Should social insurance programs count as wealth? Augmented wealth in research and policy

Bibliographic Data

ID4237222
AuthorsRobert Manduca (0000-0001-5924-3224, University of Michigan, corresponding author)
Year2025
Volume23
Issue4
Pages1863-1893
Publication date2025-04-21
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueSocio-Economic Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1475-1461 • E-ISSN: 1475-147X
PublisherOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/ser/mwaf020
OpenAlexW4409639159
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited67

Research on wealth and wealth inequality is hindered by lack of consensus on a fundamental question: what counts as wealth? Scholars disagree on whether net worth should encompass only marketable assets or also include non-marketable "augmented wealth," such as pensions and social insurance programs. Because augmented wealth often exceeds marketable wealth in total value and is much more equitably distributed, definitional choices shape even the most basic conclusions of empirical wealth research. This article advocates for use-specific wealth definitions, recommending that researchers first identify the use(s) for wealth of interest in a given study, then include all assets available for those uses, whether marketable or not. Case studies of Norway and the United States demonstrate the importance of augmented wealth-beyond pensions alone-across the wealth distribution, while a cross national analysis shows that differences in augmented wealth can help resolve the puzzling lack of correlation between income and (marketable) wealth inequality across countries

Actuarial science · Business · Economics · Public economics · Social insurance · Financial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis · Global Health Care Issues · Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism

Tools

Open DOI