V. Kouforizou, M. Koumerta, E. Tsakalotos, C. Tsitsikas
The annual UBS report on global wealth [1] was recently published, and the numbers are truly shocking. 48.1% of the world’s wealth is in the hands of just 1.6% of the global population, while the poorest 41% have just 0.6% of the world’s wealth [2]. It is honestly difficult to decide which of these two facts is more staggering. What is certain is that we all need to consider what this means for people’s lives.
Greece is not far from this reality. According to UBS data, the wealth of billionaires in Greece is increasing, and at the same time, Greece is in the top three (along with the Netherlands and Austria) for the increase in wealth inequality for 2024 compared to the previous year. Simultaneously, according to Hellenic Statistical Authority (ELSTAT) data, income inequality in 2024 was higher than in 2019.
The conclusion from the above is that any growth in recent years has been accompanied by an increase in inequalities. Even in periods of growth, not everyone gets a share of the gains. On the contrary, a relatively small fraction of people reaps the lion’s share, constantly intensifying the problem of inequality. The data on both wealth and income inequality cannot be a coincidence. It is the result of institutions and policies that allow the gains from growth to accumulate in the hands of a relatively small elite.
Over the last few years, a neoliberal ideology has dominated almost unopposed—with the possible exception of the period after the 2009 crisis—which posits that there are three sources of growth.
The first is the privatization of every public structure and the deregulation of every economic activity (in the product market, the labor market, energy, etc.). The goal is free, unadulterated competition, since only the market, liberated from state regulation and intervention, can supposedly unleash the dynamism of entrepreneurship. The state—whether developmental or social—only creates distortions and is a burden on the private economy.
The second stems from the observation that at no time and nowhere has there been the pure competition that proponents of neoliberalism promote. In practice, the liberalism of neoliberals is completely compatible with phenomena such as regulatory capture [3], cartels, countless methods of tax evasion and avoidance, and clear cases of corruption. There are indications that what is known as political capitalism [4] has been strengthened in recent years, where major parties support their social base not from the gains of growth, but by drawing resources from the state itself. At the same time, we have financialization in many sectors where, for example, equity funds, instead of creating new value, simply extract existing value—the most characteristic example being investment in existing real estate.
The third source is the so-called “trickle-down economics.” This is the belief that if we lighten the burdens on the rich, they will increase their investments, growth will be stimulated, and ultimately, the income of the lower and middle classes will be boosted.
The results are disappointing for all three sources of growth. Global investments are below expectations and needs. Growth, although there were periods with better and worse results, is on average worse than the pre-neoliberal period. Deregulation and the shrinking of the welfare state have hurt the most vulnerable and increased inequalities.
Perhaps the most powerful refutation has to do with the supposedly positive effects of trickle-down economics. For example, in their article, Hope and Limberg [5], using a sample of 18 OECD countries for the period 1965–2015, identified 30 major tax cuts for the rich and concluded that while these cuts led to an increase in the income of the richest 1% (thus intensifying inequalities), they did not have a statistically significant effect on indicators such as growth rate or unemployment. This result demolishes the narrative of trickle-down economics and contributes to the findings of UBS.
Greece is no exception to the above. For example, it is a leader in the drive to privatize, a process that began with the “socialist” government of K. Simitis and in recent years, under the government of New Democracy, has led to the reduction of participation in Public Power Corporation (PPC), the reduction of participation in refineries, the concession of ports and highways, the reduction of stakes in the banking system, and the sale of stakes in the electricity network. At the same time, there is a systematic refusal by the government to regulate markets, especially cartels. On the other hand, there is also deregulation of the labor market and the compression of trade union rights, both aimed at suppressing wages—a policy that in recent years has led to a decrease in labour’s share and an increase in the share of profits in GDP.
And obviously, the increase in the wealth of the richest one-third of the population was reinforced by the way the New Democracy party distributed the resources of the Recovery and Resilience Fund, the reluctance to regulate the housing market (where speculation by equity funds has skyrocketed)—let alone invest in the necessary social housing that is so lacking in our country since we are a European exception—and in practices that are constantly being revealed, where the scandal of the Greek Agricultural Payments and Control Organization (OPEKEPE) is just the most recent example.
Simultaneously, despite the evidence to the contrary, the New Democracy government continues with the strategy of trickle-down economics. Thus, in the last 6 years, we have seen interventions in Greece to reduce tax rates on high incomes, reduce taxes on business profits and dividends, reduce the Single Property Tax (ENFIA) on large properties (e.g., 10% for real estate worth over €1 million), and increase the tax-free allowance on parental donations to levels where if two parents have two children, they can transfer assets worth up to €3.2 million tax-free.
And even though in recent years Greece has been doing better in terms of growth than other EU countries, inequalities are getting worse. The conclusions from all the above are two. Without a different strategy for growth and the role of the workers’ wages in that strategy, the UBS numbers are not going to improve in the coming years. At the same time, without a reduction in the enormous inequalities created in the neoliberal era, we will neither solve the social problems, nor create the social alliances that will allow us to address the dominant problem of our time: the climate crisis.
—————————————
[1] UBS Global Wealth Report (2025)
[2] These numbers are consistent with data from the World Inequality Lab, where the richest 1% of the world’s population holds 42% of the total global wealth, and the poorest 50% holds 0.9% of the wealth.
[3] This is the situation in which regulatory bodies, instead of serving the public interest, are controlled by the interests of the sectors they are supposed to regulate.
[4] L. Seaton (2023), “Reflections on ‘Political Capitalism,’” New Left Review, 142, Jul.–Aug.
[5] Hope, D., & Limberg, J. (2022). The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich. Socio-Economic Review, 20(2), 539-559.