Title: Economic inequality
1Economic inequality
- Refers to disparities in the distribution of
wealth and income
2Economic inequality in the world can be measured
in different ways
- within-country inequality
- between-country inequality
- individual-level inequality
- Wolf et al. call this global economic
inequality"
3Types of income inequality
- within-country inequality disparities in the
distribution of income within a country - between-country inequality disparities in the
distribution of income between countries - individual-level or global inequality
disparities in the distribution of income among
individuals worldwide
4There are different income inequality metrics
- Range
- Ratio
- Gini coefficient
5Range
- Simply the difference between the highest and
lowest observations of income (or wealth) - Reveals absolute gaps in income (or wealth)
6Ratio
- the ratio of the income of 2 different groups,
generally higher over lower - compares 2 parts of the income distribution,
rather than the distribution as a whole - equality between these parts corresponds to 11,
while the more unequal the parts, the greater the
ratio - can be calculated as "income share" what
percentage of national income a subpopulation
accounts for - e.g., in 2007, the top 10 (decile) accrued 49.7
of all income in the US, considerably higher than
10, which would hold in a condition of income
equality (Saez 2009)
7Gini coefficient
- a measure of income inequality within a
population, ranging from 0 for perfect equality
(where e/o has same income), to 1 for perfect
inequality (where one person has all the income) - population can be a country, a region, the world,
etc. - can be used to compare populations or to study
changes in a single population over time - It is defined as the area between the Lorenz
Curve and the diagonal, divided by the total
area under the diagonal
8Differences in national income inequality by
national Gini coefficients
Ranges from approx. 0.23 (Sweden) to 0.70
(Namibia)
9Incensed about Inequality
- Martin Wolf, Ch. 20, pp. 183-189 (Excerpted from
Wolf, Incensed about Inequality, in Why
Globalization Works, Yale, 2004)
10Globalization has NOT increased inequality not
global inequality
- Economic liberalization and intl economic
integration has not increased global inequality - Global inequality understood as inequality
among individuals has declined, and so has
global poverty
11Still, between-country and within-country
inequality is rising
- Absolute proportional gaps in living standards
between worlds richest and poorest countries are
rising - Inequality within the worlds big countries is
rising, e.g., the US
12Income inequality in the US (US Census Bureau
data)
13In India, two revolutions were critical for
growth since the mid-1970s
- the green revolution increased agricultural
productivity, with introduction of pesticides,
high-yield grains and better management during
1960s 1970s - economic liberalization beginning in1980s
14Economic liberalization has led to partial
convergence
- economic liberalization beginning in1980s has had
greatest impact on China India - China India have almost 2/5s of world popn
- China has more people than Latin America
sub-Saharan Africa combined
15GL, by increasing economic growth, has reduced
inequality and poverty
- The of people in extreme poverty fell from 1.18
billion in 1987 to 1.17 bil. in 1999 - Enormous declines in the of people in extreme
poverty have occurred in East Asia - The of people in extreme poverty fell very
modestly in south Asia (1990-1999), while it rose
sharply in eastern Europe and central Asia and
above all, sub-Saharan Africa - The regional incidence of poverty fell
dramatically in east Asia - The regional incidence of poverty also fell
sharply in south Asia
16"Globalization, Growth, and Poverty" (World Bank,
2002)
- 73 developing countries were divided into 2
groups - more globalized the third that had increased
ratios of trade to GDP since 1980 - less globalized 2/3s of countries with declining
in trade/GDP ratios
17"Globalization, Growth, and Poverty" Findings
- Average per capita income in globalizers (more
globalized countries) rose by 67 per year
1980-1997 - Note 75 of globalizer group's combined
population comes from India and China - Average per capita income in less globalized rose
only about 10 in same period
18"Globalization, Growth, and Poverty"
Implications
- Results challenge idea that GL necessarily makes
the rich richer, the poor poorer - (as predicted by dependency theory, for example)
- Success among globalizers did NOT require the
full-range of so-called neoliberal policies - But successful countries all share a move towards
a market economy, in which private property
rights, free enterprise and competition took the
place of state ownership, planning and protection
19Is Globalization Reducing Poverty and Inequality?
- Wade, Ch. 21, pp. 190-196 (Excerpted from Wade,
Is Globalization Reducing Poverty and
Inequality?, World Development 324, 2004)
20Two perspectives on globalization neoliberal
anti-neoliberal
- Neoliberal sees GL as confirmation that open,
liberalized economies are more prosperous - Anti-neoliberal claims GLin current neoliberal
formhas caused in rising world poverty
inequality
21Two sets of policy prescriptions
- Neoliberal
- GL ? flattening, leveling of the playing field
- Policy prescription more global economic
integration (freer trade, more FDI, more capital
market liberalization) - Anti-neoliberal
- GL ? spiking inequality
- Policy prescription less global economic
integration (limits on market forces)
22GL ? divergence among regions
- Period of accelerated globalization (1980 on)
shows positive world per capita growth but also a
wide divergence of economic performance between
developing regions - GDP of developing countries as a group
(population-weighted) grew faster than that of
high-income countries - But regional variation within Global South is
large
23Regional inequality
- Whats most striking in data is not overall
growth trends, but the size of gaps - testimony to the failure of the poorest countries
to "catch up"
24World Bank's poverty figures contain a large
margin of error
- Poverty headcount is very sensitive to the
precise level of the international poverty lines,
which change - Poverty headcount is also sensitive to the
reliability of household surveys of income and
expenditure, which vary in quality - China and India, 2 most important countries for
the overall trend, have PPP-adjusted income
figures based on even more guesswork, or
"guesstimates - 1990s change in data collection methodology makes
comparisons over time unreliable
25Still, it's plausible that the proportion of the
world population in extreme poverty has fallen
- Despite the problems with income figures, we know
about trends in other variables, which all show
improvement - life expectancy
- height
- other nonincome measures
26Economic inequality poverty?
- World poverty could decline while world
inequality rises - Theres lots of disagreement about inequality
- the trends depend on what combination of measures
and countries we use
27Prop. 1. World income distribution has become
rapidly more unequal, when incomes are measured
at market exchange rates (vs PPP exchange rates)
and expressed in US dollars
- Purchasing power parity exchange rate is
calculated to yield absolute purchasing power
parity - The PPP adjustment substantially raises the
relative income of poor countries - e.g., India's PPP GDP is about 4 times its market
exchange rate GDP - The PPP adjustment thus makes world income
distribution look much more equal than the
distribution of market exchange-rate incomes
28Purchasing power parity (PPP)
- To compare economic statistics across countries,
data must first be converted into a common
currency - Unlike conventional exchange rates, PPP exchange
rates allow this conversion to take account of
price differences between countries - Recently, PPP exchange rates have been calculated
comparing the cost of a common basket of
commodities in every country - By eliminating differences in national price
levels, the method facilitates comparisons of
real values for income, poverty, inequality and
expenditure patterns
29Empirical examples of the results of disparities
in purchasing power
- Countless migrants leave high prestige jobs in
poor countries in order to make more money in
less prestigious jobs in wealthy countries,
sending a portion of their income back home in
the form of remittances - Many working and middle class Americans have the
option to live out their retirement in poorer
countries, collecting social security payments
and pensions, which though meager in the US
context, can go relatively far in a poorer
country
30Big Mac Index, July 22, 2010
- Burgernomics is based on the theory of
purchasing-power parity, the notion that a dollar
should buy the same amount in all countries - Thus in the long run, the exchange rate between
two countries should move towards the rate that
equalizes the prices of an identical basket of
goods and services in each country - Here "basket" McDonald's Big Mac, which is
produced in about 120 countries - Big Mac PPP exchange rate that would mean
hamburgers cost same in US abroad - Comparing actual exchange rates w/ PPPs
indicates whether a currency is under- or
overvalued - The Economist, http//www.economist.com/markets/b
igmac/about.cfm
31Prop. 2. World PPP-income polarization has
increased, with polarization measured as richest
to poorest decile
- Contrast between what top 10 can buy with income
(concentrated in core countries) and what bottom
10 (mostly in Africa) can buy - The polarizing trend is even sharper if you look
at top 1 and bottom 1
32Prop. 3. Between-country world PPP income
inequality has increased since at least 1980,
using per capita GDPs, equal country weights
(China Uganda), and Gini coefficient for the
whole distribution
- By weighing countries equally treating each
country as a unit of observation we can test
growth theory and the growth impacts of public
policies, resource endowments, etc. - e.g., we can arrange countries by the openness of
their trade policies and see whether more open
countries have better economic performance
33Prop. 4. Between-country world PPP-income
inequality has been constant or falling since
around 1980 - with countries weighted by
population
- This is the trend the neoliberal argument
celebrates, but there are 2 problems - 1) exclude China, and this measure shows a
widening 2) exclude India and it's more
pronounced - ? Thus, falling income inequality is NOT a
general feature of the world economy - China and India have 38 of world population, so
they shape trends in world poverty - China's avg PPP income rose from about 1/3 of
world avg in 1990 to almost ½ in 1998 - There are problems w/PPP measurements in both
countries b/c they didnt participate in int'l
price comparisons on which PPP calculations are
based
34Prop. 4. (contd)
- There's rising inequality in both countries, esp
by region - Ratio of avg income of the richest to poorest
province in China rose from 3.2 in 91 to 4.8 in
93, where it remained in 98-2001 Indias was
4.2, the US 1.9 in the late 90s - Dispersion in pay rates in manufacturing have
steadily widened since the early 1980s - Absolute income gaps are widening fast
35Globalization, Growth, and Poverty (World Bank
2002)
- Less globalized/more globalized is calculated on
basis of changes in trade/GDP ratio 1977-97 - trade/GDP ratio is the sum of exports and imports
divided by the GDP - Data show that more globalized countries have
faster economic growth, no increase in
inequality, and faster reduction of poverty than
the latter, BUT the classifications are dubious - Using change in trade/GDP ratio as measure of
globalization skews the results - Its possible that more globalized countries are
less open than many less globalized countries, in
terms of trade/GDP and size of tariff and
nontariff barriers - Many globalizers initially had very low trade/GDP
ratios and still had relatively low ratios at end
of period - To call relatively closed economies more
globalized and to call countries with much
higher ratios of trade/GDP and much freer trade
regimes less globalized is an audacious use of
language (196)
36Conclusion Falling inequality is not a
generalized feature of the world economy
- Several studies suggest that world income
inequality has been rising - The trend is sharpest when incomes are measured
at market-exchange rates - PPP-adjusted incomes, in principle, are more
relevant to relative economic well-being, but
market exchange rates are highly relevant to
state capacity, inter-state power, and the
dynamics of capitalism - One combination of inequality measures does find
that income inequality has been falling PPP
income per capita weighted by population (Prop.
4) but exclude China and even this metric shows
rising inequality - Absolute income gaps are continuing to widen
-