الگوهای توزیع درآمد در بین مناطق جهان
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|11208||2007||13 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Policy Modeling, Volume 29, Issue 4, July–August 2007, Pages 643–655
Individual country ratios of income shares of the highest 20 percent of income recipients to that of the lowest 20 percent are reviewed to identify proximate relationships between key economic variables and broad patterns of income inequality across the world. First, the importance of the question of the relationship between income distribution and economic development is highlighted. Second, the Kuznets inverted U hypothesis suggesting a relationship during the process of development between the degree of inequality in income distribution and the level of per capita income is summarized. Then, statistical and other problems that arise when measuring income distribution and considering changes taking place in income inequality are discussed. Finally, patterns of income distribution in a large sample of countries are presented with the view to identifying relationships between income inequality and levels of living, rates of growth, and world regions. Income distribution patterns are found to be diverse across countries and unrelated in any obvious way to per capita GDP or the rate of GDP growth. Some limited relationship may be seen when the country data are arranged by geographic region. These results imply that there is no inherent conflict between the objective of faster economic growth and that of a more even distribution of income over the longer-term.
The elimination of widespread poverty and the promotion of a more equitable distribution of income are at the core of development concerns and a principal objective of all countries. This note looks at patterns of income distribution across the world with the view to identifying some relationships between key economic variables and broad patterns of income inequality, and it briefly reviews hypotheses suggested to explain changes in the distribution of income as a country develops. It then presents an overview of income distribution patterns prevalent in the world today and relates them to levels of living, rates of growth, and geographic regions to draw some broad policy conclusions. The first section briefly discusses the relationship between poverty and inequality. The next section sketches the reasons Simon Kuznets and others have given for a possible connection between economic growth and income distribution and results of some studies of the Kuznets Hypothesis. The problems inherent in measuring patterns of income distribution with the available data are then mentioned. Finally, country income distributions are related to indicators of the level and growth in economic activity and in different geographic regions of the world with the view toward identifying patterns in these relationships.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
A substantial degree of variation in the degree of inequality in the distribution of income can be seen across the globe, but there would seem to be no clear link between income inequality on the one hand and income levels or income growth on the other. This is not to say that such a relationship does not exist. Rather, income distribution patterns are so diverse and unrelated at first glace to standard economic variables such as GDP per capita and economic growth that the underlying relationships involved must be very complex and take their effect very slowly. Therefore, more study is required to understand exactly what these relationships are and, once understood, further work will be required to design policies to improve the distribution. Then it will take time for any measures implemented to take affect and actually change the distribution. Income distribution policies, in a word, must be well targeted and well considered and require persistence in their application. The fact that patterns of income distribution for all groups of countries, however organized, show marked contrasts in the degree of income concentration points to a large role for institutional factors in determining the size distribution of income. Hence, income distribution policies cannot be limited to those that only affect economic variables. Cultural and historical circumstances and trends have a strong influence on income inequality in a country, and they help determine not simply income generation and distribution but the very possibility that the pattern of incomes can be changed. Hence, even if economic growth were to have a long-term positive influence toward greater income equality, as the Kuznets Hypothesis states, this influence could be countered by social and cultural impediments to change. Therefore, policy must address all aspects of the income distribution question, not just the economic. Finally, little evidence is seen that economic growth necessarily worsens the distribution of income of a developing country to any great degree. If there are inherent tendencies toward greater inequality, as Kuznets suggested, they are weak and overshadowed by other factors. Instead, aggregate growth may well be neutral in its impact or even supportive of a more equal distribution of income over the longer-term. Therefore, there would seem to be no inherent conflict between the objective of faster economic growth and that of a more even distribution of income between the poor and the non-poor, and government policies would seem to have sufficient scope to avert tendencies toward inequality. In any event, the most important policy objective should be raising the income of people barely now existing in state of absolute poverty. This is a policy goal that should be pursued even if it temporarily worsened their relative position with respect to higher income groups.