You are on page 1of 7

1

GALOP DE DROIT PUBLIC


Octobre 2016

Les ingalits sont-elles ncessaires la


croissance conomique ?

Envoi des copies prepaconcoursfp@gmail.com avant


le 14 novembre 2016

Corpus documentaire
Document n1
Federico Cingano (OCDE), 2014, Trends in Income Inequality and
its Impact on Economic Growth

Document n2
Thomas Piketty, 2013, Le capital au XXIe sicle

Document n3
France Stratgie, 2016, Le cot conomique des discriminations

Document n4
Erik Brynjolfsson, 2014, The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress,
and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies
Technology is certainly not the only force causing this rise in spread, but
it is one of the main ones. Todays information technologies favor moreskilled over less-skilled workers, increase the returns to capital owners
over labor, and increase the advantages that superstars have over
everybody else. All of these trends increase spreadbetween those that
have a job and those that dont, between highly skilled and educated
workers and less advanced ones, between superstars and the rest of us.
Its clear to us, from everything weve seen and learned recently, that all
else being equal, future technologies will tend to increase spread, just as
they will boost the bounty.
The fact that technology brings both bounty and spread, and brings more
of both over time, leads to an important question: Since theres so much
bounty, should we be concerned about the spread? In other words, we
might consider rising inequality less of a problem if people at the bottom
are also seeing their lives improve thanks to technology.
Income inequality and other measures of spread are increasing, but not
everyone is convinced this is a problem. Some observers advance what we
will call the strong bounty argument, which essentially says that a focus
on spread is misleading and inappropriate, since bounty is the more
important phenomenon and exists even at the bottom of the spread. This
argument acknowledges that highly skilled workers are pulling away from
the restand that superstars are pulling so far away as to be out of sight
but then essentially asks, So what?
As long as all peoples economic lives are getting better, why should we be
concerned if some are getting a lot better? As Harvard economist Greg
Mankiw has argued, the enormous income earned by the one percent is
not necessarily a problem if it reflects the just deserts of people who are
creating value for everyone else.

Document n5
Laurent Davezies, 2015, Le Nouvel Egosme territorial
Lune des premires consquences de la fragmentation des pays
industriels est de mettre en cause le modle de cohsion territoriale qui
sy est dvelopp ces dernires dcennies. Ce modle, aussi puissant
quhomogne, et pourtant peu mis en valeur et tudi, concrtise lide
que ce qui dfinit dabord la nation est le fait quelle tablisse un
primtre de solidarit entre ses citoyens et entre ses territoires. Plus
large est ce primtre de solidarit, plus forte est lassurance mutuelle
interterritoriale, qui permet la plus grande mobilisation de toutes les
ressources de la nation, pour le plus grand bien de tous.
Hier encore, les analystes saccordaient penser que les grandes nations
auraient des avantages conomiques sur les petites qui, elles, nauraient
que des avantages politiques et en termes de cohsion sociale. Et ils le
vrifiaient. Avec la mondialisation, les avantages politiques et
conomiques seraient dsormais passs du ct des petites nations. Fautil, ds lors, accepter ce fait et traiter avec complaisance tous les
mouvements qui, via lautonomie, la fdralisation ou le rfrendum
dindpendance, poussent aujourdhui la fragmentation des nations ?
Ce serait ne pas voir que lefficacit conomique attribue aux petites
nations est discutable maints gards. Une cosse ou une Catalogne
indpendantes marcheraient peut-tre mieux sur le plan conomique,
mais moins parce quelles seraient plus efficaces que parce quelles se
seraient affranchies du fardeau de la solidarit avec lIrlande du Nord ou
lAndalousie.
La scession des rgions mieux dotes davantages comparatifs ou de
ressources ne les rend pas plus efficaces , mais leur permet simplement
den bnficier sans partage.
Pourtant, la population dun grand pays aux rgions ingales mais
solidaires se dveloppe globalement mieux que si elle tait rpartie entre
plusieurs pays non solidaires et de niveaux diffrents de dveloppement.
Ce qui est bon pour les petits pays ne lest pas, globalement, pour le
monde. De surcrot, leur prolifration multiplierait les problmes de
comportements non coopratifs (paradis ou dumping fiscaux), de
passagers clandestins (en matire de dfense, notamment), de
vulnrabilit des pouvoirs publics vis- - vis de grands intrts marchands
lgaux ou illgaux. Elle rendrait plus difficile les accords internationaux sur
toutes les questions urgentes qui proccupent le monde daujourdhui,
dans le domaine de lenvironnement, de la gestion des ressources de
lhumanit ou de la scurit collective.
7