Inequality presents a formidable challenge to the sustainability of our societies. Currently, the top 10% globally commands 52% of total income. Notably, global wealth distribution appears even more imbalanced than income distribution. The top 10% holds a staggering 76% of total net wealth, inclusive of substantial financial wealth. The wealthier individuals are, the greater the proportion of financial assets in their overall wealth. In the upper echelons, these financial assets can constitute 90-95% of total wealth in countries like France or the US. Increased wealth inequality is frequently associated with more concentrated equity ownership, and there exists a positive correlation between rates of return and wealth. Within the evolution of diversification in portfolios, capital gains and dividends from equity play a pivotal role in driving the dynamics of inequality (Bach et al., 2020; Fagereng et al., 2020; Chancel et al., 2022).
 
Moreover, corporate profits and equity return rates serve as instruments for monitoring the operation of capital and capitalism. While stock indices are broadly utilized as macroeconomic indicators, the rate of profit stands as the essential element of the capitalist metabolic process, fluctuating over time in response to economic, political, and cultural influences. Understanding how changing historical conditions have impacted profits and vice versa is critical to comprehending historical change and the 'regimes' of capitalism. Focusing on profit can aid in understanding and situating pivotal historical shifts in global economic history and their aftermaths, such as (de)industrialization, war, crisis, and empire. The concept of profit itself is imbued with a historical dimension that is inseparably linked to the temporal and geographic dynamics of capital and its incorporation. Profit is thus not a timeless and spaceless category. Beyond its role as a medium for competition and capital mobility, profit serves as a pivotal distributional category. If, under perfect markets and without significant differential taxation, the inclination to retain profits rather than distribute them through dividends is largely neutral, it might have implications for both firms' future growth and individuals' income and wealth in historical contexts. (Lazonick & O'Sullivan, 2000; Levy, 2014; Ogle, 2020; Piketty, 2019).
 
The measurement of profits is a crucial element of a capitalist system (Toms, 2010). Both the measurement of accounting profits by firms and the measurement of returns on their investments by investors affect how the profits from investing are perceived. Of course, the accounting measurement of profits includes and determines the payments to creditors (interest), shareholders (dividends), governments (taxes), and managers (executive compensation). Thus, the measurement of profits affects the distribution of profits, but envisioned profit distribution might determine to some extent how profits are measured, particularly in an environment with little or weak accounting regulation.
 
This session explores profit, dividends, and returns over the 19th and 20th centuries. Organizers welcome papers addressing the issue at the country level or from a comparative perspective. Within this framework, potential research avenues are delineated by the examination of economic sectors, large versus small enterprises, domestic versus foreign entities, metropolitan versus colonial establishments, and innovative versus mature businesses. Perspectives that explore technological spillovers, financial cross-country effects, trade, and foreign-direct investments are also encouraged.
 
One-page paper proposals should be submitted to Angelo Riva at angelo.riva[at]psemail.eu . The deadline for submissions is 31 October 2024. Proposals will be evaluated by the Scientific Committee, and authors will be notified of the decision by 30 November 2024
 
Scientific Committee
Jan Annaert (University of Antwerp)
Abe De Jong (University of Groningen and Monash University)
Angelo Riva (INSEEC Business School, OMNES Research Center and Paris School of Economics)
Uwe Walz (Goethe University in Frankfurt)