Search

This study attempts to reassess the relationship between economic growth and inequality using an up to date data set, 2003-2007, for a sample of seventy-four developed and developing countries. Average economic growth during this studied period is regressed against the 2003 values of inequality, growth, education, human development, inflation and governance quality using OLS cross-country models. The findings support a negative impact of inequality on economic growth for the entire sample. In particular, an increase (decrease) in inequality would lead to greater deterioration (expansion) in economic development in low-income countries than in high- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, improvement in governance does not either stimulate or hinder the economic growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Numerous papers have searched for empirical linkages between long run economic growth and a myriad of economic, socio-political and environmental factors. Most of these studies use ordinary least-squares regression or panel regression analysis on a sample of countries and therefore consider the behaviour of growth around the mean of the conditional distribution. We extend the literature by using quantile regression to analyse long-term growth at a variety of points in the conditional distribution. By using this approach, we identify the determinants of growth for under performing countries relative to those for over achieving countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development process and the demographic changes that are a central element of it explain both the nearly two centuries of increasing income inequality prior to 2000 and the reversal of this trend that followed. There are at least four phases of the development process: (1) Malthusian pre‐development, (2) initial growth, (3) improved productivity, and (4) receding growth. Prior to the industrial revolution, the entire world was in the Malthusian Phase 1. During 1820–1950, about 20 countries, mostly in Western Europe, North America, and Oceania, moved out of Phase 1 and began to grow more rapidly. But, per capita income levels in the rest of the world continued to stagnate and worldwide income inequality widened continuously for at least 150 years following the Industrial Revolution. Around 1960, developing countries began to escape the Malthusian trap and move into Phase 2 of development. By the latter part of the 20th century, many developing countries were achieving growth rates equal to or greater than the high‐income countries, slowing the rise in inequality. By 2000–2015 most developing countries were in either Phases 2 or 3 of development, while most of the high‐income countries were moving into Phase 4, leading to a sharp reduction in worldwide income inequality. The recent reductions in worldwide income inequality are likely to continue in the near term because of the continuation of the more favorable demographic changes in developing compared to high‐income countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article has two goals: (i) to reduce the 7-fold productivity differential required to explain the observed 33-fold income difference between the richest and poorest countries of the world; and (ii) to explain cross-country differences in the capital-output ratio. To achieve the first goal we modify the production function of the standard neoclassical growth model to include public capital whose provision is subject to intermediation costs. For the second goal we distort private investment by introducing credit frictions. The model, quantified using cross-country data, generates an income gap of 33 with productivity differences of only 3 under the measured variations in public and private capital. The required productivity gap declines even further, to 2.1, when we introduce a home-production sector. On the second goal, however, credit frictions do a poor job of explaining cross-country variations in the capital-output ratio. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between level of economic development and income distribution is analyzed using both a relative measure of income distribution and, for the first time, an absolute measure of income distribution which corrects for purchasing power differences between nations. Cross-sectional regression analysis findings indicate support for non-linear relationships both in the total sample of 68 nations, and also in sub-samples of 54 developing nations and 14 industrial democracies. Our findings suggest that the poorest 40 percent of the population lose income both relatively and absolutely in the early stages of economic development. Thereafter there are gains in income although with diminishing marginal returns at the highest levels of development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]