Syndicate content

inequality

Services, Inequality, and the Dutch Disease

LTD Editors's picture

A new World Bank policy research working paper by Bill Battaile, Richard Chisik, and Harun Onder shows how Dutch disease effects may arise solely from a shift in demand following a natural resource discovery. The natural resource wealth increases the demand for non-tradable luxury services due to non-homothetic preferences. Labor that could be used to develop other non-resource tradable sectors is pulled into these service sectors. As a result, manufactures and other tradable goods are more likely to be imported, and learning and productivity improvements accrue to the foreign exporters.

Poverty, Shared Prosperity, and Trade-Offs

Kathleen Beegle's picture

In April 2013, the World Bank Group endorsed two ambitious goals:  (1) to end extreme poverty by 2030, and; (2) to promote “shared prosperity” by boosting the incomes of the poorest 40 percent of the population in every country. The introduction of the second goal marked a shift in the World Bank Group’s poverty reduction mission. Some might consider the goal #2 to constitute a refinement of a longer-standing -- albeit implicit -- emphasis on growth, widely considered a necessary condition for poverty reduction. 

Is goal #1, ending extreme poverty by 2030, paramount and is goal #2 subsidiary to that first objective? On the other hand, if these two goals are prioritized equally, what might this mean for the extreme poor?  What are the trade-offs between boosting the incomes of the bottom 40 percent in every developing country and ending extreme poverty globally?

Friday roundup: Malaria, Piketty and Ravallion, Oxfam Challenges IFIs on Inequality, and Global Flows in the Digital Age

LTD Editors's picture

'Our goal: Defeat malaria forever' is the title of a Path blog to commemorate World Malaria Day. Written by Dr. Carlos C. (Kent) Campbell and Bindiya Patel to commemorate World Malaria Day, it stresses that malaria control alone won't be enough to stop the disease.

Meanwhile, the economics world continues to be rocked by Piketty. His powerpoint on Capital in the 21st Century, presented recently at an IMF event where Martin Ravallion played the role of discussant, can be downloaded here. Ravallion provided his own take on historic inequality trends and explained why he thinks there is still hope that extreme poverty in the developing world will continue to fall, thanks in no small part to growth and other factors.

Growth, Inequality, and Social Welfare: Cross-Country Evidence

LTD Editors's picture

Social welfare functions that assign weights to individuals based on their income levels can be used to document the relative importance of growth and inequality changes for changes in social welfare. This method is applied in a new working paper by David Dollar, Tatjana Kleineberg, and Aart Kraay. They find that, in a large panel of industrial and developing countries over the past 40 years, most of the cross-country and over-time variation in changes in social welfare is due to changes in average incomes. In contrast, the changes in inequality observed during this period are on average much smaller than changes in average incomes, are uncorrelated with changes in average incomes, and have contributed relatively little to changes in social welfare.

Friday Roundup: DeLong on Piketty, Gentzkow wins Bates Medal, Mobile Money, and Remittances in Africa

LTD Editors's picture

Equitablog, run by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, has launched a series of 'Notes and Finger Exercises on Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.' Brad DeLong's post, 'There Are Four r’s', details some alleged oversights in Piketty's book. In particular, DeLong focuses on how the real interest rate behaves at different levels of economic activity. He highlights Larry Summers' concern about secular stagnation and the risk that rich folks might retreat from investing in industry. And DeLong pulls out some sexy math.

Matthew Gentzkow has won the John Bates Clark Medal, an honor conferred by the American Economic Association for his contributions to "our understanding of the economic forces driving the creation of media products, the changing nature and role of media in the digital environment, and the effect of media on education and civic engagement..."

Of Oxfam, inequality, public services and twinning

Dean Mitchell Jolliffe's picture

Last week, Oxfam released a powerful report on inequality, “Working for the Many: Public services fight inequality.” The report makes a persuasive case for the need to bring more attention to the issue of inequality in policy discussions. Indeed, at the recent World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim stated that “at Davos, income inequality should be front and center” as an important item on the global agenda. I was recently a discussant in a session on the Oxfam report at a Spring Meetings event alongside Max Lawson of Oxfam Great Britain and David Coady of the IMF's Fiscal Affairs Department. The case Oxfam makes that inequality is harmful to the global economy is well articulated and their prescription for a solution is highly focused: increase the amount of progressive taxation to fund free and universal health and education.  In the following slides, I provide a few examples of where we might want to broaden our thinking on the issue of inequality. In particular, I offer a couple of illustrations where a singular focus on inequality would lead us to undervalue some very important progress that has been made in the fight to eliminate poverty. In contrast, by ‘twinning’ the goals of eliminating extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity, the policies we design may be more likely to ensure that everyone shares in growth and prosperity.

Stiglitz on Milanovic and inequality

LTD Editors's picture

In today's NYT opinionator blog, Joe Stiglitz writes about inequality and the research of Branko Milanovic, World Bank lead economist and inequality expert. In his post, Stiglitz draws from Milanovic's research on long range inequality trends to ponder who the winners and losers of globalization have been and how the most recent worldwide financial crisis affected both the level of global inequality and the relative importance of differences in mean country income vs. nationally based inequalities. His post explores whether we envisage a situation where income inequality continues, by and large, to increase within nations, but, spurred by the high growth of China and India, decreases globally. Stiglitz also ponders the hollowing-out of traditional middle classes in rich countries.

Why Didn’t the World Bank Make Reducing Inequality One of Its Goals?

Jaime Saavedra-Chanduvi's picture

The World Bank Group (WBG) has established that its mission, endorsed by the governors of its client countries, is centered around the goals of sustainably ending extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity.  Extreme poverty is monitored by the percent of people living below the $1.25-a-day threshold.  The Bank’s mission thus gives a clear message:  Extreme poverty, hunger, destitution must come to an end.

To monitor progress in shared prosperity, the WBG will track the income growth of the bottom 40 percent of the population in each country.  The clear signal the WBG wants to give is that the institutional mission is about reducing poverty, fostering growth and increasing equity, so we need to monitor what happens to welfare of the less well off in every country.  Improving averages is not enough; a laser focus on those who are at the bottom of the distribution at all times, everywhere, is needed.

Top Incomes and the Measurement of Inequality in Egypt

Paolo Verme's picture

The January 2011 revolution in Egypt that overthrew 30 years of autocratic rule was in part due to a sense of deteriorating economic situation, injustice and growing inequality in the society. This was voiced by protesters during the revolution but also by intellectuals and the press after the fall of the old regime in an effort to explain the revolution. The World Values Surveys administered in Egypt in 2000 and 2008 confirm that the subjective aversion to inequality has intensified between the two years and for all social groups.  

It is thus surprising that economic inequality in Egypt as measured by household surveys is low and has been declining during the past decade. In 2009, the most recent year when a large household income and expenditure survey was administered, the Gini coefficients for inequality in incomes and expenditures were 32.9 and 30.5 respectively , far lower than in surrounding countries, southern Europe or the United States. This finding led observers to dismiss these figures as “unreliable” and incapable of capturing the true economic inequality in Egypt.

Understanding the Sources of Spatial Disparity and Convergence: Evidence from Bangladesh

Forhad Shilpi's picture

The economic liberalization during the last couple of decades led to impressive economic growth and poverty reduction in many developing countries. This period has also witnessed worsening of income inequality and widening of spatial disparity (World Development Report (2009); Kanbur and Venables (2005); Kim (2008)). There is considerable worry among policy makers about the extent to which this rise in spatial inequality is due to increasing disparity in opportunities in terms of provision of basic infrastructure and services. The recent growth and poverty reduction experience places Bangladesh as an exception to this trend of increasing spatial inequality.  Bangladesh made significant strides in poverty reduction between 2000 and 2010 with incidence of poverty falling from 48.9 percent to 31.5 percent. During the same period, the incidence of poverty declined more than proportionately in traditionally poorer regions, reducing welfare gaps across regions. There is also no evidence of significant change in overall inequality over the same period. What made spatial disparity in Bangladesh to decline while its economic growth accelerated substantially? What were the sources of decline in spatial disparity in welfare?

Pages