The impact of globalisation on income inequality

Kahai, Simran K.; Simmons, Walter O.

doi:10.1504/gber.2005.006915

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Notably, globalisation first increases income inequality in all the MINT countries, except in Nigeria before its impact turns to negative. The positive relationship is in tandem with the studies of Dorn et al (2017), Mahesh (2016), Kutor (2014), Atif et al (2012), Dreher and Gaston (2008) and Kahai and Simons (2005) which established that globalisation will increase inequality as a result of relative factor endowments and level of protections put in place in these economies, while the negative impact follows the studies of Salimi et al (2014) and Zhou et al (2011).…”

Section: Results and Discussion Of Findingssupporting

confidence: 68%

Globalisation, income inequality and poverty relationships: evidence from Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey

Osinubi

Olomola

2020

JEAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe study examines the dynamic relationship among globalisation, income inequality and poverty in Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey (MINT countries) between 1980 and 2018.Design/methodology/approachA Bayesian vector autoregressive (BVAR) approach is used as a technique of estimation hanging on the fact that the method uses prior distribution for the estimated parameters.FindingsThe results show that globalisation is a strong predictor of itself in all the MINT countries only in the short run. In the long run, income inequality and poverty strongly influence globalisation, respectively, in Indonesia and Turkey, while globalisation still has more impact on itself in Nigeria. Income inequality has a strong endogenous impact on itself in Mexico and Indonesia over the time horizon, whereas globalisation and poverty are strong predictors of income inequality in the long run in Nigeria and Turkey, respectively. Also, poverty strongly influences itself in all the MINT countries in all the periods, meaning that poverty begets itself in all the MINT countries, except for Indonesia in the long run.Practical implicationsThe study suggests that all the MINT countries should ensure political stability and a strong institutional framework to gain from the process of globalisation and to experience reductions in the levels of income inequality and poverty.Originality/valueThis study is distinct from other studies in the sense that an overall globalisation index (GBI) as used by Dreher et al. (2008) is used for the globalisation variable, and the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) is used to capture poverty in all the MINT countries. Also, the research paper uses a BVAR approach as against the classical VAR, and this helps in solving over-fitting problems.

show abstract

Section: Results and Discussion Of Findingssupporting

confidence: 68%

Globalisation, income inequality and poverty relationships: evidence from Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey

Osinubi

Olomola

2020

JEAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results have shown that trade openness increases income inequality in the developing economies, that is more the trade openness in an economy higher will be the income inequality. It is supported by Kahai and Simmons (2005) for less developing economies but negated by Chong and Calderon (2000). The results explain that trade openness is more advantageous for rich class as compared to the poor one in developing economies.…”

Section: Estimates For Income Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 75%

Corruption, Income Inequality and Human Resource Development in Developing Economies

Khan

Naeem

2020

Asian Journal of Economic Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In this research, the Gini coefficient is used for expressing income inequality. Empirically, Kahai and Simmons (2005) also used this index to verify its connection with globalization. They recognize that for developing countries, globalization is positively linked with the growth in inequality, while it is not essential in the case of developed countries.…”

Section: The Impact Of International Trade On Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade and income distribution: Is natural disaster an actor?

Tam¹,

Vy²,

Tham³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the impact of trade on household income inequality (measured using Gini index) under the condition of disaster (measured using various proxies). The paper uses panel regression on a balanced dataset of 48 countries for 2011-2017 to estimate the impacts, with data combined from World Development Indicators, World Income Inequality Database, and World Risk Report. Various robustness checks are also carried out. The results show that trade does not have any impact on inequality on its own. However, with the existence of disaster, the increase of trade leads to higher income inequality. Finally, the effects are stable when disaster is measured using Composite index or Vulnerability component but becomes not clear when using Exposure component, suggesting that it is vulnerability the main factor that moderates the impact of trade on income inequality.

show abstract

The impact of globalisation on income inequality

Cited by 9 publications

References 21 publications

Globalisation, income inequality and poverty relationships: evidence from Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey

Globalisation, income inequality and poverty relationships: evidence from Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey

Corruption, Income Inequality and Human Resource Development in Developing Economies

Trade and income distribution: Is natural disaster an actor?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About