Lydia Assouad

This course is available on the MSc in Development Management (Applied Development Economics), MSc in Development Management (Applied Development Economics) (LSE and Sciences Po), MSc in Development Management (Political Economy), MSc in Development Management (Political Economy) (LSE and Sciences Po) and MSc in Economic Policy for International Development. This course is not available as an outside option to students on other programmes. This course uses controlled access as part of the course selection process. For information on controlled access courses, including eligibility, application processes, deadlines, and departmental contact details, please refer to the Controlled Access Courses webpage.

Yes, enrolment will initially be capped at three seminar groups. Priority will be given to DM students, followed by ID students. The course will not be offered to students outside the ID Department at first.

This course examines economic inequality through the lens of political economy, combining economic analysis with insights from political science, history, and sociology. It provides students with a structured framework to understand what inequality is, how it is measured, and how it has evolved over time, and what can be done about it. The course places particular emphasis on global and historical perspectives, with sustained attention to developing and emerging economies alongside advanced economies.

The course is organized in three parts. Part I introduces the core concepts, data sources, and empirical facts of inequality. It begins with the intellectual foundations of distributional thinking in classical political economy, then discusses how inequality can be quantified and measured. We will then document long-run trends in income and wealth, and discuss group-based inequalities by gender, race, or ethnicity. This part should equip students with the conceptual and empirical tools needed to interpret inequality statistics critically.

Part II focuses on the determinants of inequality. It first analyzes how political institutions, historical legacies, and social norms shape inequality within and across countries and between social groups within a country. Then, it discusses how economic forces such as capital accumulation, technological change, labor market institutions, and globalization affect the distribution of income and wealth. This part emphasizes mechanisms rather than outcomes, highlighting why similar economic shocks can produce different distributional consequences across countries and the key role of political and social structures.

Part III turns to the normative and policy dimensions of inequality. It examines the political and social consequences of inequality for democracy, political participation, and conflict, before assessing the scope and limits of policy responses. Particular attention is paid to taxation, redistribution, and public services, as well as to the constraints imposed by informality, tax evasion, capital mobility, and limited state capacity, especially in developing countries.

This course is designed to be inclusive both in its substantive content and in its pedagogical approach. First, the course engages directly with ideas and debates that are central to questions of inclusion. Inequality is studied not only as a distribution of income or wealth, but also as a social and political phenomenon structured by gender, race, ethnicity, class, and historical circumstance. Dedicated lectures examine group-based inequalities and equality of opportunity, with sustained attention to intergenerational mobility and the role of circumstances at birth. Students are encouraged to critically reflect on how economic outcomes are shaped by power relations, institutions, and social norms.

Second, the course deliberately adopts a global and historical perspective. Case studies and empirical evidence span advanced economies, developing countries, and emerging economies, with extensive material on Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia, alongside Europe and North America. This avoids treating high-income Western countries as the default reference point and allows students from diverse backgrounds to see their own regions and histories reflected in the material. Historical case studies, including colonial rule, slavery, and post-colonial state formation, highlight how past institutions continue to shape present-day inequalities.

Third, the course draws on a plurality of theoretical and disciplinary perspectives. Alongside modern empirical economics, students are exposed to classical political economy, political science, sociology, and normative political philosophy. Readings range from Adam Smith, Marx, and Rawls to contemporary empirical research, allowing students to engage with contrasting views on justice, fairness, markets, and the role of the state. This pluralism helps ensure that no single theoretical framework is treated as self-evident or universal.

Finally, inclusivity is reinforced through teaching practices and assessment design. Group presentations and policy essays encourage collaborative learning and allow students to draw on their own country knowledge and lived experience. The policy essay explicitly invites students to choose a country of interest, enabling them to engage with contexts they are familiar with or wish to understand better. Seminar discussions are structured to encourage participation from students with different disciplinary backgrounds and levels of prior economics training. Overall, the course aims to create an inclusive learning environment by combining diverse empirical contexts, multiple theoretical traditions, and teaching practices that value different perspectives and forms of knowledge.

15 hours of lectures and 15 hours of seminars in the Autumn Term.

This course has a reading week in Week 6 of Autumn Term.

Presentation.

Students are required to complete an individual formative essay of up to 2,000 words, responding to the question of a specific teaching week. The purpose of the formative essay is to help students develop and practice the core analytical skills required for the summative assessments, including the final exam and the policy essay. The formative essay should engage directly with the relevant readings and lectures, construct a clear and well-structured argument, and support claims with appropriate theoretical and empirical evidence. Students are encouraged to critically assess the arguments in the literature rather than provide descriptive summaries. Formative essays are submitted online via Moodle. Students may submit their essay from Autumn Term Week 9, and no later than Autumn Term Week 11. Students receive written feedback focusing on argumentation, use of evidence, structure, and clarity. This feedback is intended to help students identify strengths and areas for improvement when writing an essay and to support preparation for the summative assessments (the policy essay and the exam). The formative essay does not contribute to the final course grade.

A detailed list of readings, as of January 2026, is available in the attached course description PDF. The syllabus may be subject to minor revisions by June 2026. A selection of readings is listed below:

• Acemoglu, D., Naidu, S. and Restrepo, P. (n.d.) ‘Democracy, Redistribution, and Inequality’.
• Albertus, M. and Menaldo, V. (2016) ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century in the Rest of the World’, Annual Review of Political Science, 19, pp. 49–66.
• Alesina, A., Seror, M., Yang, D.Y., You, Y. and Zeng, W. (n.d.) ‘Persistence Despite Revolutions’.
• Alstadsæter, A., Johannesen, N. and Zucman, G. (2019) ‘Tax Evasion and Inequality’, American Economic Review, 109(6), pp. 2073–2103.
• Assouad, L., Chancel, L. and Morgan, M. (2018) ‘Extreme Inequality: Evidence from Brazil, India, the Middle East, and South Africa’, AEA Papers and Proceedings, 108, pp. 119–123.
• Besley, T. and Persson, T. (2014) ‘Why Do Developing Countries Tax So Little?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(4), pp. 99–120.
• Bourdieu, P. (1986) ‘The Forms of Capital’, in Richardson, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press.
• Holland, A. (2016) ‘Forbearance’, American Political Science Review, 110(2), pp. 232–246.
• Mainwaring, S. and Pérez Liñán, A.S. (2023) ‘Why Latin America’s Democracies Are Stuck’, Journal of Democracy, 34(1), pp. 156–170.
• Milanovic, B. (2012) ‘Global Inequality: From Class to Location, from Proletarians to Migrants’, Global Policy, 3(2), pp. 125–134.
• Piketty, T. (2014) Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Scheve, K. and Stasavage, D. (2017) ‘Wealth Inequality and Democracy’, Annual Review of Political Science, 20, pp. 451–468.
• Slater, D., Smith, B. and Nair, G. (2014) ‘Economic Origins of Democratic Breakdown? The Redistributive Model and the Postcolonial State’, Perspectives on Politics, 12(2), pp. 353–374.
• Woker, M. (2025) ‘French Imperial Statecraft, Capital, Corporate Taxation, and the Tax Haven That Wasn’t, 1920s–1950s’, Past & Present, 266(1), pp. 188–228. 

Exam (60%), duration: 120 Minutes, reading time: 15 minutes in the Spring exam period.

Oral examination (40%).

The course is assessed through a combination of seminar presentations, a group policy essay, and a final written examination, designed to evaluate students’ achievement of the course learning outcomes across different formats.

Seminar presentations are delivered in group of 2 students and last 20 minutes. Presentations should critically engage with the assigned readings for a given week, address the central question or debate, and relate the readings to concepts introduced in lectures. Students are expected to synthesise arguments across readings, support their analysis with empirical evidence or case studies, and use presentation materials (e.g. PowerPoint slides) effectively. Presentations conclude by opening discussion and debate for the seminar. Written feedback and the presentation grade are provided after the presentation.

The group policy essay (3,000 words, groups of 2–3 students) requires students to analyse economic inequality in a country of their choice. The essay should: (i) describe and interpret inequality patterns using appropriate data; (ii) analyse political economy and institutional determinants; (iii) evaluate past policy responses; and (iv) propose feasible policy solutions. The essay assesses students’ ability to integrate empirical evidence, theoretical frameworks, and policy reasoning in a coherent written argument.

The final exam is an in-person written examination held during the Spring exam period. It combines short-answer questions testing understanding of core concepts and measurement tools, and essay and policy questions assessing students’ ability to synthesise material across the course, analyse inequality patterns, and construct well-reasoned arguments under time constraints. Clear marking criteria are provided for all summative assessments, and assessment formats are designed to allow students with different strengths to demonstrate their learning.