why inequality matters in a globalizing world · 2019-12-17 · pakistan panama peru philippines...

1

2005 WIDER Annual LectureWhy Inequality Matters in a Globalizing WorldHelsinki, October 26

Nancy BirdsallPresidentCenter for Global DevelopmentWashington, D.C.

2

“Holy mackerel, the world is becoming flat. Several technological and political forces have converged, and that has produced a global, Web-enabled playing field that allows for multiple forms of collaboration without regard to geography or distance - or soon, even language.”

-Thomas Friedman

3

“But the world is not flat. Those of us on the top, with the right education and in the right countries, can easily overlook the countries and the people stuck in deep craters across the global landscape.”

-Nancy Birdsall, this lecture

. . which is about why they are in craters, why that matters, and what we need to do about it.

4

The message

Inequality matters to people. It is often a sign of injustice.

Global markets by their nature generate inequality.

We need to manage the downside of globalization if we are to sustain its upside. We need a global polity to complement our global economy.

Constructing that global polity is a key challenge of this 21st century.

5

The message in three parts:

1. Inequality Within Developing Countries: Why It Matters

2. “Globalization” is Disequalizing

3. Constructing a Global Polity for Our Global Economy

6


Definitions and facts

1.A. Inequality inhibits growth

1.B. Inequality undermines good public policy

1.C. Inequality undermines collective decision making and social institutions critical to health societies

7

1. Inequality Within Developing Countries:Why It Matters

Definitions and facts

Poverty

Inequality (money inequality)

Inequity (process not outcome)

8

. . Poverty and inequality are not closely related. . .In

eq

ualit

y R

atio

(Q

5/Q

1)

Poverty Headcount Ratio, <1$/day0 50 100

0

10

20

30

40

SSA

BRA

BGR

CHL

CHN

COL

CRI

CIV

CZE

DOM

ECU

EGYEST

GTM

GNB

HND

INDIDNJAMJOR

KEN

KGZ

LSO

MDG

MYSMRTMEX

MDAMAR

NPL

NIC

NER

NGA

PAK

PAN

PHL

POL

ROMRUSRWA

SEN

SVKSVN

ZAF

LKA

THA

TUN UGA

UKR

VEN

ZMB

ZWE

(Bivariate Correlation of $1 poverty measure/ (Q5/Q1) = .33)

Source: Birdsall (2001) “Why Inequality Matters.”

9

. . .inequality varies across regions and changes little within regions/countries over time

Inequality by region and decade

Eastern Europe

Latin America & Caribbean

Sub-Saharan Africa

East Asia & Pacific

South Asia

OECD & High Income

Source: Birdsall (2001) “Why Inequality Matters.”

10

…high in Latin America and rising in Eastern Europe...Inequality across regions

Source: Reproduced from Kalwij and Verschoor (2005).

11


Definitions and Facts




12

There is no strong relationship between inequality and growth in rich countries…

Australia

Canada

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

New Zealand

Norway

Sweden

United KingdomUnited States

11.

52

2.5

3P

erio

d av

erag

e G

DP

per

cap

ita g

row

th 1

970-

2000

(rea

l, pe

rcen

t)

25 30 35 40 45Gini coefficient

Per capita growth and inequality in rich countries 1970-2000

Source: WIID2a, WDI (2005) and author’s calculations.

13

…but developing countries with high inequality tend to grow more slowly

ArgentinaBangladeshBolivia

Botswana

BrazilChile

China

ColombiaCosta Rica

Ivory Coast

Ecuador

El SalvadorHonduras

Hong Kong

HungaryIndia

Indonesia

Israel

Jamaica

Malaysia

Mexico

Nigeria

Pakistan

Panama

Peru

Phi lippines

Singapore

South Africa

Sri Lanka

Thailand

Turkey

Uruguay

Venezuela

Zambia-20

24

68

Per

iod

aver

age

GD

P p

er c

apita

gro

wth

197

0-20

00 (

real

, per

cent

)

30 40 50 60 70Gini coefficient

Per capita growth and inequality in developing countries 1970-2000

Source: WIID2a, WDI (2005) and author’s calculations.

14

1.A. Inequality inhibits growth – in developing countries, where markets and governments are weak

Growth

Equity

Growth

Equity

Brazil

South Africa

Constructive inequality (perfectly competitive markets)

Destructive inequality (market and government weakness)

15

Latin America is an exampleFactors of aggregate growth 1960s-1990s

(contributions to variations in GDP, percentage)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Capital accumulation Education and asset equity Total

Con

tribu

tion

to g

row

th

OECD

Latin America

East Asia

Source: Birdsall and Londono (1998) "No Tradeoff: Eff icient Grow th Via More Equal Human Capital Accumulation."

16






17

1.B. Inequality undermines good public policy – for example educational opportunities are probably not equal in many developing countries

poorest 20% of households richest 20% of householdsColombia 2.4 9.8

Guatemala 2.0 8.9

Peru 5.0 9.8

Cambodia 2.4 7.4

Philippines 6.2 10.2

Vietnam 5.2 10.3

Ethiopia 0.9 5.2

Kenya 4.9 9.0

Nigeria 3.5 9.9Notes:

Source: World Bank EdStats (2005).

1. Average years of schooling are the years of formal schooling received on average, by adults aged 15-24.

2. Data is for the latest year available during the period 2000-2003, except for Colombia (1995), Guatemala (1995), Peru (1996) and the Philippines (1998).

Average years of schooling (15-24), 2000-20031,2

18

1B. Inequality undermines good public policy

Inequality encourages self-defeating economic policies to “protect” poor and near-poor households, e.g.

trade protectionism, overvalued exchange rates and price controls that hurt poor rural producers and poor urban consumers

job “protection” (high cost of layoffs) that discourages job creation

underpricing of water and electricity that leads to rationing that hurts the poor

19





1.C. Inequality undermines collective decisionmaking and the social institutions criticalto healthy societies

20

1.C. Inequality undermines collective decision making

The middle class seems to matter for social capital, for democracy, and for the blessings of a common shared “civic” life in communal domains

But high concentration of income in unequal societies implies a missing middle class

The middle class is mostly missing at the global level and within many developing countries

21

The well-off middle class

Joachim Beuckelaer, The Four Elements: Earth, National Gallery London

22

1.B. Inequality undermines collective decision making– few countries today are “middle class”

Distribution of world population by 1998 GDP per capita

Pop

ulat

ion

shar

e

GDP per capita (PPP)

Bangladesh, Nigeria, India

China, Indonesia

United StatesWestern Europe,Japan

Source: Milanovic (2005) Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality.

23

1.B. Inequality undermines good public policy– few people are “middle class”

World income distribution (based on household survey data; year 1993)

Pop

ulat

ion

Source: Milanovic (2005) Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality. Income (PPP)

24

In Brazil, median household income per capita was about a third of average national income in the 1990s

Brazil

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

85 86 88 89 91 94 96

Average Monthly Per Capita Income US $ PPP Median Monthly Per Capita Income US $ PPPPoverty Line US $2 per day

Source: Birdsall (2002).

25

In Chile, median income has been about half of average income

Source: Birdsall (2002).

Chile

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

87 89 92 94Average Monthly Per Capita Income US $ PPP Median Monthly Per Capita Income US $ PPPPoverty Line US $2 per day

26

In Peru in the 90s, almost 20 % of children under 5 in middle-income households were stunted

Rates of stunting for children < 3 (Bolivia and Ghana); < 5 (Peru)(in %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Peru Bolivia Ghana

Poorest QuintileMiddle QuintileRichest Quintile

Source: DHS.

27






28

The message in three parts:




29


Definitions, debates, facts

2.A. Global markets work—and reward those with productive assets

2.B. Global markets are imperfect—and hurt most the poor

2.C. Global rules naturally reflect market power and interests of the rich

30

Definitions, debate, facts

Globalization is the increasing integration of economies and societies – through flow of goods, services, capital and of ideas, norms, and peoples.

In popular use, globalization often refers to the increasing influence of global market capitalism and of global corporate and financial interests.

31

The debate about globalization

“No country has developed successfully by turning its back on international trade and long term capital flows.”

-Stanley Fischer, former Sr. Deputy Managing Director, IMF

“If you're totally illiterate and living on one dollar a day, the benefits of globalization never come to you.”

-Jimmy Carter, former President, USA

32

The debate about globalization and inequality

Globophobes: Global inequality is high and rising

Globophiles: Global inequality is declining

33

Inequality between rich and poor countries is increasing, because the rich are growing faster – “divergence big time”

Mean Median Percentage negative

"Old OECD" 1.9 2.0 17

Middle income countries 1.0 1.8 33

LLDCs 0.1 0.8 43

Source: Milanovic (2005).

Annual per capita growth rates 1980-2002

34

At the same time, high growth in China and India is reducing inequality across all people in the world

Inequality across world population

Inequality across countries

Source: Milanovic (2005).

35

Globophobes and globaphiles are both right

Inequality between the richest and poorest countries is high and continues to grow.

But thanks to rapid growth in China and India, global poverty is declining and so is global inequality across all people.

(Globalization is not the cause of deep poverty and destructive inequality but neither is it the solution. Indeed, where globalization is reducing poverty, e.g. China, it is also associated with rising inequality – planting seeds of future problems.)

36



2.A. Global markets work—and reward countries and people with productive assets


2.C. Global rules naturally reflect market power and the interests of the rich

37

2.A. Global markets workThe most commodity dependent countries have participated in global trade for decades

Trade to GDP Ratios for the Most and the Least Commodity Dependent Countries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1960-1964 1965-1969 1970-1974 1975-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2003

Ope

nnes

s (s

um o

f exp

orts

and

impo

rts a

s sh

are

of G

DP,

per

cent

)

Least Commodity Dependent

Most Commodity Dependent

Note: There are 72 "least commodity dependent" countries and 34 "most commodity dependent" countries. Trade to GDP ratios are unweighted averages. Source: World Development Indicators, 2005 and author's calculations.

38

But commodity prices have been falling

Source: UNCTAD. 2005. Commodity Price Bulletin.

39

And manufacturing prices have been rising

Unit Value Index of Manufactures 1965-1998

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1996 1998

Uni

t val

ue in

dex

of m

anuf

actu

res

(199

0=10

0)

Unit Value Index of Manufactures (1990=100)

Note: Unit value index of manufactures exports from G-5 to developing countries.Source: World Bank. 2001. Global Economic Prospects.

40

The wrong asset: Open, globalizing countries dependent on commodity prices have not grown

-2%

-1%

-1%

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

Ave

rage

ann

ual g

row

th ra

te o

f rea

l GD

P p

er c

apita

(mea

n, p

erce

nt)

Least commodity dependent countries

Most commodity dependent countries

1980s

1980s

1990s

1990s

Source: Birdsall and Hamoudi (2002) “Commodity Dependence, Trade, and Growth: When “Openness” is Not Enough.”

41

Despite having comparable tariff rates to other countries

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Tarif

f rat

es 1

985-

1989

and

199

5-19

97 (m

ean,

med

ian,

in p

erce

nt)

Most commodity dependent countries Least commodity dependent countries

Mean tariff rates1985-1989

1985-1989

1985-1989

1985-1989

1995-1997

1995-1997

1995-1997 1995-1997

Mean tariff rates

Median tariff rates

Median tariff rates

Source: Birdsall and Hamoudi (2002) "“Commodity Dependence, Trade, and Growth: When “Openness” is Not

42

2.A. Global markets work – and reward those with productive assets

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Secondary education relative to primary

Relative log wage

Higher education relative to secondary

Higher education relative to primary

Source: Behrman, Birdsall and Szekely (2003) “Economic Policy and Wage Differentials in Latin America.”

43

2.A. Global markets work– encouraging emigration of those with more skills

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Mexico Philippines India Pakistan Egypt Sri Lanka

Em

igra

tion

rate

s by

edu

catio

n le

vel i

n 20

00, p

opul

atio

n 25

yea

rs o

r old

er(p

erce

nt)

Primary Secondary

Tertiary

Source: Kapur and McHale (2005). Give Us Your Best and Brightest. The Global Hunt for Talent and Its Impact on the Developing World.

Emigration rates to all OECD countries by education level

44

Nurse flows from Sub-Saharan Africa to the United Kingdom

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01

Sub

-Sah

aran

Afri

can

nurs

es re

gist

erin

g in

the

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

ann

ually

Source: UK NMC (2005).

45




2.B. Global markets are imperfect—and hurtmost the poor

2.C. Global markets naturally reflect market power and the interests of the rich

46

2.B. Global markets are imperfect – and hurt most the poor.Financial crises and changes in income concentration

Note: East Asian financial crisis 1997/1998, Brazil crisis 1999, and Mexico crisis 1994/1995.Source: Reproduced from Birdsall (2005) “Stormy Days on an Open Field: Asymmetries in the Global Economy.”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Korea Philippines Thailand Brazil Mexico

Inco

me

shar

es o

f poo

rest

80%

and

rich

est 2

0% p

re- a

nd p

ost c

rises

Income share poorest 80% pre-crisis

Income share richest 20%pre-crisis

Income share poorest 80% post-crisis

Income share richest 20%post-crisis

47

2.B. Global markets are imperfect – and hurt most the poor

Pre-crisis Post-crisis

Gini Gini

Korea 32.6 37.2

Philippines 46.2 49.5

Thailand 57.5 58.5

Brazil 60.2 61.2

Mexico 52.9 53.7

Source: WIDER WIID 2.0a.

East Asian financial crisis 1997/1998, Brazil crisis 1999, and Mexico crisis 1994/1995.Pre-crisis data for Thailand, Korea and Brazil are from 1996, for the Philippines from 1994 and Mexico 1992. Post-crisis data are from 1996 for Mexico, 1998 for Korea, 1999 for Thailand, 2000 for the Philippines, and 2001 for Brazil.

Financial crises and Inequality

Source: Reproduced from Birdsall (2005) “Stormy Days on an Open Field: Asymmetries in the Global Economy.”

48

Message in three parts. The connection between 1 and 2?




49






50


Design of rules favors rich country interests:

•Current trade regime•International migration •International property rights (TRIPS)

And implementation of reasonable global rules often reflects interests of more powerful rich

I.e. just global rules and fair implementation

51






52

3. Constructing a Global Polity

Because markets work: A global social contract to address unequal endowments across countries – foreign aid, aid for trade, World Bank, aviation taxes and so on.

Because global markets are imperfect: New and improved global rules and regulatory arrangements to provide for public goods (Green Revolution), protect the global environment against global bads (Kyoto and beyond), manage global financial risks (IMF, Sovereign Debt Financing Facility), discourage anti-competitive processes (a global anti-trust agency), and so on.

And. . . .

53

3. Constructing a Global Polity

Because global rules tend to reflect the interests of the rich(With costs for all who seek a more secure, prosperous and

just world):

More voice and more votes for poor countries and poor people in global fora ... in the IMF, the World Bank, the UN Security Council, the Basle Committee for Banking Regulation and Supervision, the G-8, and so on;

and more emphasis on surveillance of rich countries’ commitments and adherence to fair rules; new efforts to complete the Doha as a development round; an International Migration Authority …

54

A Global Polity for Our Global Economy

Most global inequality is destructive – reflecting unequal endowments and opportunities across countries and peoples. In the face of that inequality, global justice will remain a constant theme in the 21st century.

Our global market system has tremendous potential benefits –but only if we construct a more robust and representative global “polity.”

. . .with a mission to secure a less divided, more just and moredevelopment-friendly world.

why inequality matters in a globalizing world · 2019-12-17 · pakistan panama peru philippines...

Documents