Infrastructure and Income Distribution in ASEAN-5: What are the Links?

Seneviratne, Dulani; Sun, Yan

doi:10.5089/9781589068018.001

Cited by 93 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is fundamentally because high inflation creates uncertainty due to growing ambiguity and investors have been documented to prefer less ambiguous economic strategies (Le Roux & Kelsey, 2016ab). On the positive indicators, they have been substantially documented in the bulk of inclusive growth literature (Dollar & Kraay, 2003;Barro & Lee, 2000;Calderon & Servén, 2004;Levine, 2005;Hausmann et al, 2007;IMF, 2007;Mishra, et al, 2011;Anand et al, 2012;Seneviratne & Sun, 2013;Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2016ab).…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While structural change entails globalisation (FDI and trade), human capital and macroeconomic stability embody, inter alia: educational levels, technological change and fixed investment. Other structural and macroeconomic features essential for the growth process are inflation and 8 output volatility (Dollar & Kraay, 2003;Barro & Lee, 2010), finance (Levine, 2005); infrastructural development (Calderon & Servén, 2004;Seneviratne & Sun, 2013); development of value chains (Hausmann et al, 2007;Anand, et al, 2012) and production modernization (Mishra et al, 2011). The summary statistics are presented in Appendix 2 whereas the correlation matrix is in Appendix 3.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Welfare spending and quality of growth in developing countries: A note on evidence from Hopefuls, Contenders and Best Performers

Asongu

Nwachukwu

2016

The Social Science Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transition from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has shifted the policy debate from growth to 'quality of growth' (QG). We explore a new dataset on QG by the IMF and classify 93 developing countries for the period 1990-2011 in terms of Hopefuls, Contenders and Best Performers. The aims are as follows: (i) to depict the contradiction between high-growth and poor social welfare and (ii) to assess the influence of education and health spending on the QG. We use quantile regressions to articulate least and best QG performers. Two key findings emerge. First, 31 of the 33 countries in the Hopefuls category are in SSA. Second, the effect of health is decreasingly positive from Hopefuls to Best Performers, while the impact of education is increasingly positive. As a main policy implication, it would benefit countries in SSA to invest more in health relative to education now, but decrease such health expenditure and increase education spending as the economies in the sub-region make the transition from Hopeful to Contenders and finally to Best Performers in terms of 'quality of growth'.

show abstract

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare spending and quality of growth in developing countries: A note on evidence from Hopefuls, Contenders and Best Performers

Asongu

Nwachukwu

2016

The Social Science Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Asongu (2014) concludes that foreign aid negatively affects the IHDI in Africa, while a recent broad stream of literature is consistent with the positive inclusive development externalities from private domestic credit and foreign direct investment. This is essentially because they create favourable conditions for unemployment reduction and social mobility Anand et al, 2012;Seneviratne & Sun, 2013;Mlachila et al, 2014).…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental degradation, ICT and inclusive development in Sub-Saharan Africa

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(ii) ICT interacts with CO 2 intensity to negatively affect inclusive human development and (iii) the net effect on inclusive human development is positive from the complementarity between mobile phones and CO 2 emissions per capita. Conversely, we also establish evidence of net negative effects. Fortunately, the corresponding ICT thresholds at which these net negative effects can be completely dampened are within policy range, notably: 50 (per 100 people) mobile phone penetration for CO 2 emissions from liquid fuel consumption and CO 2 intensity.Theoretical and policy implications are discussed.

show abstract

“…First, there is the issue of causality as opposed to mere correlation. Second, several authors, including Servén (2010), andSenevirane andSun (2013) argue that data on public investment offer a poor proxy for infrastructure. One well documented reason for this is that infrastructure projects may involve a partnership between the public and private sector.…”

Section: Increase In Rate Of Public Investmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Productive government spending and its consequences for the growth–inequality tradeoff

Getachew

Turnovsky

2015

Research in Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the effects of productive government spending on the relationship between growth and inequality in an economy subject to idiosyncratic production shocks and heterogeneous endowments. Assuming lognormal distributions, we derive tractable closed form solutions describing the equilibrium dynamics. We show how the effect of government investment on the equilibrium dynamics of both inequality and growth depends crucially upon the elasticity of substitution between public and private capital in production. This has important consequences for the growth-and welfaremaximizing rates of government investment. Finally, we supplement our theoretical analysis with numerical simulations, calibrated to approximate the productive characteristics of a real world economy. With the empirical evidence strongly supporting the complementarity between public and private capital, our simulations suggest that conclusions based on the commonly employed Cobb-Douglas production function may be seriously misleading.Key words: Government investment; Idiosyncratic shocks; Growth; Inequality JEL Classification: D31, O41 Revised versionJune 2015*The paper has benefited from comments received on earlier versions from seminar participants at the University of Durham and the University of Pretoria. We also thank Santanu Chatterjee for useful suggestions. Research for this paper was carried out while Getachew was visiting the University of Washington in the Fall of 2013. Turnovsky"s research was supported in part by the Van Voorhis endowment at the University of Washington.**Corresponding author: sturn@u.washington.edu 1 IntroductionThe role of public investment in infrastructure as a source of economic growth continues to be widely debated in both developing and advanced economies, with different economies adopting different policy options. Several emerging-market countries including India, China, and Brazil have undertaken extensive public investment, to which their high growth rates of recent years may at least in part be attributed. In contrast, several European countries have reduced public spending, as they have pursued austerity measures intended to deal with concerns related to their rising debt levels.Contemporaneously with these diverse policies toward public investment, we have witnessed increasing income inequality, both in emerging markets and in most OECD countries. This raises the important question that we address in this paper, namely the relationship between public investment directed toward growth enhancement and its consequences for income inequality.Interest in the relationship between public investment, output, and growth has a long history, dating back to Arrow and Kurz (1970), who examined it in the context of a neoclassical economy.Beginning with Barro (1990), an extensive literature has evolved addressing the issue in an endogenous growth framework, with a general consensus that government spending on infrastructure can yield significant productivity gains and thus enhance growth. See e.g. F...

show abstract

Infrastructure and Income Distribution in ASEAN-5: What are the Links?

Cited by 93 publications

References 7 publications

Welfare spending and quality of growth in developing countries: A note on evidence from Hopefuls, Contenders and Best Performers

Welfare spending and quality of growth in developing countries: A note on evidence from Hopefuls, Contenders and Best Performers

Environmental degradation, ICT and inclusive development in Sub-Saharan Africa

Productive government spending and its consequences for the growth–inequality tradeoff

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About