation choices. Some maintain that focusing on relative gains obscures absolute income increases; others view it as central to understanding perceptions of loss and the rise of populism.

Citizenship Rent and Normativity

Philosophers and political theorists debate the normative implications of citizenship rent. Supporters see it as highlighting morally arbitrary inequalities; skeptics argue that it underplays legitimate state responsibilities to citizens, the role of democratic self‑determination, or non‑income dimensions of advantage. There is also discussion about how to weigh citizenship rent against other forms of inequality, such as gender or race.

Typology of Capitalism

The distinction between liberal meritocratic and political capitalism has been both adopted and critiqued. Some analysts welcome a clear comparative framework; others argue that the categories are too broad, blur internal diversity (e.g., among Western economies), or understate hybrid regimes. There is ongoing debate about whether these types exhaust the possibilities for economic organization.

Empirics and Normative Theory

Finally, scholars discuss how far empirical findings should drive normative conclusions. While many appreciate the empirical grounding Milanović brings to justice debates, some warn against “moralizing” descriptive categories or assuming that reducing measured inequality is always a primary moral goal, independent of broader considerations about rights, institutions, and freedoms.

10. Legacy and Historical Significance

Milanović is widely regarded as a key figure in the historical development of inequality research, particularly in bringing the global distributive perspective to the forefront.

Position in the History of Economic Thought

Within the history of economics, commentators often place him alongside researchers who have transformed the empirical study of distribution, such as Simon Kuznets and Thomas Piketty. Whereas Kuznets pioneered national income accounting and Piketty highlighted long‑run wealth concentration in specific countries, Milanović is credited with systematizing world‑wide interpersonal inequality as a central object of study.

Influence on the Study of Globalization

Historically, his work has shaped how scholars understand the distributive consequences of late‑20th‑ and early‑21st‑century globalization. The global middle class, China’s rise, and shifting between‑/within‑country inequality are now routinely analyzed with reference to his estimates. This has affected research agendas in international economics, development studies, and comparative politics.

Bridging Disciplines

Milanović’s legacy also lies in bridging economics, history, and political philosophy. His concepts—global interpersonal inequality, citizenship rent, varieties of capitalism—have become part of the shared vocabulary in debates about justice and capitalism’s future. This cross‑disciplinary impact is seen by many as characteristic of early‑21st‑century social science, in which normative and empirical inquiries increasingly interact.

Long‑Term Historical Significance

Assessments of his ultimate historical significance remain provisional. Some analysts predict that his role in establishing the empirical cartography of global inequality will make him a reference point for future generations studying capitalism’s 20th‑ and 21st‑century evolution. Others emphasize that ongoing methodological debates may revise parts of his quantitative legacy, while his broader framing of inequality and capitalism is likely to continue informing discussions about the structure and justice of the global economic order.