Redistribution without Structural Change in Ecuador: Rising and Falling Income Inequality in the 1990s and 2000

2014 ◽  
pp. 73-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Ponce ◽  
Rob Vos
Keyword(s):  
Structural Change ◽  
Income Inequality

The Dragon Turns around and the Elephant Moves Forward: Inequality in China and India under Globalization

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-261
Author(s):  
K. J. Joseph ◽  
Liyan Zhang ◽  
Kiran Kumar Kakarlapudi
Keyword(s):  
Structural Change ◽  
Income Inequality ◽  
Wealth Inequality ◽  
Global Market ◽  
Regional Inequality ◽  
Gdp Growth ◽  
China And India ◽  
Effective Policy ◽  
Policy Measures ◽  
Employment Generation

This article tends to suggest that the strategy of embracing globalization has been helpful in raising GDP growth in China and India. The higher growth record also coincided with increasing income inequality, wealth inequality and regional inequality. While China seems to have made some success in making a turnaround in inequality, in India inequalities are on the rise. The present study attributes the observed trend to the nature of structural change and the resultant employment generation in terms of both its quantity and its quality. FDI and trade under globalization also worked towards increasing inequalities. The key issue is why globalization as implemented in India failed to generate employment unlike what happened in China. India seems to have been not adequately successful in globalizing at ‘our terms and at our own pace’, whereas China has been able to successfully manage its transition to the global market, which in turn, at least partly, explains the observed differences in the trend in growth and inequality in these two countries. At the same time, while there have been targeted and effective policy measures in China to address inequalities, in India, such policies are yet to show up their results.

scholarly journals China

2021 ◽  
pp. 133-156
Author(s):  
Shi Li ◽  
Terry Sicular ◽  
Finn Tarp
Keyword(s):  
Structural Change ◽  
Income Inequality ◽  
Income Distribution ◽  
Economic Transition ◽  
Rent Seeking ◽  
Market Development ◽  
Welfare Policies ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Past ◽  
Labour Absorption

This chapter describes the major trends in China’s income inequality over the past forty years and explains them as the outcome of four interleaved stories. The first story is a standard development story characterized by structural change, market development, labour absorption, and the Kuznets inverted-U path of inequality. The second is the economic transition story, in which changes in income distribution result from the shift from plan to market. The third is incomplete transition, with opportunities for rent-seeking, corruption, and hidden income. The fourth is the story of government efforts to moderate inequality through social and welfare policies.

Structural Change, Economic Development, and the Labour Market

2021 ◽  
pp. 577-595
Author(s):  
Önder Nomaler ◽  
Bart Verspagen ◽  
Adriaan van Zon
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Structural Change ◽  
Income Inequality ◽  
Income Distribution ◽  
Technological Change ◽  
Labour Market ◽  
Skill Premium ◽  
Skilled Labour ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Specific Country

This chapter addresses the relationship between structural change and the income distribution. It raises the question of whether structural change increases or decreases income inequality. The chapter presents a multi-sectoral model in the so-called canonical modelling tradition. In this model the distributional outcomes depend on the mix of the labour supply in different technology classes and skill biases in technological change. Whether structural change has an effect depends on the specific country. When it does have an effect, it mainly benefits high-skilled labour. The skill premium for high-skilled labour thus contributes to increased income inequality. Both the relative supply of skills and skill-based technological change tend to increase income inequality, though not in all countries.

Employees are losing: Have workplace laws gone too far?

2019 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 438-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josh Bornstein
Keyword(s):  
Structural Change ◽  
Income Inequality ◽  
Labour Market ◽  
Bargaining Power ◽  
Political Cost

Concern about the economic, social and political cost of growing income inequality is propelling a debate about the loss of employee bargaining power – both in Australia and other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. The evidence of a pronounced decline in the bargaining power of employees in the Australian labour market is overwhelming. The decline is consistent with a collapse in workplace bargaining as a result of a bargaining framework that has not kept up with major structural change in the labour market. In the absence of decisive legislative intervention, the decline of employee bargaining power is likely to continue.

scholarly journals Overview

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
John Page ◽  
Finn Tarp
Keyword(s):  
Structural Change ◽  
Income Inequality ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Relative Prices ◽  
Country Level ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Resource Sector ◽  
Competitive Activities ◽  
Oil Gas

For a growing number of African economies the discovery of natural resources is a tremendous opportunity, but one accompanied by considerable risks. Many African countries dependent on oil, gas, and mining have weaker long-run growth, higher rates of poverty and greater income inequality than their less resource-dependent neighbours. One major risk comes from the structure of resource-rich economies themselves. Relative prices make it more difficult to diversify into internationally competitive activities outside the resource sector, thus narrowing the scope for structural change. This chapter focuses on how countries can use natural resources to diversify. Drawing on country-level evidence it explores three key themes: the institutions needed to manage a resource boom, the construction sector, and linking industry to the resource.

scholarly journals An Empirical Examination of the Impact of Economic Structural Change on Income Inequality: Dynamic Heterogeneous Panel Approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 136
Author(s):  
Maha Elhini ◽  
Rasha Hammam
Keyword(s):  
Structural Change ◽  
Income Inequality ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Least Squares Regression ◽  
Economic Sectors ◽  
Empirical Examination ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Long Run ◽  
The Impact

This paper employs structural growth perspective to the analysis of income inequality in 43 countries over the period 2003-2017.The study utilizes two different panel estimation techniques. First, the panel least squares regression examines the relevance of Kuznets effect of the different economic sectors; agriculture, manufacturing and services on income inequality. Second, the pooled mean group (PMG) estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels gauges the long run impact of the change in sectoral value added as a proxy for structural change on inequality. PMG presents short run adjustments to be country-specific due to the widely different impacts of macroeconomic conditions and vulnerability of each country to income inequality. Empirical findings show that across all countries, sector growth had no to negligible impact on inequality indicating that no signs are evident of Kuznets effect. However, both inflation and unemployment have mixed impacts on inequality in Lower and Middle-Income countries. Results further reveal that unemployment has a relatively stronger influence on inequality than inflation for Upper-middle income countries, unlike in Lower-middle income countries, where unemployment shows a weaker correlation with inequality than inflation. Results for High-income countries show that the influence between inflation and unemployment are not as big as in Upper middle-income countries.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andy Sumner
Keyword(s):  
Structural Change ◽  
Income Inequality ◽  
Capital Accumulation ◽  
Analytical Approach ◽  
Region Of Interest ◽  
Social Stability ◽  
South East Asia ◽  
Inclusive Growth ◽  
The Core

This introductory chapter sets out the rationale for the book, the existing literature, the intended contribution of the book, the methodology, and analytical approach taken in the book and the structure of the book. The chapter introduces the ‘developer’s dilemma’ at the core of the book. Specifically, how are developing countries to address the tension between economic development and structural change, putting upward pressure on income inequality and the need for inclusive growth to provide social stability to capital accumulation, which requires steady or even falling income inequality to spread the benefits of economic growth more broadly. It is argued that South East Asia is a region of interest for understanding the developer’s dilemma as Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand achieved structural change with more or less steady inequality up to a point.

scholarly journals Structural Change and Income Inequality – Agricultural Development and Inter-sectoral Dualism in the Developing World, 1960-2010

OASIS ◽  
2016 ◽  
pp. 99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin P. Andersson ◽  
Andrés F. Palacio Chaverra
Keyword(s):  
Structural Change ◽  
Income Inequality ◽  
Service Sector ◽  
Agricultural Development ◽  
Agricultural Sector ◽  
Developing World ◽  
Country Level ◽  
Sectoral Productivity ◽  
Advanced Economies ◽  
Sectoral Composition

Structural change consists of the long-term changes in the sectoral composition of output and employment. We introduce a structural change perspective to the study of income inequality in 27 countries of the developing world for the period 1960-2010. The service sector has become the main employer, but the agricultural sector is central to the income distribution because poverty is mostly rural, and the labor surplus is high. We decompose the sectoral composition of aggregate labor productivity at the country level, divide the countries into agrarian, dual (beginner, intermediate and advanced), and mature economies and use the inter-sectoral productivity gap to test the effect of structural change on income inequality. We confirm increases in agricultural productivity everywhere and find that the inter-sectoral gap is positively associated with income inequality. The effect is negligible in agrarian and advanced economies but powerful in dual beginner economies: an increase of 1% in the inter-sectoral gap increases income inequality by 0.5%. The effect peters out in dual intermediate economies and disappears completely in dual advanced economies. Finally, redistribution has been the key to compensating the losers in the income changes, particularly for those entering the non-agricultural economy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document