رویکردی به توزیع درآمد و رشد

The notion that substantial inequality is a stimulus to growth is extremely questionable. It is noted that a highly impoverished sector of the population reduces the productivity of the labor force. Moreover, the evidence that independent inventors and innovative entrepreneurs as a group receive compensation below those of equally educated employees indicates that disproportionate earnings are a questionable incentive.

It has long been recognized that the rate of economic growth in a society and the degree of equality in the distribution of its income and wealth are not independent. Indeed, it seems plausible that the two are mutually interdependent: growth rate affects distribution and distribution affects growth. The records do suggest at least some degree of interdependence in their striking behavior patterns, such as great inequality in the stagnant economies. In contrast, in the economies that have grown rapidly to a state of wealth and prosperity, the income and wealth disparities are often moderated substantially. But this paper will not focus on analysis of empirical evidence, about which much has been written (although not with unambiguous conclusions, as Campano & Salvatore, 2006, report so clearly in their valuable volume). And, unlike much of the literature, I will deal largely with the influence of inequality, and of widespread poverty accompanied by extreme wealth of a fortunate few, upon rapidity of economic growth.

I conclude that there is still a good deal to be learned about the relationship between economic growth and inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. Yet we can conclude with considerable confidence that extreme poverty of the population is a powerful handicap to growth. On the other side, there is little reason for confidence that an economy with an extremely wealthy few will surely be characterized by substantial growth, even if the way up the economic ladder is relatively unimpeded. A carefully circumscribed reward arrangement with payment only for results seems more promising, but there is some evidence that should lead us to question whether even this is either necessary or sufficient. More than that. If we agree with George Bernard Shaw, as I do, that there is no greater crime than poverty, then even if some non-negligible degree of equalization leads to some slowing of growth, I would consider the tradeoff to be favorable and even urgent. Given the ambiguity and inconclusiveness of the arguments claiming that the imposition of measures that increase equality would have that result, I am prepared to lend avid support to such measures. But, at the same time, my coauthors and I (in the book mentioned above) urge care in designing such programs to ensure that their benefits are not entirely transitory. As the matter has been put, the impoverished can benefit more from the gift of a fishing pole than they can from the presentation of a meal of fish.