Sameer Amin

Review (Fernand Braudel Center)
Research Foundation of State University of New York
Income Distribution in the Capitalist System

Author(s): Samir Amin
Source: Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 8, No. 1 (Summer, 1984), pp. 3-28
Published by: Research Foundation of State University of New York for and on behalf of the
Fernand Braudel Center
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40240976
Accessed: 27-11-2015 06:57 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Fernand Braudel Center and Research Foundation of State University of New
York are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review (Fernand Braudel Center).
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 111.68.96.57 on Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:57:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review,VIII, 1, Summer1984,3-28
IncomeDistributionin the
CapitalistSystem
S amirAmin
Whatis at issuewhenwe speak

of incomedistribution?
Empiricalresearchon incomedistribution is a relatively

recentphenomenon.It was virtuallyunknownbeforethe
Second WorldWar buthas grownrapidlyin thecourseofthe
first30 yearsafterthe war,perhapsunderthe influenceof a
reformistpoliticalobjectiveofseekingto improvethisdistribu-
tion.Today wehavemeasuresofincomeinequalityintermsof
Ginicoefficientsand in termsofgraphsofLorenzcurvesfora
large number of countries, both developed and under-
developed.Whatone measuresorcomparesinthisresearchare
monetary incomes(expressedtherefore infrancsordollarsfor
a givenmomentintime)ofpersonsor householdsintheactive
workforceinthesenseofnationalaccounting(thesocial units
ofincomeexpenditure), or ofrealincome,whichmeanstaking
intoconsideration a consumer'sbreadbasketora pricesystem.
Byanalogy,non-commodified production (thatpartofagricul-
turalproductionthatis consumedbytheproducer,self-created
housing,etc.), withthe exceptionof householdproduction
(and thisexceptiontellsus a lot about the conceptof social
© 1984ResearchFoundationof SUNY
3
4 SamirAmin
work whichis behindthe economictheoryin question),is

estimatedat pricesequivalentto thoseofsimilarcommodified
production.Althoughtheobjectofthisstudyis notto discuss
eitherthe nature,the limits,or the alienationsof the social
theorythat is behind economic discourse in general and
discussionsofdistributionin particular,it is necessary,none-
theless,to underlinethe empiriciststatusof thisconceptof
distribution.
This is all the more so since the particularmeasureof
inequalityis subjectto innumerablepracticaldifficulties of
measurement, among which are thefollowing:
(1) Althoughwe have precise and valid informationcon-
cerningconsumption, our informationconcerning income
is much more dubious, if only because tax declarations
are oftenfalsified.
(2) The juridicaldistinctionbetweenthe incomeof individ-
uals and the income of enterprises,particularlythose
thathave a corporateform,is in partartificial,
and some
consumptionthatis in factpersonalis chargedoffto the
enterprise.
(3) The theoretical distinction between net income and
grossincomeis, as thoseengagedin nationalaccounting
well know, difficultto draw in practice.In fact as a
consequence, empiricaldata concerningincome distri-
bution systematicallyunderestimatethe real level of
inequality.Still, one can startwith the distributionof
consumption and derive therefroma few hypotheses
concerningthe incomethatis "saved." One can measure
its extentby takingthe difference betweennew national
income and the final consumptionof households,and
distributingthis total (which includes the income of
corporations)among different categoriesand classes of
income of social stratathat own or controlcapital and
urbanrealestate.
But overand beyondtheseexercisesinfastidiouscollection
of information
and itsanalysis,it is reasonableto ask whatis
thesignificance
of thedistribution thusmeasured.
From thepointof viewof theMarxistcritiqueof political
economy,theconceptof distribution relatesto a commercial
IncomeDistribution S
economy, inthiscase a capitalist one.IfCommunism hasto

guarantee "toeachaccording tohisneeds,"neither theseneeds
northeuse valuesthatallowfortheirsatisfaction (and that
substituteforexchange values) comparable. onedoes
are But if
notwishto fallintoUtopianabstractions, itmight be argued
thatitisthesociallabornecessary toensuretheproduction of
use valuesin questionthatshouldbe measured, thatsocial
estimatesshouldtakeintoconsideration onlythequantity (and
notthequality)ofthecontributions ofdifferent categories of
labor,andfinally thattheneedsofvariousgroupsare,ifnot
strictly
equal, at leastrelativelycloseoneto theother.
The transition to Communism - socialism - is basedon a
principleless free fromthe constraints of scarcity: "to each
accordingto his work."Here the conceptof distribution
remainsvalid,just like thatof value. Furthermore, labor
remains unequally productiveof valueaccording to itslevel of
skills.How shallwe measurethis?The onlysubjective social
criterionofthismeasure isthequantity oflabornecessary for
thetraining ofskilledworkers: thetimefortheir education and
theirvocational training.The maximum duration of training is
15years and the duration of active work lifeis 30 years. That
meansthatthemaximum gapbetween thesocialproductivity
ofthemostskilledlaborand thatofunskilled laborcannot
exceeda ratioof 1.5 to 1. Anyotherdefinition of thegap,
founded onscarcity, forexample, istautological andideologi-
cal,as wehavepreviously argued(1983b).
The questionof thecontribution of different workers to
nationalproduct inthesocialisttransition isnonetheless made
morecomplexifthistransition has to be analyzedwithina
nationalframework, which additionis heirto a periodof
in
capitalistunderdevelopment. Productivity oflaborwill,inthis
be
case,necessarily veryunequal from one unitofproduction
to anotherandfromone sectorto another, according to the
degreeofmodernity ofthemeansofproduction they have at
theirdisposal.Thisis a practical problem facedbypolicyin
Chinaforexample.Theadoptionoftheextreme principle ("to
eachworkeraccording productivity work") fact
to of his in
meansthat extremeinequalitiesare reproduced, notably
6 SamirAmin
betweenthoseinthecity(thelocationofmodernindustry) and
those in the countryside(with archaic techniques),which
violate the politicalexigenciesof socialistconstruction (the
alliancebetweenworkersand peasants).Maoismoptedforthe
politicalprincipleof the equalityof values createdby equal
quantitiesof work,regardlessof thelocationof thisworkin
unitswithdifferent levelsofmodernization (countryside-cities,
artisanalunits-industrialunits,etc.).We referthereaderto our
analysison thelaw ofvaluewhichis to be foundin TheFuture
ofMaoism (1983b). However,sinceone mustat thesametime
develop productiveforcesand thus provide incentivesfor
workersindividually and forunitsof productioncollectively,
thisprincipleofequalityis attenuatedbywell-known empirical
of
practices inequality. Thus, we rediscoverhere theempirical
characterof a concept of distribution.This characteris
obviousifone looks at capitalistsocialformations. In thefirst
place,productivity oflaboris unequalfromone unitor sector
to another.Itcannotbe equal exceptinthehypothetical case of
an economyconstitutedby unitsof productionthatare all
equipped withthe most efficient means of production(and
consequently withoutanybasisforcompetition amongthem!).
One comescloseto thismodelinthemostdevelopedcapitalist
countries,and one is furthestfromitin underdeveloped ones.
That is why,as we have shownelsewhere(1969), thedistribu-
tionof value added per workerfromone sectorto anotheris
relativelycloselygroupedaroundthe mean in the O.E.C.D.
countries, butveryunequallydistributed inthecountriesofthe
ThirdWorld. In fact,thatthe comparisongivessuch results
proves,in our opinion,thatthe law of value operatesat the
levelof theworldcapitalistsystemand not at thelevelof its
nationalcomponents.
Secondly,thegap betweenwages and otherremuneration
forlabor is whatitis,butinno case can iteverbe as smallas it
oughtto be,wereita function ofthesocialcostoftraining. The
gap in factresults
from the of
strategy power and capital,from
its historyand the politicalexigenciescompatiblewiththe
exerciseof powerbythehegemonicsocial bloc.
IncomeDistribution 7
resultof thehistoryof thecreationand developmentof local

capitalistforces.If one arguesthatthereis no "ideal type"of
capitalism,but onlyconcretehistoricalinstances,thereis no
reasonwhythisimportant elementinthedetermination ofthe
structureof distribution should operatealways in the same
way.
Still and all one can compare the resultingempirical
distributions in thecontemporary world.One is immediately
struckby the observationthat the distributionof Lorenz
curvesis notat all a chancedistribution. In fact,thecurvesof
all thedevelopedcapitalistcountries - membersofO.E.C.D. -
are groupedtogetherin a narrowband (Band A of Figure4).
Thedistributions inall thecountriesofthecontemporary Third
Worldare,on theotherhand,considerably moredifferentiated
(Band B ofFigure4). Two approximatemedians,A and B, are
indicatedforeach of the two bands and correspondto the
following:
25% of thepopulationreceive10% of theincomein the
coreand5% intheperiphery;
50%ofthepopulation 25%oftheincomeinthecore
receive
and 10%intheperiphery;
75%ofthepopulation 50%oftheincomeinthecore
receive
and33% intheperiphery.
The analysisofthisveritablestatisticalcuisinethatwe have
allowedourselvesto useto indicatethecontoursofthesebands
would requirenumerousfastidiouspages to read correctly.
The skepticalreadercan nonethelessverifytheseresultsby
consulting theworksundertaken bytheWorldBankunderthe
directionofHollisChenery,theexpertfortheWorldEmploy-
mentProgram,and worksof Dharam Ghai, Samir Radwan,
and others(1979). The distributions that
of Gini coefficients
are givenlocate all thecurvesthatcorrespondto themwithin
thesebands.For thedevelopedcountriesthesecoefficients are
all in the of
neighborhood 0.30; for the underdeveloped coun-
triestheygo from0.33 to0.45. Supplementary for
verification,
the countriesof the ThirdWorld,would show thatthe esti-
mates of the World Bank all tend to underestimatethis
inequality.
8 SamirAmin
Household budgetstudiesexist thatare consideredto be

amongthebeststatistics. In no case does theconsumption level
ofthepoorestquarter,pooresthalf,and poorestthree-quarters
ofthepopulationofthesecountrieseverexceed7%, 20%, and
37%, respectively, ofthenetnationalincome,and oftenthese
percentagesgo as low as 4%, 8%, and 15%, respectively. It
followsthatour mediansare locatedwellin thecenterofthis
distribution. Now itis obviousthat,forthepoor classes,con-
sumptionrepresentsmore than earned income (it includes
redistribution comingfromvarioussources- privateand pub-
lic charity,illegalactivities,immigrant etc.) and
remittances,
are
savings insignificant.
The roughcongruence oftheLorenzcurvesforthedeveloped
countriessuggeststhatthese"Western"societiesareveryclose
to each othertodayin theirdailyreality,whichwe knowto be
true. The position of differentcountrieswithinBand A
suggeststhat improvements in distributionare tied to the
existenceof powerfulSocial-Democraticforces,butthatthis
improvement is extremelylimitedin its real amplitude.The
most advanced Social-Democraticcountries,Sweden and
thoseofnorthern Europe in general,findthemselves nearthe
minimalinequalitycurve,A2. The liberalcountries(United
States) and theless developedones (of southernEurope) are
nearthemaximalinequalitycurve,Ai.
The distribution of curvesof the countriesof the Third
World can at firstseem disconcerting.There is no visible
correlationbetweenthedegreeof inequalityon theone hand
and,on theotherhand,suchvariablesas netindustrial product
percapita,thedegreeofurbanization,and thelevelofindus-
trialization;but we will see below thata closerexamination
willmakesome senseout ofthisdistribution.
For purposesofcomparisonwe haveplacedon Figure4 the
LorenzcurveofChina. Inequalityis farlesstherethanineven
themosttechnically and sociallyadvancedcapitalistcountries,
and a fortiorilessthanin thecountriesofthecapitalistThird
World. This fact shows the puttinginto practice,at least
partially,oftheprinciplesof Maoism. We havenotsoughtto
measureinequalityin incomedistributionin the U.S.S.R.,
whichwould requirea difficult researchexercise(givenespe-
cially, in additionto the scarcityof publishedstatistics,the
price and incomesystempeculiarto this country).But we
know that duringthe period 1930-60,inequalitybetween
townand countryreacheda highpoint.Today the phase of
extensiveaccumulationfinancedinthismanneris over.Since
thereforms oftheKhrushchev era,inequalityis seemingly
less
and comescloserto thesituationofdevelopedcapitalistcoun-
tries.The natureand typeof privilegesthatcharacterizethe
U.S.S.R. (forexample,thosebenefitingthemilitary sectorof
society)nonetheless renderthesecomparisonsartificial.Thisis
an entirely differentkindof society(see Amin,1983;Castor-
iadis, 1981).
One might,nonetheless, asksomeveryinteresting questions
thatwillbe theobjectofthedevelopments discussedbelow:
(1) Can oneriseabovetheempirical levelof

levelto a higher
explanationof the essentialreasons that explainthe
of
position one country to
relative another?
(2) Arethereanytendencies (towardgreater orlessequality)
andhowmight thesebe explained?
One way to beginto answerthesequestionswould be to

comparetheevolutionoftheempiricaldistribution overa long
period,forexample,over the course of the nineteenth and
twentiethcenturies.The necessaryempiricalbase for such
analysisis unhappilynon-existent, althoughcertainelements
permitus to makeguessesaboutthedirectionofmovement in
different,successivephases of the historyof the principal
developedcapitalistcountriesand of some underdeveloped
countries.Evenweresuchan information base to be created-
whichwouldundoubtedlybe extremely useful- it is unlikely
thatan interpretation of itsmeaningwould be "self-evident."
A theoryis alwaysnecessaryto makesenseout of data; data
neverspeak forthemselves.What we shall tryto do hereis
locate ourselvesat a theoreticalconceptuallevelthatwould
allowan interpretation ofthepresent,and,consequently, sug-
gestsome questionsconcerning the laws ofcapitalist accumu-
lation.
10 SamirAmin
The Distributionof Income
in theCore CapitalistCountries
We shall tryto reconstruct herethe Lorenzcurvecor-

responding tothe median A of the bandofdistribution ofthe
O.E.C.D. countries based on a limited number of hypotheses.
First,ifthesocialformation werea strict caseofthecapitalist
modeof production, thestructure ofdistribution wouldbe
determined by the rate ofsurplus-value. If we assume thatthe
entirepopulationwouldbe proletarianized and thatall the
proletarians wouldselltheirlaborforceat thesameprice,
whichis itsvalue,andifat thesametimeweassumethatthe
numberofcapitalists is negligible, a straight lineoftypePi
(Figure1), whose slopedepends on the level of surplus-value,
wouldtypify distribution ina socialformation thusreduced to
itssimplest, mostabstract expression.
Weshouldobserve thattheslopeofthestraight linePi isnot
of
thelevel surplus-value, butis linked to itby the transforma-
tionofvaluesintopricesandintoprofits whoserateisequal-
ized.Ifprofitsoverallconstitute 60%oftheproducts expressed
inprices,andwagesoverallrepresent consequently 40%,the
line of
straight Pi Figure 1 would represent the distribution of
income.But it is not necessarily thecase thattherateof
surplus-value wouldbe60percent.Thisratecanbecalculated,
sincethequantity oftotaldirect andindirect labornecessary to
produce each of the physicalquantities of the different
commodities offeredon the marketcan be calculated.A
certainproportion oftotallaborwouldthusbe necessary to
produce thecommodities consumed the
by proletarians, which
couldbe calculatedandwhichdetermine therateofsurplus-
value.
InFigure1theslopeofstraight linePi (40%)isthustheslope
ofthebasicstraight linerepresenting distribution inthecase
wheretherateofsurplus-value resultsinwagesbeing60% of
thenetproduct.
Ifonenowadjuststhehypotheses suchthatthenumber of
capitalistscomes to
up 5% of the population, and the income of
eachcapitalist at
is leasthigher thanthatofa proletarian, the
Lorenzcurvewouldbe represented bythestraight linethatis
brokenintotwosegments, illustrated byP2inthegraph.
Figure1: Distributionin the Core of the System

- Slope of surplus-value
(60%).
Pj
- Equal distributionbetweenwage-workers and capitalists.
?2
- Unequal distributionbetween wage-workers and capitalists.
Rj
- Unequal distributionamong wage-workers, and smallbusinessmen.
capitalists,
R2
Rc - Final adjusteddistribution
(dotted line).
Now suppose that the pricespaid to the labor forceare

unequallydistributedaroundthe averagevalue of the latter
suchthattheratiooftheupperto thelowerquartileofwagesis
4 to 1. We wouldhave in consequencethefollowingdistribu-
tionincome:
6.1%ofincome;
receives
24%ofthepopulation
48%ofthepopulation 18.3%ofincome;
receives
12 SamirAmin
72%ofthepopulation 36.6%ofincome;
receives
95%ofthepopulation 60.0%ofincome.
receives
We observethattheaveragewageofthefirstquartileis .025;
thattheupperquartileis 1.00,thatis, fourtimeshigher;that
theaveragewage is 0.60; thatcapitalistprofitsconstitutethe
sourceofincomeofthetop 5% ofthepopulation,distributing
around a mean of 8.00; and that the total of these profits
represents 40% ofglobalincome.The brokenlineRi represents
theLorenzcurvethatdescribesthissituation.
Now let us introduceinto the schema the existenceof a
certainnumberofsmallbusinessesand ofotheractivities such
as the liberalprofessions.Let us assume thatwage workers
constitute80% of the total populationand thatthe average
individualincomeofmembersoftheseothersocialgroupsis to
be locatedinthemiddleand highersectorsofthedistribution.
The highestsegmentofthecurvewouldthusbe displacedfrom
Ri to R2 and thebrokenline Ri R2 would represent approxi-
matelytheempiricalLorenzcurve.
One couldintroducesupplementary factorsintotheempiri-
cal analysisof reality,forexample,theexistenceof civilser-
vantspaid bya budgetbased on a tax on profits.That would
hardlychangethestructure ofthecurvegiventhatthesalaries
in the statebureaucracyare distributed relativelyand abso-
lutelyin wayssimilarto thosethatcharacterizethewagesof
productiveworkers.The Lorenz curve overallwould move
upwardgoingfromR2 to Rc (dotted).
We have at last obtaineda curvereasonablyclose to that
thatreflectstheempiricalrealityof thecontemporary devel-
oped capitalistworld.The shape ofthiscurve is determined by
threeessentialelements:(a) basic distribution betweenwages
and profitsas requiredbytherateofsurplus-value: 60-40;(b)
wage-working sectorof 75-80%of thetotalpopulations;and
(c) a hierarchyof wages that is 4 to 1. We have, thus,
approximately achievedthefollowingresults:
25%ofthepopulation obtain10%oftheincome;
50% of thepopulation obtain25%oftheincome;
75% of thepopulation obtain50%oftheincome.

in AgrarianSocieties
Consider firstthe situationof a pre-capitalistagrarian
society.The historicaldiversityof real situationsof these
societiesis enormous.Let us thereforepresumethemodelofa
fullytributary societyin which thepeasantryconstitutes90%
of thepopulationand is subjectto equal exploitation,and in
whichthereexistsa dominantstateclass includingitsdepen-
dentsthatconstitutes10% of thepopulationand thatappro-
priatesthetributary rentleviedon thepeasantcommunities.
The brokenlineAi in Figure2 representsthedistributionof
incomeinthecase ofa 50-50sharingoftheincomebetweenthe
peasantsand tribute.Let us observethatin thiscase incomes
are establisheddirectlyin productsthatincorporatelabor. In
effect,societyis not commercializedand tributeis levied
directlyin workand in kind.
If the tributaryrent (50% of the product) is levied on
relativelyundifferentiated peasantcommunities, whichhow-
everenjoydifferent and unequalnaturalconditionsresultingin
levelsof productionper capita goingfrom1 forthe poorest
quartileto 2 fortherichestone,thebrokenlinewillshiftfrom
Ai to A2(Figure2) and we willhave thefollowingsituation:
22.5%ofthepopulation 8.3%oftheincome;
receives
45% ofthe 19.5%oftheincome;
receives
population
67.5%ofthepopulation 33.3%oftheincome;
receives
90% ofthe receives
population 50%oftheincome.
Now letus supposethatan agrariansocietyoriginally ofthis
is into
type integrated globalcapitalistdevelopment as a "semi-
colony."A smallclass of plantationownersand of richpea-
sants(10% oftheruralpopulation)willappropriatetributein
theformof land rent.
Under the pressureof demographicgrowth,and in the
absence of an industrialoutlet,at theend of 50-100yearsa
thirdof the ruralpopulationwill become absolutepaupers.
14 SamirAmin
Figure2: Distributionin Rural PeripheralZones (Asia and MiddleEast)

- mode.
Aj "Egalitarian"tributary
- "Inegalitarian"tributarymode.
A2
-
A3 (Peripheral)plantationmode in crisis.
-
A4 Moderateagrarianreform.
-
A5 Radical agrarianreform.
A - (dotted line) Ruraldistribution,
contemporaryAsia and MiddleEast.
This thirdoftheruralpopulation(landlesspeasantsand pea-
santswithverysmallplots)scarcelyreachesa levelofincome
comparableto thatofthepoorestquartileoflandcontrollers.
We then would have the followingdistributionof rural
income:
55% of theruralpopulationreceive10% of theincome;

77% of theruralpopulationreceive30% of theincome;
95%-99%oftheruralpopulationreceive66% oftheincome.
Line A3, which describes this agrarian situation of a
developed"semi-colony," is rathercloseto therealsituationof
thecountriesof southand east Asia as wellas of the Middle
East (fromEgyptto Iran) in theperiodimmediately afterthe
Second WorldWar, 1945-50.
Subsequently, therewereagrarianreforms in mostofthese
areas.Ifone excludestheCommunistcountries(China,North
Korea,Vietnam),thesereforms, whichweremoreor lessradi-
cal, redistributed the land in favorof middlestratato the
detriment of the richestland owners,withoutmodifying the
fateofthepooresthalfofthepeasantry.Furthermore, internal
differentiation becamemoresharpwithinthemiddlestratum
ofmediumand richpeasants,beneficiaries to variousdegrees
of the progressof capital accumulation(modernizationof
technology, commercial activities,linkedmoney-lending activ-
ities,etc.).The curve thus moved from A3 to a positionlocated
in theband A4-A5,A4 representing thecase ofslow and timid
reforms and A5thatofthemostradicalreforms possible.This
has thefollowingpossibleresults:
6% of theagricultural
25% of theruralpopulationreceives
income;
50% oftheruralpopulationreceives13%oftheagricultural
income;
75% oftheruralpopulationreceives13%oftheagricultural
income.
The curvethatcorrespondsto thisdistribution coincidesin
a
factwith medianrepresentative ofthe real insouth
situations
and southeastAsia and oftheArab worldat thepresenttime,
as one can verify bylookingat thevariousworkon thedistri-
butionofruralincomein theseregions(studiesoftheI.L.O.,
The WorldEmployment Program,and ourownstudies,1966,
1982a, 1982b).
It's interesting to note thatthis structure, whichis asso-
ciated, in the of
presentphase capitalistdevelopment, withthe
hegemony the of local bourgeoisie(agrarian reforms and
industrialization), can be explainedbyfouressentialfactors:
(a) the antecedent of a ruralclass societythatleaves at the
disposal of thepeasantryonlyabout halfoftheirproduction;
(b) theexpropriation ofthesurplusintheformofland rentby
16 SamirAmin
largelandowners,and laterafteragrarianreform byrichpea-

sants;(c) a "natural"inequalityof productivity of land in a
range of 1 to 2; and (d) an increaseof rural densityand
constitutionof a surpluslabor reserveon the orderof one-
thirdoftherurallabor force.
The "model"in questioncorrespondsthus,it seems,to the
real situationin Latin America,at least forthe largecoun-
tries- Mexico,Columbia,Peru,Brazil- butperhapslesswell
to thesituationin certainregionsofcentralAmerica,typified
bySomoza's Nicaraguaand Guatemala.The "model,"on the
otherhand, is certainlydifferent in Black Africawherethe
prerequisite ofa local class society weaker,and theavailabil-
is
ityoflandgreater.Heredistribution is no doubtlessunequal,
althoughpreciseand sufficient information is lacking.The
tendency is nonetheless in the direction of the emergenceof
stronger differentiation, as all concrete studieshave shown(see
forexampleour 1967studyconcerning theIvoryCoast).

in Contemporary PeripheralCapitalism
Contemporary underdeveloped capitalistcountriescannot
be treatedas thoughtheyhad onlya ruraldimension.We must
therefore considerseparatelythequestionofthedistribution of
incomein theruraleconomy,thenin thenewurbaneconomy,
and finallycombinethetwo intoa nationalstructure.
In theurbaneconomywefinda capitalistsector(whichonly
employs,let us say, halfthe activeurbanpopulation)about
whichthe analysesmade above are valid withthe following
slightmodifications:(a) a higherlevelofsurplus-value result-
ingin a divisionbetweenwagesand profitsof40-60insteadof
60-40;and (b) a hierarchy ofwagesthatis sharper(6-1 instead
of 4-1). On theotherhand,personsin the"informal"sector,
whichemploysmoreor less halfof theactiveurbanpopula-
tion,receiveincomeof theorderof magnitudeof thatofthe
poorestquartileofthecapitalistsector.In theseconditionsthe
distribution of non-agricultural
incomelooks as follows:
24%ofthepopulation
ofthecapitalist
sectorreceive
2.8%of
theincomeofthesector;
48%ofthepopulation
ofthecapitalist
sectorreceive11.1%
oftheincomeofthesector;
72%ofthepopulation
ofthecapitalist
sectorreceive
23.4%
theincomeofthesector;
95%ofthepopulation
ofthecapitalist
sectorreceive
40.0%
theincomeofthesector.
In theinformalsectorstheincomesare analogousto thoseof

thelowestquartileoftheprecedingdistribution; thatis,ifthis
population constituteshalfof theurban population,theyearn
about 6% of thetotalurbanincome.
CurveAi ofFigure3 represents thedistributionofincomein
thecapitalistand informalsectorstakentogether(75% ofthe
populationreceivinglessthan 10% oftheincome),and Curve
A2,theadjusteddistribution afterincludingtheadministrative
and smallbusinesssectors.
If one wishesto combinethe ruraland urbancurves,one
mustobviouslytakeintoaccounttwoprincipalfactors:(a) the
proportionofurbanto ruralpopulation,whichvaries;and (b)
the markedgap betweenurban and rural net productper
capita, whenthisproductis measuredin pricesand current
income, as it is in the statisticsof the real contemporary
economy.Thisgap is alwaysoftheorderof1to 3,thatis tosay,
the productper capita is threetimeshigherin the urban
economythanitis in theruraleconomy.Once againwe insist
on thiscrucialpoint,whichexpressesthemodeofoperationof
thelaw ofvalue at theleveloftheworldcapitalistsystem.We
can, therefore,combinetheagrarianand urbandistributions
intoa singleLorenzcurve.Assumingthattheurbanizedpopu-
lationis 35% of thewhole,one wouldhave thefollowing:
62%ofthe
(theurbansector)receives
35%ofthepopulation
income;
38%ofthe
(theruralsector)receives
65%ofthepopulation
income.
The combinationof the two curves(A2, adjusted urban
sector,and B, the rural world, in Figure 3) gives us the
followingresults:
25%ofthepopulation 5% oftheincome;
receives
50%ofthepopulation
receives
12%oftheincome;
75%ofthepopulation
receives
35%oftheincome.
18 SamirAmin
Figure3 : Distributionin the Peripheryof the System

Aj - Urbandistribution andinformal
(capitalist sectorscombined).
- Adjusteddistribution
(includingstateandsmallbusiness
enterprises).
A2
B - Ruralworld(A ofGraph2).
- Overalldistribution
(peripheralformation).
Rp
Rc - ofcentral
Distribution formation (Rc ofGraph1).
The broken line Rp representsthe global resultof the

weightedcombinationoftheurbanand ruralcurves.We have
placedon Figure3 curveRc,whichconcernsdistributioninthe
coreofthesystem.Thisfacilitates
comparisons bringsout
and
thedifference
betweenthemodelofdistribution inthecoreand
at theperipheryof thesystem.
The resultthusobtained,thatis to say,thecurvecon-
structedonthebasisofsimpleelements combined together,is
The
interesting. curve obtained is,as one can see,a median of
theactualdistributions inthecontemporary ThirdWorld.It
resultsfrom thecombination ofthefollowing simpleelements:
(a) anurbanization thataffectsa third ofthepopulation, anda
levelofindustrialization thataccompanies itconcretely in a
well-known fashion of
(a range import-substitution industries
covering a substantial portionoftheinternal market on the
basisofthedescribed distributionofincome); (b) thecombina-
tionof a relatively modernsectorincluding abouthalfthe
urbanpopulation, inwhichtherateofexploitation ishigh,and
a so-calledinformal sectorwithlowerproductivity; and(c) a
ruralsociety marked by archaic means of production (levelof
productivity approximately one-third of that of the urban
zone,according to the of
criteria the contemporary world), the
resultinggeneralized poverty beingaggravated bya popula-
tionsurplus(a thirdof theruralpopulation)and internal
differentiationamonglandusers(thesubstitution ofa large
classofrichpeasants fortheformer of
clasfr great landowners
havingnotmodified thestructure ofdistribution between the
poor andrich halves oftherural world but merely attenuating
inequalitywithin therichsector).
Thissituation corresponds, although todiverse degrees and
withnuancesparticular toeachcountry, toalloftheregions of
thecontemporary ThirdWorldthatgroupthelargest partof
itspopulation: IndiaandSoutheastAsia,IranandtheArab
world,LatinAmerica,and,to a lesserdegree,BlackAfrica.
The questionwe mustansweris whether thissituationis
transitory,thatis to say,whether thedistribution thatcor-
responds to itand that describesitisevolving toward the model
ofdeveloped countries.
The WorldwideExpansionof Capitalism

and theDistributionof Income
ThetwoLorenzcurvesRcandRpofFigure3 illustratethe
distance
considerable themodelsofdistribution
thatseparates
20 SamirAmin
in thecoreand theperipheryoftheworldcapitalistsystem.Is
therea historicaltendencyof the movementof distribution,
linkedto the movementin capitalistaccumulation?On this
subjectwe notethreefamiliesof responses:
difficult
(a) There is no historicaltendencyforthismovement.In other
words,thedistribution is onlytheempiricalresultof various
economicand social factswhose movements,convergentor
divergent, are autonomous.One can give thispropositiona
"Marxist"formbyformulating itas distributiondependingon
classstruggles inall theirnationalcomplexities (theallianceof
the bourgeoisieand peasantry,social democracy,etc.) and
internationalcomplexity(imperialismand the positionoc-
cupied in the internationaldivision of labor, etc.). The
capitalistsystemwouldbe capableofadaptingitselfto all these
diversesituations.
(b) Thereis a historicaltendencyofimmiseration and ofgrowing
inequality(going from A to B). It remains to be analyzedwhy
thisshouldbe so (resulting fromwhatpredominant forcethat
cannotbe counteracted byopposingforces) and at what levelit
is so (at thelevelofeach capitaliststateseparately, at thelevel
of the totalityof developedor underdevelopedcountries,or
even at the level of the world-economyincludingboth the
centerand theperiphery.
(c) Thereis an historicaltendencyoperatingin thedirectionof a
progressivereductionof inequality(goingfromB to A). The
situationof the contemporary peripheryis simplythatof a
transition towardcapitalistdevelopment thathas notyetbeen
completed.
The thesisofimmiseration in Marx presumesa basic trend

the
involving long-term risein thelevelofsurplus-value. This
plays in thefinal a
analysis determining role inthedistribution
ofincomeinthecapitalistmodeofproduction.The hierarchies
of wagesand ofsecondaryredistributions are locatedaround
an axis essentially determined by thisrate.
In thiscase itis necessaryto indicatepreciselythefollowing:
(a) The augmentation oftherateofsurplus-value does notinvolve

ipsofacto a reductionin thelevelof profits.In thiscomplex
questionour positionhas beenstatedelsewhere(1973).
(b) The stabilityoftheoverallproportions ofdistribution thatwe

observein developedcapitalistcountriesfora centuryor so
does not necessarilyimplythestabilityof therateof surplus-
value. In effecttheconceptof surplus-value has senseonlyin
termsoftheproductive sectorsofcommodities inwhichwecan
actuallymeasurequantitatively theproductivity of labor. On
theotherhand,in the"service"sectorswe in fact"measure"
productivity by remuneration, whichis tautological.(What
does itmeanto saythata doctorwhodoubleshisfeesdoubles
his "productivity"? It may be thatthe realizationof surplus-
valuewhenitsrate-rises requiretheadjustment ofthesystemby
theexpansionof thetertiary sector.Baran and Sweezy(1966)
have spelled out the importanceof this adjustment:The
secondarydistribution and Keynesianpoliciestendto ensure
the stabilityof the global structureof distributionand are
responsesto the problemof realization,the tertiarysector
developingfasterthanthe industrialsectorwherethe rateof
surplus-value is rising
(c) The eventualriseoftherateofsurplus-value, together withthe
maintenanceofthestabilityofdistribution resulting fromthe
expansion of the tertiarysector,do not exclude- quite the
contrary - the increase of real wages and of average real
incomes(includingthatofpeasantproducers)parallelto a rise
in productivity. This parallelismis, on the contrary,a pre-
requisiteof realization.
The thesisof immiseration is an abstractformulation of a
concretequestion. Does capitalistexpansion progressively
benefitthelargestnumberof people in termsof theirrelative
standardof livingor does it tendto polarizesociety?
We knowquitewelltheconcretehistoryofaccumulationin
thedevelopedcore capitalistcountries.Overand above local
variation,one plausible generalizationmay be formulated
along the followinglines. The peasant revolution,whichin
thoseareasmarkedthebeginning oftheera ofcapital,reduced
inequalityin the countryside wherever it was radical. This
reductioncame at theexpenseof the "feudal sectors,"but at
thesametimeitimpoverished a minority ofpoorpeasantswho
werepushedintothecities.The wageworkerinitially received
a low level of wages determinedby the incomeof the poor
22 SamirAmin
peasants.This leveltendedto riseaftera periodofstagnation

at thislevel(orevena deterioration fromit)whentheexpulsion
of the landless peasants slowed down. Beginningwiththis
point in time(about 1860?) workers'salaries and the real
incomeof"middle"peasantstendedto riseina parallelfashion
in conjunctionwiththeriseofproductivity. Therewas evena
tendency toward equality between averagewagesand peasant
this
income,although tendency is not necessarilyobservableat
each stageoftheaccumulationprocess(thisdependingon the
structures of the alliance of hegemonicclasses). At the late
stage of capital,thereis perhapsa "social-democratic" ten-
dency to reduce inequality,but this latter in
operates conjunc-
tionwithinimperialism.A favorablepositionin theinterna-
tionaldivisionof labor favorssocial redistribution. Still one
cannotgeneralize, sincethecomparativeevolutionsofSweden
and theUnitedStates,forexample,are quitedifferent.
One is thus led willy-nilly to an inabilityto pursuethis
analysison thecorecountriesinisolation;one has to placethis
evolutionwithinthe frameworkof the world-system. Our
thesishere is that the stabilityof distributionin the core
countriesinthecontemporary eradoes notexclude,butinfact
supposes,a muchmoreunequaldistribution in theperiphery.
The realizationof value at thelevelof thesystemas a whcfle
requiresthiscomplementary oppositionof structures.
One is thusled to the unavoidablequestion:What is the
trendofthemovement ofdistribution intheperipheries? What
one observesis thatdistribution is moreunequalin theThird
World than in the contemporary developedcore countries.
One is lesssureabout whatthetrendswerein theperiphery in
thecourseofthehistory ofintegration intotheworldcapitalist
system.But, althoughpreciseinformation is quite partialin
thisregard,itseemsquiteclear,ifone interprets theresultsof
mostoftheworkinthisdomain(to whichwe referthereader),
thatthemostmarkedtrendis inthedirectionoftheincreaseof
inequality, at leastinthecourseofthelastcentury (1880-1980).
A thesisfrequently advancedis thatinequalityis thepriceof
accumulationand thatonce thefirstphase ofaccumulationis
passed(bythereductionofthepeasantreserve)thesystemwill
tend to reduce this inequality.This thesis has had a new
popularityin quite diversecirclesgoing fromthe classical
Rightto certainAnglo-Saxon Marxists.The work of Bill
Warren(1980) and thecriticisms thathave beenlevelledat us
(notablybyA. Brewer[1980],J. Schiffer [1981],and S. Smith
[1980,1982])takemoreor lessthisposition(see Amin,1983a).
Thisworkseemsto us to substitute fortheconcreteanalysisof
the world expansion of capitalism,whichdiversifiesat the
sametimethatitunifies, theabstractvisionofa capitalismthat
is reducedto itsunitarytendency.The argumentto whichthe
partisansof thesesof unificationresortin thelast analysisis
thattheaccentuationofinequalityis "provisional. "(This is the
argumentoftheWorldBank,repeatedbyBill Warrenand his
students.)This lightheartedtreatmentof time removesall
politicalsignificance fromthethesisofouradversaries.To say
thatcapitalismworsensthesituationforone or twocenturies,
butwillimproveitsubsequently, is notat all to respondto the
problems of our society, butto remove themfromthedebate.
This argument is aggravatedbyan almosttotalabsencein our
critics'workof politicalanalysisconcerningthe diversityof
captialistformations and theirconsequentrefusalto makeany
qualitativedistinction betweencoreformations and peripheral
formations.
Withoutentering intothedetailsofthisdebate,to whichwe
referthereader,letus saythatourthesishereis thatthemost
radical bourgeoisnationalprojectsin the Third World are
probablydoomedto failureand to submissionto therequire-
mentsoftransnationalization. Alongwiththisthesisof"com-
pradorization" of the bourgeoisieoftheperiphery, we believe
itis possibleto affirm thatthedistribution intheThirdWorld
does nottendto movein a directionfrommoreto lessinegal-
itarian,even slowly.If any movementcan be observed,it is
ratherone in theotherdirection, in thedirectionofincreasing
inequality. Given this fact, which has everylikelihoodof
remainingtrue for decades to come,we deduce a thesiscon-
24 SamirAmin
cerningrevolutionary classesinoureraandthesocialisttransi-
tionat theglobal level.
The idea ofprogressbystagesthatis reproducedwithonlya
lag in timeis obviouslyan idea thatis strongin itssimplicity
but alwaysfalse.The idea therefore thatthepresentlydevel-
oped countriesofferthe image of what the underdeveloped
countrieswillbe tomorrow, despitethefactthatfourcenturies
ofcapitalisthistoryand particularly thelastcenturygiveitthe
lie,remainsquitealive.
In thelogicofthisvisionof"stages,"thequestionofinequal-
ityin distribution is considereda questionofrelativequantity
only, without qualitativesignificance. Butitis nota question
merelyofgreaterinequality.The latterleadsto theputting into
operationand thedevelopmentofa productivesystemthatis
qualitativelydifferent fromwhat it is in the core capitalist
countries.
If in factone allocatesdifferent resources(unskilledlabor
and skilledlabor,capital)to thefinalconsumers(thedifferent
strataofthepopulationaccordingto theirincome,whichthey
receivedirectly and indirectly throughinvestments and public
expenditures), one discoversthefollowing:
(a) In thecorecountriesthedifferent resourcesareallocatedto the

consumption of each stratum in proportionsthatare moreor
less the same as the share of consumptionof each of these
strata.For example,ifthenecessaryconsumption(by which
we mean necessaryforthe reproductionof the labor force)
represents50% of the total consumptionand 50% of the
surplusconsumption, theshareof capitaland thelaborforce
of different levels of skills (low, medium,high) allocated,
respectively,to necessaryconsumptionand surplusconsump-
tionare 50-50foreach of thecategoriesof resources(capital,
unskilledlabor,skilledlabor).
(b) In the periphery, on the otherhand, the rare resourcesare
allocated to the consumptionof the richeststratumin pro-
portionsthat are greaterthan the proportionof theircon-
sumptionin totalconsumption.This "distortion" ofdistribu-
tionto thebenefit of higherstratais all thestronger since

is inequal.For example,in our calculationof
distribution
employment ofmedium andhighly qualified labor(havinga
secondaryeducation,technicaleducation,or university
theArabworldsurplus
education), consumption, which is50%
ofglobalconsumption, absorbs75%oftheserareresources (as
opposedto itbeingthesameproportion as inFrance;Amin,
1982a).Furthermore, one notesthetendency at one andthe
sametimeforanincrease ofinequalityindistribution (before
andafter1974)andan increase ofthedistortion intheuseof
rareresources.
Onenotes,furthermore, thatinequality ismore
markedin theArabworld(whosenetdomestic productper
capitaishigher)thaninotherregionsoftheThirdWorld(Asia
andsub-Saharan Africa)andthatthedistortion intheuseof
rareresources moremarked
is similarly there.
The productive apparatusofthecountriesoftheperiphery is

thusnot the reproductionof thatof thecore countriesat an
earlier stage of their evolution. These apparatuses differ
qualitatively.That is themeaningofinequalityin theinterna-
tionaldivisionoflabor.Thesedifferences explainthefactthat
whilethe Lorenzcurveis stablein core countriesor perhaps
moves in the directionof A i to A2, that is toward less
inequality,intheperiphery itmovesinthedirectionofB2to Bi,
towardgreaterinequality.The distortionin distribution is a
conditionof enlargedreproduction, of accumulationat the
worldlevel.
In thissensethethesisof Marx concerningimmiseration is
perfectly visibleat theworld level.If distributiontends to be
moreand moreunequal in the periphery, whose population
constitutes themajorityoftheworld-system, and stablein the
core, it obviouslyevolves toward greaterinequalityat the
global level.Is notthefactthatimmiseration is manifestedat
theglobal levelbut not at thelevelof thecore countriesone
moreproofthatthelaw ofvalueoperatesatthegloballeveland
not at thatof individualisolatedcapitalistformations? How-
ever,immiseration operatesin the not
periphery onlyby means
26 SamirAmin
Figure4: Distributionin WorldCapitalistSystem

A - Bandofdistribution
ofcorecountries.
B - Bandofdistribution
ofperipheral
formations.
C - China.
of the increaseof the rate of surplus-valuebut also via the

indirectextractionof surpluslabor in non-capitalistforms
whethertheyare longexistingor newlycreated.
Our analysesassistus in understanding thepositionof the
Lorenz curvesin the different underdevelopedcountriesin
Band B. If the gap betweenthe productivity of (archaic)
agricultureand (modern) industrytends to increase,if the

proportionof industrialproductriseswithperipheralindus-
trialization,thenthereis a powerfulreasonforinequalityto
becomelessstronginthe"semi-industrialized" countries(such
as Mexico) thanin countrieswitha predominantly agrarian
structure (such as Rwanda). That is preciselywhathappens.
The analystsoftheWorldBank,anxiousto savetheapologetic
thesisof thestagesof growth,claimto discovera correlation
betweennetdomesticproductpercapita and thestructure of
distribution. The moretheformerrisestheless is inequality.
This is self-evidentifone separatesout thiscorrelationfrom
thetotalityof developedand non-developedcountriesin the
system,for inequalityis less in core countries,which are,
furthermore, countrieswithhighincome.But the methodis
tautological sinceitdeniesimplicitlyexactlywhatneedsto be
studied- that core and peripheralformationsdifferonly
quantitatively.
We thusreturnto the thesisof immiseration at the world
level.
References
Amin,Samir(1966). L'Economiedu Maghreb,2 vols. Paris: Minuit.

Amin, Samir (1967). Le Développementdu Capitalismeen Côte d'Ivoire. Paris:
Minuit.
Amin,Samir (1969). "Niveau des Salaires, Choix des Techniquesde Productionet
Repartitiondu Revenu,*4 in A.D. Smith,éd., Les problèmesde la politiquedes
Salairesdans le DéveloppementEconomique.Geneve:Cahiersde THES, 320-48.
Amin,Samir(973). L'Echangeinégalet la Loi de la Valeur.Paris: Anthropos.
Amn,Samir(1982a). The Arab EconomyToday. London: Zed Press.
Amin,Samir(1982b). Irak et Syrie,1960-1980.Paris: Minuit.
Amin,Samir(1983a). "Expansionou Crisede Capitalisme?"ThirdWorldQuarterly,
V, 2, Apr.,361-85.
Amin,Samir(1983b). The Futureof Maoism. New York: MonthlyReviewPress.
28 SamirAmin
Baran,Paul & Sweezy,Paul (1966). Monopoly Capital.New York: ModernReader.

Brewer,Anthony(1980). Marxist Theoriesof Imperialism,A Critical Survey.
London: Routledge& Kegan Paul.
Castoriadis,Cornelius(1981). Devant,la guerre.Paris: Fayard.
Ghai,Dharametal, eds.( 1979). Land and PovertyinAsia, Africaand LatinAmerica.

London: Macmillan.
Schiffer,Jonathan(1981). "The ChangingPatternof Developmentor theAccumu-
latedWisdomof SamirAmin,"WorldDevelopment,IX, 6, June,515-37.
Smith,Sheila (1980). "The Ideas of SamirAmin:Theoryor Tautology,** Journalof
DevelopmentStudies,XVII, I, Oct.
Smith,Sheila (1982). "Class AnalysisVersus World Systems:Critiqueof Samir
Amin'sTypologyof Under-development," Journalof Contemporary Asia, XII,
7-18.
Warren,Bill (1980). Imperialism,Pioneerof Capitalism.London: New LeftBooks.

Sameer Amin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sameer Amin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review (Fernand Braudel Center)

Research Foundation of State University of New York

Income Distribution in the Capitalist System

Whatis at issuewhenwe speak

Empiricalresearchon incomedistribution is a relatively

work whichis behindthe economictheoryin question),is

economy, inthiscase a capitalist one.IfCommunism hasto

resultof thehistoryof thecreationand developmentof local

Household budgetstudiesexist thatare consideredto be

(1) Can oneriseabovetheempirical levelof

One way to beginto answerthesequestionswould be to

We shall tryto reconstruct herethe Lorenzcurvecor-

Figure1: Distributionin the Core of the System

Now suppose that the pricespaid to the labor forceare

The Distributionof Income

Figure2: Distributionin Rural PeripheralZones (Asia and MiddleEast)

55% of theruralpopulationreceive10% of theincome;

largelandowners,and laterafteragrarianreform byrichpea-

The Distributionof Income

In theinformalsectorstheincomesare analogousto thoseof

Figure3 : Distributionin the Peripheryof the System

The broken line Rp representsthe global resultof the

The WorldwideExpansionof Capitalism

The thesisofimmiseration in Marx presumesa basic trend

(a) The augmentation oftherateofsurplus-value does notinvolve

(b) The stabilityoftheoverallproportions ofdistribution thatwe

peasants.This leveltendedto riseaftera periodofstagnation

(a) In thecorecountriesthedifferent resourcesareallocatedto the

tionto thebenefit of higherstratais all thestronger since

The productive apparatusofthecountriesoftheperiphery is

Figure4: Distributionin WorldCapitalistSystem

of the increaseof the rate of surplus-valuebut also via the

agricultureand (modern) industrytends to increase,if the

Amin,Samir(1966). L'Economiedu Maghreb,2 vols. Paris: Minuit.

Baran,Paul & Sweezy,Paul (1966). Monopoly Capital.New York: ModernReader.

Ghai,Dharametal, eds.( 1979). Land and PovertyinAsia, Africaand LatinAmerica.

You might also like