The simultaneous evolution of growth and inequality

Lundberg, Mattias; Squire, Lyn

doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00127

Cited by 416 publications

(296 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

270

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Others, on the other hand, confirm that the effects may be negative (i.e. inequality increasing) when trade takes place horizontally among advanced countries (Lundberg and Squire, 2003;Barro, 2000). The evidence regarding the effects of horizontal international trade confirms the basic intuition that extra profits and quasi-rents play a central role in increasing income inequality.…”

Section: Economic Growth and Income Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Technological change, rent and income inequalities: A Schumpeterian approach

Antonelli

Gehringer

2017

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing levels of income inequality have recently attracted much attention. The literature has concentrated on the hypothesis that increasing levels of income inequality are the cause of slow growth and social unbalances. This paper contributes to exploring an alternative hypothesis according to which increasing levels of income inequality are the consequence, rather than the cause, of slow growth and more specifically of the slowing pace of technological change. The paper articulates the Schumpeterian hypothesis that the rate of technological change exerts a significant influence in reducing income distribution. Due to the powerful effects of creative destruction, the rate of technological change engenders a reduction in wealth and rent inequalities that are highly skewed and, consequently, limits income inequality. We test this hypothesis in an empirical exercise by implementing quantile regressions on a large dataset of advanced and industrializing economies. The inequality diminishing effect of technological change holds along the entire income inequality distribution, but exhibits larger effects in countries where the concentration of wealth and, consequently, income asymmetries are stronger. These results have novel welfare implications and suggest some crucial insights for economic policy analysis.

show abstract

Section: Economic Growth and Income Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Technological change, rent and income inequalities: A Schumpeterian approach

Antonelli

Gehringer

2017

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, these findings are subject to methodological problems and are based on very weak data so that this important policy question (namely the impact of redistribution on growth) remains unanswered (see Klasen, 2004). This is largely due to the fact that there have been very few significant changes in inequality so that we do not have enough data points on which to base our assessment (see, for example, Forbes, 2000;Lundberg and Squire, 2003;Klasen, 2004;Banerjee and Duflo, 2003) 2 .…”

Section: Growth Inequality Poverty Reduction and The Measuremenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction: Measurement Issues using Income and Non-Income Indicators

Klasen

2008

World Development

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction: Measurement Issues using Income and Non-Income IndicatorsStephan Klasen University of Göttingen Germany Email: sklasen@gwdg.de AbstractThis paper addresses two issues concerning the measurement of pro-poor growth, a central concept for sustainable poverty reduction in developing countries. First, it attempts to clarify the debates about the definition and measurement of pro poor growth distinguishing between a weak and a strong absolute as well as a relative definition. The relevance of each definition depends on the purpose of the analysis as well as the assumptions regarding growthinequality trade-offs. Given the focus of existing measures of pro-poor growth on the income dimension, the second contribution is to present ways to apply the growth incidence curve and the Ravallion-Chen framework of measuring pro-poor growth to non-income indicators. The analysis, which is applied to Bolivia for illustrative purposes, shows that the extension of the propoor growth toolbox to non-income dimensions greatly improves our understanding of the trends in non-income indicators along the entire distribution and thus greatly increases our ability to monitor progress towards the non-income Millennium Development Goals (particularly goals 2-6) and assess the linkages between income and non-income poverty along the entire distribution. This can be of critical importance for poverty monitoring as well as policy interventions including the relative merits of growth versus direct intervention to improve the non-income dimensions of poverty.

show abstract

“…Voitchovsky [39] points out that for the countries in the Luxembourg Income Study, inequality at the top end of the distribution is positively correlated with growth, while inequality at the bottom of the distribution is negatively correlated with subsequent growth. Lundberg and Squire [27] argue that growth and inequality are joint determinants of other variables.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequality and growth: evidence from panel cointegration

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper uses heterogeneous panel cointegration techniques to estimate the long-run effect of income inequality on per-capita income for 46 countries over the period 1970-1995. We find that inequality has a negative long-run effect on income, both for the sample as a whole and for important sub-groups within the sample (developed countries, developing countries, democracies, and non-democracies). The effect is economically important, with a magnitude about half as high as the magnitude of an increase in the investment share.

show abstract

The simultaneous evolution of growth and inequality

Cited by 416 publications

References 24 publications

Technological change, rent and income inequalities: A Schumpeterian approach

Technological change, rent and income inequalities: A Schumpeterian approach

Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction: Measurement Issues using Income and Non-Income Indicators

Inequality and growth: evidence from panel cointegration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About