The Unassuming Economist

A new IMF working paper by Alexei Kireyev and Andrei Leonidov;

“Inclusive growth, narrowly defined in this paper as growth that helps reduce inequality, is achieved if consumption of the poor increases faster than consumption of the rich. The paper presents a simple accounting framework for a per-percentile consumption diagnostics that could inform redistribution policies. The proposed framework is illustrated in application to Iraq and Tunisia.”

From a paper by Danny Quah:

“Appropriate public policy on inequality hinges critically on understanding inequality’s eects on the living conditions of the poor, on social mobility, and on nationalist populism. This paper describes two empirical regularities. First, an increase in inequality typically does not coincide with immiserisation of the poor and lower middle class. Over 80% of economies where inequality has risen since 2000 have also increased the average incomes of their populations’ bottom 50%. Second, for political upheaval, individual well-being and expectations on its trajectory matter more than inequality. When these causal factors diverge, the role of inequality is, thus, diminished. Public policy needs to counter misinterpretation and misinformation on inequality with rigorous analysis and empirical evidence.”

From Conversable Economist:

“It’s easy enough to explain why China’s economic development has gotten more attention than that of India. China’s growth rate has been faster. China’s effect on international trade has created more a shock for the rest of the global economy. In geopolitical terms, China looks more like a rival. Also, China’s basic story-line of trying to liberalize a centrally-planned economy while keeping a communist government is fairly easy to tell.

But whatever the plausible reasons why China’s economy has gotten more attention than India, it seems clear to me that India’s economic developments have gotten far too little attention. A symposium in the Winter 2020 issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives offers some insights:

• “Dynamism with Incommensurate Development: The Distinctive Indian Model,” by Rohit Lamba and Arvind Subramanian
• “Why Does the Indian State Both Fail and Succeed?” by Devesh Kapur
• “The Great Indian Demonetization,” by Amartya Lahiri

I’ll also mention an article on “Caste and the Indian Economy,” by Kaivan Munshi, which appears in the December 2019 issue of the Journal of Economic Literature, a sibling journal of the JEP (that, is both are published by the American Economic Association).

Lamba and Subramanian point out that over the 38 years from 1980 (when India started making some pro-business reforms), India is one of only nine countries in world to have averaged an annual growth rate of 4.5%, with no decadal average falling below 2.9% annual growth. (The nine, listed in order of annual growth rates during this time with highest first, are Botswana, Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, Malta, Hong Kong, Thailand, India, and Malaysia.) Of course, one can tweak these cutoffs in various ways, but no matter how you slice it, India’s growth rate over the last four decades has been remarkable. Moreover, India’s population is likely to exceed China’s in the near future.

But India’s path to rapid growth has been notably different than many other countries. India is ethnically fractionalized, especially when the caste system is taken into account.In addition, India path to development has been “precocious,” as Lamba and Subramanian put it, in two ways.’

Continue reading here.

From a new IMF working paper by Ara Stepanyan and Jorge Salas

“Spain’s structural reforms, implemented around 2012, have arguably contributed to a faster and stronger economic recovery. In particular, there is strong evidence that the 2012 labor market reforms increased wage flexibility, which helped the Spanish economy to regain competitiveness and create jobs. But the impact of these labor reforms on income inequality and social inclusion has not been analyzed much. This paper aims to shed light on this issue by employing an econometric decomposition procedure combined with the synthetic control method. The results indicate that the 2012 labor reforms have helped improve employment and income equality outcomes with no substantial impact on the overall risk of poverty. Nevertheless, the reforms appear to have induced a deterioration of average hours worked, in-work poverty, and possibly also of involuntary part-time employment.”

From a LSE paper by Enrico D’Elia and Roberta De Santis:

“This paper analyses trade and financial openness effects on growth and income inequality in 35 OECD countries. Our model takes into account both short run and long run effects of factors explaining income divergence between and within the countries. We estimate, for the period 1995-2016, an error correction model in which per capita GDP and inequality are driven by changes over time of selected factors and by the deviation from a long run relationship. Stylised facts suggest that trade and financial openness reduce the growth gaps across the countries but not income inequality, and the effects of finance are stronger in high income countries. Nevertheless, low and middle income countries benefit more from international trade. Our contribution to the existing literature is threefold: i) we study the short and long run effects of trade and financial openness on income level and distribution, ii) we focus on developed countries (OECD) rather than on developing and iii) we provide a sensitivity analysis including in our baseline equation an institutional indicator, a trade agreement proxy and a dummy of global financial crisis. Estimates results indicate that trade openness significantly improved the conditions of OECD low income countries both in short and long run mostly, consistently with the catching up theory. It also decreased inequality, but only in low and middle income countries. Differently financial openness had a positive and significant impact only in the short run on middle income countries and increased income disparities within countries in the short term in low income countries and in the long term in high income countries.”