The Unassuming Economist

According to a new report by Oxfam: “Eight men own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity [The 8 men are Bill Gates, Amancio Ortega, Warren Buffet, Carlos Slim, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, and Michael Bloomberg] (…). Oxfam’s report, ‘An economy for the 99 percent’, shows that the gap between rich and poor is far greater than had been feared. It details how big business and the super-rich are fuelling the inequality crisis by dodging taxes, driving down wages and using their power to influence politics. It calls for a fundamental change in the way we manage our economies so that they work for all people, and not just a fortunate few. New and better data on the distribution of global wealth – particularly in India and China – indicates that the poorest half of the world has less wealth than had been previously thought.  Had this new data been available last year, it would have shown that nine billionaires owned the same wealth as the poorest half of the planet, and not 62, as Oxfam calculated at the time.” See the press release here.

From the IMF Executive Board Discussion:

The sharp realignment of global commodity prices has been a major setback for commodity-exporting LIDCs, while generally benefitting others. As a result, growth prospects have become increasingly divergent.

In an era of subdued commodity prices, prospects for commodity exporters are heavily influenced by how successfully they can implement policies to confront high fiscal deficits, reduced foreign reserves, and elevated economic and financial stress.

The quantity, quality and accessibility of infrastructure in LIDCs is considerably lower than in other economies and enhancing the role of the private sector in its delivery is a priority for many.

Continue reading here.

In recent years, the IMF has put on its plate several issues that appear to go beyond its ‘bread and butter’ focus on fiscal and monetary policies. These issues include: employment & migration; gender; inequality; corruption; financial inclusion; climate change. Why has the institution done so? The answer is simple: they have become critical to the IMF’s mission. These issues directly affect economic performance and stability in many countries, and thus fall under the IMF’s mandate.

Is there a unifying framework for all these new issues? There is and it can be summarized in two words: Inclusive Growth. Both words are important. We do want growth. Understanding the sources of productivity and long-run growth, and which structural policies will deliver them, thus remains an important part of the IMF’s agenda. So when we talk about inclusive growth, we are not advocating as role models either the former Soviet Union or present day North Korea—those are examples of ‘inclusive misery,’ not inclusive growth.

We want growth but we also want to make sure:

•   that people have jobs – this is the basis for people to feel included in society and to have a sense of dignity. (IMF Management set up a “Jobs & Growth” working group to emphasize the importance of this work.)
•   that women and men have equal opportunities to participate in the economy—hence our focus on gender;
•   that the poor and the middle class share in the prosperity of a country—hence the work on inequality and shared prosperity;
•   that, as happens for instance when countries discover natural resources, wealth is not captured by a few—this is why we worry about corruption and governance
•   that there is financial inclusion—which makes a difference in investment, food security and health outcomes;
•   that growth is shared just not among this generation but with future generations— hence our work on building resilience to climate change and natural disasters.

In short, a common thread through all our initiatives is that they seek to promote inclusion. What we are after is strong growth but one that is broadly shared, where major segments of society feel they have had an opportunity to make a better life for themselves.

Do the actions of central banks affect inequality? Leading central bankers have been discussing the issue (e.g., Yellen 2014; Bernanke 2015, Draghi 2016) but there is little consensus about the sign and magnitude of the effect. Our new paper documents how monetary policy affects income inequality in 32 advanced economies and emerging market countries over the period of 1990-2013. We find that decline of 100 basis points in the policy interest rate lowers inequality by about 1¼ percent in the short term and by about 2¼ percent in the medium term. The effect is significant and holds for different measures of inequality (Gini coefficient, top income shares and labor share of income). To identify the causal effect of monetary policy shocks on inequality, we borrow from the recent literature on fiscal policy (Auerbach and Gorodnichenko 2013) and construct unexpected changes in policy rates that are orthogonal to innovations in economic activity.

A nice update by Timothy Taylor on declining labor mobility in the United States and the possible reasons, a topic I have written on as well.