The Unassuming Economist

From a paper by Antonis Tsitouras & Harry Papapanagos:

“Few studies have explored the impact of foreign direct investment (FDI), trade openness, economic growth, education, and inflation influence income inequality in developed economies. This study examines these factors in Greece using the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) method. The novelty of this research lies in its application of three distinct measures of income inequality: (a) the Gini index, (b) the income share of the poorest 20% quantile, and (c) the income share of the top 20% quantile. The results have significant theoretical and policy implications. First, GDP per capita elasticities strongly support Kuznets’ theory. Second, while FDI does not significantly affect on income distribution in the short term, it predominantly improves income distribution at the upper and median levels in the long term while reducing the income share of the lowest 20% quantile. Third, trade openness initially increases income inequality but primarily improves distribution at the lower and median levels over time. Fourth, although education initially exacerbates economic inequality, it significantly supports lower and median income levels in the long run. Finally, inflation negatively impacts income equality in both the medium and long term, boosting the earnings of the top 20% quantile over time. These findings suggest that governments should address income inequality by focusing on sustainable growth, improving education, implementing reforms to attract FDI, boosting exports, and adopting measures to control inflation.”

From a paper by Antonis Tsitouras & Harry Papapanagos:

“Few studies have explored the impact of foreign direct investment (FDI), trade openness, economic growth, education, and inflation influence income inequality in developed economies. This study examines these factors in Greece using the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) method. The novelty of this research lies in its application of three distinct measures of income inequality: (a) the Gini index, (b) the income share of the poorest 20% quantile, and (c) the income share of the top 20% quantile. The results have significant theoretical and policy implications. First, GDP per capita elasticities strongly support Kuznets’ theory. Second, while FDI does not significantly affect on income distribution in the short term, it predominantly improves income distribution at the upper and median levels in the long term while reducing the income share of the lowest 20% quantile. Third, trade openness initially increases income inequality but primarily improves distribution at the lower and median levels over time. Fourth, although education initially exacerbates economic inequality, it significantly supports lower and median income levels in the long run. Finally, inflation negatively impacts income equality in both the medium and long term, boosting the earnings of the top 20% quantile over time. These findings suggest that governments should address income inequality by focusing on sustainable growth, improving education, implementing reforms to attract FDI, boosting exports, and adopting measures to control inflation.”

From a paper by Domingo Rodríguez Benavides, Nancy Muller Durán, and Ignacio Perrotini Hernández:

“The relationship between fluctuations of the unemployment rate and the growth rate of output (Okun’s Law) in Mexico, the United States (US) and Canada during the period 2006-2019 is dealt with in the present paper. We posit the hypothesis that cyclical shocks can permanently affect structural unemployment. A non-linear autorregresive distributive lag (NARDL) model is displayed to test the assumption of symmetric effects in Okun´s Law analysis. Our econometric results suggest that while in the US and Canada there is evidence of an asymmetric Okun’s Law in the short run and the long-term, respectively, for the case of Mexico no such evidence exists. These discrepancies speak to the relevance of looking at the existence of non- linear effects in Okun´s Law. The accurate identification of such effects can shed light for both labour market reforms and stabilization policy design.”

From a paper by Virender Kumar, Simran:

“Globalization in the form of increased trade, technological advancements, and capital flows has spurred economic growth and lifted millions out of poverty across Asia, but these advantages have not been equally distributed, leading to income inequality. While previous research has highlighted globalization’s role in income inequality, little attention has been given to the moderating role of financial development. As Asian economies become more integrated into the global system, understanding how financial development mediates effects of globalization on income disparity has become crucial for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners. This study empirically investigates how financial development shapes the impact of globalization (trade, technological, and financial) on income inequality in Asian countries. Using a fixed effect panel data model with data for 22 Asian countries, we show that while all three modes of globalization—trade, technological and financial—aggravate the income gap, the influence of these types of globalization on income inequality is reduced when financial development takes place. In particular, the study finds that if a country is financially developed, the net effect of all types of globalization on income inequality is negative, meaning that in a financially developed country, globalization may actually help reduce income inequality. In response to these findings, we suggest policy recommendations, including increasing access to banking services and promoting financial literacy for financial inclusion, prioritizing sectors with high job creation potential, and providing reskilling support for globalization.”

From a paper by Danijela Lazović Vuković, and Jože P. Damijan:

“This paper studies the drivers of rising income inequality in OECD countries between 1980 and 2018. By testing Milanovic’s TOP hypothesis in our sample, we measure the extent to which these distributional outcomes have been driven by either technological progress or globalization and the extent to which they have been influenced or mitigated by policy choices. The results of our empirical analysis provide the basis for confirming the TOP hypothesis. We find evidence that a 10 percent increase in trade openness, financial globalization, and technological progress is on average associated with a 0.4 percent, 0.3 percent, and 0.9 percent change in market inequality, respectively. At the same time, policies such as public expenditure on education, employment protection legislation and direct income taxes promote a more equal distribution. Our most notable finding, however, is that policies not only have a direct equalizing effect, but also mitigate the effects of globalization and technological progress on income inequality. The results of our study suggest that there are reasonable alternatives to anti-globalization strategies and that redistributive and labor market policies can be tailored to control inequality in the era of globalization and technology.”