Search

• To assess the trend of global income inequality, we must address the challenges of scarce and heterogeneous data and the diversity of opinions on what inequality means, which generates much uncertainty about the results. • This paper provides a new transparent and open-access dataset to facilitate a comprehensive analysis of global distributional changes since 1950 and their implications for inequality and overall welfare. • Inequality has unequivocally increased both between and within countries when considered in terms of dollar distances between people (absolute inequality). • When inequality is considered more as relative distances, the results are less robust. However, it can be said with a high degree of consensus that global inequality has declined since 2000, driven by strong growth in China, India, and other emerging countries, and will likely continue to do so for a few more years. • The main exceptions to the consensus on the decline in relative inequality after 2000 come from extreme sensitivity towards either end of the distribution (i.e., stagnation of the very poor or high concentration of income among the very rich). I analyze trends in global income distribution since 1950 using a new companion WIID dataset with standardized country income percentiles. I investigate the robustness of these trends with respect to key data choices, as well as the degree to which the inequality trend depends on specific distributional views (such as the use of absolute versus relative inequality, or relative emphasis at the bottom versus the top). The results show a robust increase in absolute inequality, along with a more nuanced trend in relative inequality, with a very robust decline after 2000 that was interrupted by the COVID crisis but is expected to continue at least until 2028. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: This paper empirically examines the different comparative advantages of China and India, in relation to their different skill distribution patterns. By utilizing industry export data on China and India from 1983 to 2000, we find that a country with a greater dispersion of skills (i.e.,India, especially in the earlier years) has higher exports in industries with shorter production chains, while a country with a more equal dispersion of skills (i.e., China, especially in the later years) has higher exports in industries with longer production chains. The causal relationship is fairly robust and skill sorting mechanism seems to work behind. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: The growth and export trajectories of China and India are not unique. Their significance arises from their size and the distinctive nature of their economic and political actors. For this reason they are having an increasing impact on other economies including in the developing world. This paper provides a framework for assessing these impacts, distinguishing different vectors of interaction, complementary and competitive impacts and direct and indirect impacts. This sets the scene for the articles included in this Special Issue. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: The dynamic rural nonfarm sector in China has been a major contributor to the country’s remarkable growth, while in India the growth in output and employment in this sector has been rather stagnant. This paper argues that the observed patterns in the rural nonfarm development are the results of institutional differences between the two countries, especially in their political systems, ownership structure, and credit institutions. A review of the strengths and weaknesses of the rural nonfarm economy in China and India highlights the potentials and challenges of growth in the sector. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]