Search

In recent decades, global extreme poverty has been substantially reduced. While over a third of the world’s population lived below the extreme poverty line (less than $1.90 per day) in 1990, that share had fallen to just 10% by 2015 (World Bank, 2018). This dramatic improvement has shown the world that it is possible to end extreme poverty, and the international development community has thus set itself a goal to do that by 2030. Meanwhile, national inequality has also become a topic of greater focus in the development policy debate in recent years (World Bank, 2016). These two distinct, but connected, issues have been recognised by the international community with inclusion in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as both a goal to end poverty (SDG 1) and a goal to reduce inequality within countries (SDG 10)., Two Pager

Since the 1980s, income inequality has increased substantially in several countries. Yet the political logic that triggered rising inequality in some places but not in others remains poorly understood. This paper builds a theory that links central bank independence to these dynamics. It posits the existence of three mechanisms that tie central bank independence to inequality. First, central bank independence indirectly constrains fiscal policy and weakens a government's ability to engage in redistribution. Second, central bank independence incentivizes governments to deregulate financial markets, which generates a boom in asset values. These assets are predominantly in the hands of wealthier segments of the population. Third, to contain inflationary pressures, governments actively promote policies that weaken the bargaining power of workers. Together, these policies strengthen secular trends towards higher inequality according to standard indicators. Empirically, the analysis finds a strong relation between central bank independence and inequality, as well as support for each of the mechanisms. From a policy perspective, our findings contribute to knowledge on the undesirable side effects of central bank independence.

The goals of ending extreme poverty by 2030 and working towards a more equal distribution of incomes are part of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. Using data from 166 countries comprising 97.5 percent of the world's population, we simulate scenarios for global poverty from 2019 to 2030 under various assumptions about growth and inequality. We use different assumptions about growth incidence curves to model changes in inequality, and rely on a machine-learning algorithm called model-based recursive partitioning to model how growth in GDP is passed through to growth as observed in household surveys. When holding within-country inequality unchanged and letting GDP per capita grow according to World Bank forecasts and historically observed growth rates, our simulations suggest that the number of extreme poor (living on less than 1.90 US Dollars/day) will remain above 600 million in 2030, resulting in a global extreme poverty rate of 7.4 percent. If the Gini index in each country decreases by 1 percent per year, the global poverty rate could reduce to around 6.3 percent in 2030, equivalent to 89 million fewer people living in extreme poverty. Reducing each country's Gini index by 1 percent per year has a larger impact on global poverty than increasing each country's annual growth 1 percentage points above forecasts. We also study the impact of COVID-19 on poverty and find that the pandemic may have driven around 60 million people into extreme poverty in 2020. If the virus increased the Gini by 2 pecent in all countries, then more than 90 million may have been driven into extreme poverty in 2020.

Conventional economic wisdom has long maintained that there is a necessary trade-off between pursuit of the efficiency of a system and any attempts to improve equity between participants within that system. Economist Robert Lucas demonstrated the implications of this common economic axiom when he wrote: “Of the tendencies that are harmful to sound economics, the most seductive, and in my opinion the most poisonous, is to focus on questions of distribution [...] the potential for improving the lives of poor people by finding different ways of distributing current production is nothing compared to the apparently limitless potential of increasing production.” (Lucas, 2004) Indeed, many economists have suggested that too little inequality or too generous a distribution of benefits may undermine the individual’s incentive to work hard and take risks. Setting aside the harsh rhetoric used by Lucas, the practical and ethical acceptability of such a trade-off is debatable. Moreover, evidence from recent decades suggests that the trade-off itself is, in many cases, entirely avoidable. A large body of research has shown that improved competition and economic efficiency are indeed compatible with government efforts to address inequality and reduce poverty, as assessed in a World Bank report (World Bank, 2016). Contrary to another common belief about economic interventions, this research indicates that such policy interventions can be tailored to succeed in all countries and at all times; even low- and middle-income countries in times of economic crisis can successfully pursue policies to improve economic distribution, with negligible negative impacts on efficiency and, in many cases, even positive ones. Some examples of such pro-equity and pro-efficiency measures include those promoting early childhood development, universal health care, quality education, conditional cash transfers, rural infra-structure investment, and well-designed tax policy. Overall, four critical policy points stand out: A trade-off is not inevitable. Policymakers do not need to give up on reducing inequality for the sake of growth. A good choice of policies can achieve both. In the last two decades, research has generated substantive evidence about which policies work to foster growth and reduce inequalities. Policies can redress the inequalities children are born into while fostering growth. But the wrong sets of policies can magnify inequalities early in life and thereafter. All countries can, under most circumstances, implement policies that are both pro-equity and pro-efficiency., Briefing Paper

Herkömmlichen Wirtschaftsweisheiten folgend, ging man lange davon aus, dass es unmöglich ist, ein System gleichzeitig effizienter zu gestalten und auf eine größere Gleichheit der Menschen in diesem System hinzuarbeiten. Der Ökonom Robert Lucas beschrieb die Folgen dieses weitverbreiteten Axioms folgendermaßen: „Von allen Neigungen, die einer soliden Wirtschaft schaden, ist die Fokussierung auf Verteilungsfragen am weitesten verbreitet und aus meiner Sicht sogar am verheerendsten […] Das Potenzial zur Verbesserung des Lebensstandards der Armen durch verschiedene Arten der Umverteilung der gegenwärtigen Produktion verblasst im Gegensatz zum schier unerschöpflichen Potenzial zur Produktionssteigerung.“ (Lucas, 2004) In der Tat haben viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler die Meinung vertreten, dass eine geringe Ungleichheit oder eine zu großzügige Verteilung von Leistungen den Anreiz schmälern könnte, hart zu arbeiten und Risiken einzugehen. Jenseits der harschen Rhetorik von Lucas lässt sich diese Prämisse sicherlich aus praktischen wie aus ethischen Erwägungen heraus kritisieren. Zumal es Forschungsergebnisse aus den letzten Jahrzehnten gibt, wonach es in vielen Fällen gar nicht um ein „Entweder-Oder“ geht. Es gibt umfangreiches Forschungsmaterial, das belegt, dass verstärkter Wettbewerb und größere wirtschaftliche Effizienz durchaus mit staatlichen Bemühungen zur Reduzierung von Ungleichheit und Armut kompatibel sind, wie etwa aus einem Bericht der Weltbank hervorgeht (Weltbank, 2016). Konträr zu einer weiteren weit verbreiteten Annahme über staatliche Eingriffe in die Wirtschaft, weist die Forschung ebenfalls darauf hin, dass solche Interventionen erfolgreich auf die Bedürfnisse aller Länder und zu jedem beliebigen Zeitpunkt angepasst werden können. Selbst Länder mit niedrigem oder mittleren Einkommen können während einer Wirtschaftskrise erfolgreich wirtschaftliche Umverteilungsmaßnahmen vornehmen, die vernachlässigbare Auswirkungen auf die Effizienz haben und des Öfteren sogar positive Wirkungen entfalten. Solche Maßnahmen, die gleichzeitig auf größere Gleichheit und größere Effizienz ausgerichtet sind, umfassen zum Beispiel Programme in den Bereichen frühkindliche Entwicklung, allgemeine Gesundheitsversorgung, hochwertige Bildung, konditionierte bargeldbasierte Transfers (cash transfers), Investitionen in die ländliche Infrastruktur sowie eine gut konzipierte Steuerpolitik. Zentrale Bedeutung kommt folgenden vier Punkten zu: (1) Es geht nicht um ein „Entweder-Oder“. Entscheidungsträger müssen zugunsten des Wirtschaftswachstums nicht auf Maßnahmen zur Reduzierung von Ungleichheit verzichten. Eine gute Politik kann beides erreichen. (2) In den letzten beiden Jahrzehnten hat die Forschung substanzielle Belege dafür erbracht, welche Art von Politik sowohl das Wachstum fördert als auch Ungleichheiten reduzieren hilft. (3) Politik kann ungleichen Bedingungen, in die Kinder hineingeboren werden und die sich auf deren weitere Entwicklung auswirken, entgegenwirken. (4) In den meisten Fällen können alle Länder Maßnahmen implementieren, die sowohl auf größere Gleich­heit als auch auf mehr Wachstums abzielen., Analysen und Stellungnahmen

A country where an individual’s chances of success depend little on the socio-economic success of his or her parents is said to be a country with high relative intergenerational mobility. A government’s motivation for seeking to improve mobility is arguably two-fold. There is a fairness argument and an economic efficiency argument. When mobility is low, it means that individuals are not operating on a level playing field. The odds of someone born to parents from the bottom of their generation will be stacked against him or her. This is not only unfair but also leads to a waste of human capital, as talented individuals may not be given the opportunity to reach their full potential. Reducing this inefficiency will raise the stock of human capital and thereby stimulate economic growth. Since the waste of human capital tends to be concentrated toward the bottom of the distribution, the growth brought about by mobility-promoting policy interventions tends to be of an inclusive nature, in line with the spirit of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 10 on reducing inequality. For large parts of the world’s population, individual education is still too closely tied to the education of one’s parents, and there is a clear divide between the high-income and developing world. The patterns observed globally are also observed within Europe. Intergenerational mobility (or equality of opportunity) is visibly lower in the new member states (i.e. Eastern Europe), where national incomes are lower. Raising investment in the human capital of poor children towards levels that are more comparable to the investment received by children from richer families will curb the importance of parental background in determining an individual’s human capital. Countries at any stage of development can raise intergenerational mobility by investing more to equalise opportunities. The evidence strongly suggests that public interventions are more likely to increase mobility when: a) public investments are sufficiently large, b) are targeted to benefit disadvantaged families/ neighbourhoods, c) focus on early childhood, and d) when there is a low degree of political power captured by the rich., Briefing Paper

"Shared prosperity" has become a common phrase in the development policy discourse. This short paper provides its most widely used operational definition -- the growth rate in the average income of the poorest 40 percent of a country's population -- and describes its origins. The paper discusses how this notion relates to well-established concepts and social indicators, including social welfare, poverty, inequality, and mobility, and reviews some of its design shortcomings. The paper then looks at household survey data to assess recent progress in this indicator globally. The analysis finds that during 2008–13, mean incomes for the poorest 40 percent rose in 60 of 83 countries. In 49 of them, accounting for 65 percent of the sampled population, it rose faster than overall average incomes. Finally, the paper briefly reviews a (non-exhaustive) range of 'pre-distribution' and 'redistribution' policies with a sound empirical track record of raising productivity and well-being among the poor, thus contributing to shared prosperity.

The adoption of the shared prosperity goal by the World Bank in 2013 and Sustainable Development Goal 10, on inequality, by the United Nations in 2015 should strengthen the focus of development interventions and cooperation on the income growth of the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution (the bottom 40). However, little is known about within-country allocation patterns among the projects of development institutions. This paper proposes a new geographic targeting indicator and related methodology to assess the within-country aid allocations of donors by correlating the distribution of funding within countries with the geographical distribution of the bottom 40. Applying this methodology to World Bank funding for projects approved over 2005–14 shows that, of the 58 countries in the sample, 42 exhibit a positive correlation between the shares of the bottom 40 and World Bank funding, and, in almost half of these, the correlation is above 0.5. Slightly more than a quarter of the countries, mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa, exhibit a negative correlation. The presence of the bottom 40 is typically correlated with the population size of an administrative area. A regression analysis shows that, controlling for population, the correlation between the bottom 40 and World Bank funding switches sign and becomes significant and negative on average. This is entirely driven by Sub-Saharan Africa, because the correlation is insignificant in the rest of the world regions. Hence, the significant and positive correlation in the estimations without controlling for population suggests that World Bank project funding is concentrated in administrative areas in which more people live (including the bottom 40) rather than in poorer administrative areas. ispartof: World Bank Group Policy Research Working Paper Series 8247/2017 pages:1-24 status: published

Growth that reduces poverty is often considered pro-poor regardless of whether the poor benefit from it more than the non-poor. Such growth could simply be termed poverty-reducing growth. This paper argues that for growth to be pro-poor it should disproportionally benefit the poor. The paper proposes an operational definition of pro-poor growth that restricts it to the cases in which the mean income of the poor increases proportionally more than that of the non-poor. A new index is proposed based exclusively on the redistributional component of poverty-gap changes obtained through an exact decomposition. It is then shown that this component measures how pro-poor growth is over a given period based on the above mentioned definition. The paper further presents several indicators for evaluating and monitoring the 'pro-poorness' of growth over time and concludes with an empirical illustration for the case of Honduras.