Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we...

46
Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp, UNU-WIDER

Transcript of Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we...

Page 1: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know?Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDERLaurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp, UNU-WIDER

Page 2: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

INTRODUCTION

Page 3: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Economics 101

First: any competitive equilibrium is Pareto efficient

Second: under certain conditions, every Pareto efficient allocation can be achieved as a competitive equilibrium

“Under certain conditions” …..

Page 4: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

The “mainstream” view

Economic transactions mainly occur in free and competitive environments

Externalities and the political process Efficiency issues separate from issues of

equity/inequality

Page 5: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

WDR 2006

The dichotomy between policies for growth and policies specifically aimed at equity/inequality is false (emphasis added)

The distribution of opportunities and the growth process are jointlydetermined (emphasis added)

Page 6: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

A wider perspective

The classical view Many channels through which inequality

affects growth negatively (come back to)

Equity/equality both as an end and as a means

No rejection of the competitive market (and the need for incentives to work)

Page 7: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Turning to policy

Choices have to be made Focus on equity must not be an excuse

for poor economic policy But what is poor policy?

Good and bad: not so easy

Page 8: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

“Easy” policy choices

Early childhood development Access to affordable health care Cost-effective land redistribution

Page 9: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Difficult policy choices

What to do when trade-offs exists – and there are many

Is there too much “soft” talk?“… growth … was de-emphasized in favor of fuzzy schemes like `empowering the poor,’ which nobody knows how to implement or to evaluate afterwards” (Easterly)

Agriculture vs social sectors (and a word about the MDGs)

Page 10: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

A WIDER VIEW

Page 11: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

• The concern of inequality is a critical factor in the success of development strategies in developing countries

• Inequality affects a country’s potential of economic growth, by impacting negatively on consumer demand, national savings and human capital formation

• Negative implications of high levels of inequality, in terms of social cohesion, crime, conflict and political instability, governance, and social exclusion, are widely acknowledged

The concern of inequality

Page 12: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Growth, poverty and inequality closely related(Bourguignon’s iron triangle)

Growth

Poverty rateInequality

Page 13: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

UNU-WIDER, Katajanokanlaituri 6 B FI-00160 Helsinki, Finland

Tel +358-(0)9-6159911Fax +358-(0)9-61599333

From Ravallion (2011)

Larger absolute poverty-income elasticities in countries with lower Ginis

6.01%/%25.03%/%

≅−=ΔΔ≅−=ΔΔ

giniifYPginiifYP

HHHH

HHHH

High inequality reduces the efficacy of economic growth to poverty reduction

Page 14: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

The concern of inequality• The report of the UN System Task Team (2012) to support the

preparation of the Post 2015 UN Development Agenda points out that inequality is a “key concern, not just from the perspective of a future in which a decent and secure wellbeing is a prerogative of all citizens, but sustained development itself is impeded by high inequalities. Hence, redressing these trends will be a major challenge in the decades ahead”

• Despite this, there is no consensus regarding the direction of change in global interpersonal inequality. The most recent and authoritative review on the issue (Anand and Segal, 2008) points out that “it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the direction of change in global inequality over the last three decades of the twentieth century”

Page 15: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

MEASUREMENT and TRENDS

Page 16: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

How to measure global interpersonal inequality?

`Concept one' measures inequality among countries, where countries are ranked according to their average per capita income, and every country receives an equal weight

->`Concept two‘ measures inequality among all the individuals in the world and assigns each person the average per capita income for his/her country (`between-country' inequality)

->`Concept three' measures global interpersonal inequality, taking into account the actual global distribution of income of all the citizens of the world.

The Gini coefficient is the most common inequality measure.

Theil L index (or Mean Logarithmic Deviation) belongs to the family of generalized entropy measures, and it is additively decomposable, with population share weights.

Page 17: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

UNU-WIDER World Income and Inequality Database

WIID is the longest and most comprehensive database of income distributions

• Inequality trends within and across countries• Observations for 156 existing countries + Good Quality Ginis

based on HH surveys and NOT National Accounts Mainly quality data – otherwise quality ranking Deininger & Squire, LIS, Eurostat, UNICEF, CEDLAS It provides information on the source (e.g. income or consumption),

and quality of Ginis, fundamental for the study of global interpersonal inequality. Neither World Bank’s PovcalNet, CIA Factbook, UNDP offer these features

http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/Database/

Page 18: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

What are the recent trends in global interpersonal inequality?

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1976 1985 1995 2008

Gini

Theil L (MLD)

Theil L within-country componentTheil L between-countrycomponent

Global Interpersonal Inequality has fallen steadily between 1975 and 2008• Ginis fell from 0.727 to 0.681• Theil L idex (or MLD) fell from 1.314 to 0.981

Source: Niño-Zarazúa, Roope and Tarp (2013)

Page 19: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Counterfactual Scenario I

Inequality Measure 1975 2008Gini 0.727 0.764Theil L (MLD) 1.314 1.449Theil L within-country component 0.254 0.272Theil L between-country component 1.060 1.177

• We assumed that India’s and China’s populations grew at the same rate as they actually did during 1975-2008, but remained with per capita incomes at the 1975 levels

• China and India were low-income countries in 1975. If their per capita incomes had remained unchanged in a period that saw mean world incomes soaring, an increase in between-country inequality would have been expected

Source: Niño-Zarazúa, Roope and Tarp (2013)

Page 20: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Counterfactual Scenario II

• We consider the case where India and China had been able to grow their per capita incomes at the same rates as they actually did over 1975-2005, WHILE maintaining the same quintile shares as in 1975

• The further fall in inequality would have been driven by the much smaller level of within-country inequality in those countries

• The increases in domestic inequality in India and China have not been good for global interpersonal inequality.

Inequality Measure 1975 2008Gini 0.727 0.662Theil L (MLD) 1.314 0.872Theil L between-country component 1.060 0.600Theil L within-country component 0.254 0.272

Source: Niño-Zarazúa, Roope and Tarp (2013)

Page 21: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Poverty headcount ratio(USD 1.25 per day)

Page 22: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Poverty is falling globally – but remains a huge challenge

• Since 1990: people living on less than $1.25 has fallen in every region, including sub-Saharan Africa:– In 1990 ≈46% (or ≈2 billion

people) were extremely poor– MDG target of cutting extreme

poverty by half will be achieved by 2015

– Still: ≈1 billion people (≈14%) remain in extreme poverty

– Fragile states (most of which are Africa) not on track to reach MDGs

– Poverty problem in Africa remains very severe (both rate and absolute numbers)

% of people living on less than $1.25 USD (2005 PPP)

0 20 40 60 80

Developing Regions

Northern Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa

Latin America and theCaribbean

Eastern Asia (China only)

Southern Asia

Southern Asia excludingIndia

South-Eastern Asia

Western Asia

Oceania

Caucasus and Central Asia

2008

1990

Page 23: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Poverty increasingly associated with middle-income countries (often with high levels of inequality)

People living on less than $1.25 USD a day (2005 PPP)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1990 2008

% o

f glo

bal p

over

ty Low-incomeCountries

Middle-incomeCountries

0 20 40 60

South Asia

Sub-SaharanAfrica

East Asia

Latin America

MENA

% of global poverty

20081990

Page 24: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Inequality remains a major challenge

Inequality measured by mean-log deviations of income

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.0

Gap between high-and low-income

countries

Gap between high-and upper-middleincome countries

Income gap between country groupings

Constant 000 US$ (2005 PPP)

1980 2010 00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

1981 1990 1999 2008

Latin Americasub-Saharan AfricaEast AsiaSouth Asia

Page 25: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Infant mortality rate

Page 26: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Life expectancy

Page 27: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Primary school enrolment, 1990-2010 (%)

1990 2010

Boys Girls Boys Girls

Developing world 84 75 91 89

Sub-Saharan Africa 57 50 78 74

Latin America and the Caribbean 88 84 96 95

Eastern Asia 99 96 97 97

Southern Asia 83 66 94 91

South-Eastern Asia 94 91 95 96

Western Asia 87 79 94 89

Developed Regions 95 95 97 97

Page 28: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Prevalence of undernourishment

Page 29: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Percent of population with access to a safe water source

Page 30: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Percent of population with access to improved sanitation facilities

Page 31: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

BUSINESS CYCLES, FISCAL POLICIES AND WITHIN-COUNTRY INEQUALITIES

Page 32: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Gini index before and aftertaxes and transfers

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6Before Tax After Tax

Page 33: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Political economy factors

• Fiscal policy does NOT work instantaneously

• Adequate timing in the introduction of fiscal policies is not an easy task - political incentives often influence fiscal policy

• Public choice models indicate that legislators are prone to spend money on programs that directly benefit their own constituents but are reluctant to raise taxes because they impose a visible cost on voters

• There is a political bias towards spending and budget deficits, therefore, deficits tend to be more common than surpluses

Page 34: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Main sources of revenue in LICs• VAT is the main source of government revenue in Low Income

Countries – about 4.5% of GDP vs. 1.5% from Personal Income Tax

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Low Income Lower middleIncome

Upper middleIncome

HigherIncome

VATPersonal Income TaxCorporate Income TaxTrade tax

Regressive taxes are problematic for poverty reduction when progressive spendingis limited due to poortargeting

Page 35: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Fiscal policy as an automatic stabilizer

• Automatic stabilizers increase the budget deficit(or reduce the surplus) during recession times and increase the surplus (or reduce the deficit)during economic booms

Unemployment compensation, cash transfers to vulnerable households, progressive income tax, etc

• Evidence suggest that while fiscal policy in industrialized countries follow more optimal smoothing rules, via countercyclical measures, fiscal policies in developing countries seems to be highly pro-cyclical.

• Two explanations for pro-cyclicality can be pointed out:

1. Imperfect access to international credit markets during bad times Countries hit by an adverse shock lose access to international credit markets at the time when it is most needed

2. Inability of governments to generate sufficient surpluses during expansions that forces them to borrow less during recessions

Country Number of countries

Standard Deviation

Output Private consumption

Industrial countries

20 2.18 2.85

G7 6 2.05 2.26

Developing countries

36 4.47 7.62

Latin America 17 4.54 7.41

Africa 11 4 8.46

All sample 56 3.65 5.92

NOTE: Output and private consumption more volatile in developing countries than industrialized countries

Consumption volatility is critical as DC heavily rely on VAT

Page 36: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

SOCIAL PROTECTION AS AN INSTRUME NT TO REDUCE WITHIN-COUNTRY INEQUALITIES

Page 37: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

The Emergence of Social Protection• A new paradigm in the fight against poverty and vulnerability

• Tax-financed (and/or aid-supported) policies that moved antipoverty approaches:

– From food-aid and subsidies to regular, reliable and predictable income transfers

– Emerging consensus that eradicating poverty requires economic growth, basic service provision and social protection

– A shift from poverty as a lack of income to poverty as a multidimensional phenomenon

• Over 30 developing countries have large scale social transfer programmes

• Pilot schemes being introduced in Kenya, Malawi, Ghana and Zambia; and at implementation in Nigeria, Liberia, Uganda, and Tanzania

• More than 860 million people currently benefit from social protection, making it the most important policy instrument against poverty at the present time

Page 38: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

UNU-WIDER, Katajanokanlaituri 6 B FI-00160 Helsinki, Finland

Tel +358-(0)9-6159911Fax +358-(0)9-61599333

Social Protection: policy approaches against poverty

38

Programme title Country TypeNumber of

households (in millions)

Number of beneficiaries (in

millions)

Country classification 1/

Poverty focus 2/

National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme India Income

transfer plus 48.0 240.0 Lower middle income High

Urban DiBao China Integrated antipoverty 22.0 110.0 Lower middle

income High

Program Bantuan Tunai, Bantuan Tunai Langsung Indonesia Pure income 19.1 95.5 Lower middle

income High

Bolsa Familia Brazil Income transfer plus 12.5 52.3 Upper middle

income High

Rural Dibao China Pure income 10.5 42.0 Lower middle income High

Prêvidencia Social Rural Brazil Pure income 7.5 37.5 Upper middle income Categorical

Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme India Pure income 15.7 31.4 Lower middle

income High

Progresa-Oportunidades Mexico Income transfer plus 5.5 27.5 Upper middle

income High

‘100 Days Employment Generation Scheme’ (EGP) Bangladesh Income

transfer plus 3.0 15.0 Low income High

Tekun (transfer in less developed regions for destitute households) China Pure income 6.6 10.7 Lower middle

income High

Beneficio de Prestaçao Continuada Brazil Pure income 2.4 10.0 Upper middle income High

Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2010 Philippines Pure Income 2.0 10.0 Lower middle income Categorical

National Family Benefit Scheme India Pure income 2.0 10.0 Lower middle income High

Old Age Pension South Africa Pure income 2.4 10.0 Upper middle income High

Child Support Grant South Africa Pure income 1.9 9.5 Upper middle income High

Subtotal for 15 largest programmes 161.0 711.4Other 79 programmes 30.4 151.9TOTAL Developing world 3/ 191.4 863.3

Page 39: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Wider functionings of Social Protection: automatic stabilizers

• In Indonesia, the Jaring Pengaman Sosial was launched in 1998 to help poor households to mitigate the impact of the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis

• In Argentina, Plan Jefes y Jefas de Hogar Desocupadoswas introduced in the aftermath of the 2001-2002 Argentinean peso crisis to support unemployed parents with children

• In the Aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis• South Africa extended the Child Support Grant to cover children up

to age 17, from the previous age limit of 15• In Brazil, the scope of Bolsa Familia was expanded to include an

additional 1.3 million households• In Mexico, Oportunidades was expanded in 2010 to cover an

additional 600,000 households mostly in urban areas

Page 40: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

WHAT ARE THE COSTS AND SPOURCES OF FINANCE OF FINANCE FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Page 41: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Old agepension as % GDP

Child benefit as % GDP

Unemployment scheme as % GDP

Transfer package as% GDP

Net ODA/ as % GDP

Transfer package as % net ODA

Guinea 0,6 1,5 0,3 2,8 7,5 36,9

Burkina Faso 1,1 2,8 0,6 5,2 12,5 41,3

Ethiopia 1,0 2,8 0,6 5,1 12,6 40,3

Tanzania 1,1 3,1 0,6 5,5 11,4 48,5

Senegal 1,1 2,0 0,5 4,1 8,0 51,7

Kenya 0,9 3,0 0,6 5,2 3,9 131,3

Cameroon 0,8 1,8 0,4 3,5 2,2 154,0

The Cost of Social Protection

ILO (2008)

MICs spend less than 1% of GDP on Social TransfersLICs African countries: 3-5% GDP

Page 42: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

Sources to Finance Social Protection

• Tax revenues as a share of GDP have grown modestly in the sub-Saharan region; from 13.5% in the 1980s to 18% in the 2000s

• Constraints associated with:o The structure of the economy – the rural subsistence economy

and the informal sector are difficult to taxo Administrative capacity of revenue authorities o Political economy factors

• What are the options for financing social protection in developing countries?

Page 43: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

South AfricaBotswana

Cote d'IvoireMadagascarMozambique

BurundiTanzania

CameroonBurkina Faso

Central African RepublicEthiopiaGambiaGhanaGuinea

Guinea-BissauLesothoMalawi

MaliNiger

NigeriaRwandaSenegal

Sierra LeoneSwaziland

UgandaZambia

What about redistribution?

Source: Niño-Zarazúa et al (2012)

Marginal Tax Rate on the ‘rich’ needed to eliminate the normalised poverty gap

Page 44: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

What about resource mobilisation?• Revenues from Natural resources. Potential for Angola, Botswana,

Cameroon, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana Namibia, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Togo, Uganda and Zambia– Immediate challenges in terms of efficiency and equity

• Renegotiation of contracts with companies involved in the exploitation of natural resources: Bolivia’s Bono Juancito Pinto and Programa (PAN)

• Subsidies in developing countries are very regressive - amounted around $54 billion in 2010, roughly, 1/3 of ODA (170.6 billion USD)

• Rises in VAT earmarked for expenditures on Social Protection. VAT on cigarettes/alcohol could rise revenues in India and Vietnam equivalent to 0.3 and 0.4 % of GDP, respectively.

• Anti tax-evasion policies – Chile was able to reduce VAT evasion from 20% in the 1990s to less than 10% in 2009

Page 45: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Page 46: Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? · Global Interpersonal Inequality. What do we know? Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, UNU-WIDER Laurence Roope, Oxford University Finn Tarp,

• Inequality remains a major challenge when analysing trends in within-country inequalities

• Concerns about the negative implications of inequality, in terms of social cohesion, crime, conflict and political instability

• Recent encouraging trends in Latin America, where inequality has been falling due to:– First: a decline in the premium to skills after an educational upgrading– Second, the introduction of progressive social policies, notably social protection– Political economy factors that determine in the choice of fiscal policy

• Recent although scant evidence from LA suggests that social transfers have contributed to the reduction in inequality in the order of 15% to 20%

• Potential sources to finance social protection vary from country to country. However, the expansion of social protection in developing countries also constrained by political economy factors