Search

The EU-wide survey ' Statistics on Income and Living Conditions' ( EU- SILC) is extremely important for international social science research and policy advice. It is therefore crucial to ensure that the data are of the highest quality and international comparability. This paper is aimed at identifying unexpected developments in income levels, income mobility, and inequality in the EU- SILC data between 2005 and 2009. We examine the consistency of EU- SILC by comparing cross-sectional results with findings based on two-year longitudinal samples. Although the data represent similar populations, for several countries the results of this comparison differ widely. One important outcome is the high degree of variability over time in countries that obtain their income information from register data. This suggests methodological challenges in the clear designation of new subsample members, in the reweighting of the data, in imputation of missing values, and in other areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Papers in Regional Science is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this paper, we have presented the patterns of inequality, growth and income inequality in the MENA region. Using a cross-sectional time series data of MENA countries for the period 1985-2009, we have also investigated the effect of income inequality on key societal development, namely economic growth and poverty, in the region. Our empirical results show that income inequality reduces economic growth and increases poverty in the region. Other factors having significant negative effect on economic growth in the MENA region include previous growth rate, exchange rate, government consumption expenditure or government burden, initial per capita GDP, inflation and primary education. On the other hand, variables positively and significantly associated with MENA's economic growth are domestic investment rate, urbanization, infrastructure development, and mineral rent as a percentage of GDP. In addition, apart from income inequality, other factors increasing poverty in the region are foreign direct investment, population growth, inflation rate, and the attainment of only primary education. Poverty-reducing variables in the region include domestic investment, trade openness, exchange rate, income per capita, and oil rents as a percentage of GDP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Social Security Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article challenges Horner and Hulme's call to move from 'international development' to 'global development' with a reaffirmation of the classical traditions of development studies. With some adaptation to fit the changing contemporary context, these traditions not only remain relevant but also recover vital insights that have been obscured in the various fashionable re‐imaginings of development. In particular, development thinking and agendas in the past were much more radical and ambitious in addressing the imperatives of redistribution and progressive forms of transformation in the context of stark asymmetries of wealth and power. Such ambition is still needed to address the nature and scale of challenges that continue to face the bulk of countries in the world, particularly given the persistence if not deepening of asymmetries. This reaffirmation is elaborated by addressing three major weaknesses in Horner and Hulme's arguments. First, they do not actually define development, but instead treat it as simply poverty and inequality dynamics, which are better understood as outcomes rather than causes. Second, despite their assertion that the study of (international) development was primarily concerned with between‐country inequalities, this is not true. Domestic inequality was in fact central to both development theory and policy since the origins of the field. Third, the authors ignore the rise of neoliberalism from the late 1970s onwards and the profound crisis that this caused to development outside of East Asia and perhaps India, which the jargon of 'global' implicitly obfuscates and even condones. Rather, the experiences of East Asia and in particular China arguably vindicate classical approaches in development studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In academic economics, inequality has received little attention in recent decades, although popular concerns about the super-rich have grown. The World Top Incomes Database provides evidence of the rise of the super-rich in many countries since 1980. Thomas Piketty has publicised the new data, predicting increases in inequality due to the return to capital exceeding the rate of economic growth and advocating policies to counter such increases by high taxes on the income and wealth of the super-rich. This article asks why inequality has been a neglected topic, assesses empirical contributions and Piketty' s model and discusses implications for evidence-based policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]