International inequality (Concept 3)

37
International inequality (Concept 3) Milanovic, “Global inequality and its implications” Lectures 6-9

description

International inequality (Concept 3). Milanovic, “Global inequality and its implications” Lectures 6-9. How are Concepts 2 and 3 related?. In Gini terms: where Gi=individual country Gini, π=income share, y i = country income, pi = popul. share, μ=overall mean income, n = number of countries - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of International inequality (Concept 3)

Page 1: International inequality (Concept 3)

International inequality (Concept 3)

Milanovic, “Global inequality and its implications”

Lectures 6-9

Page 2: International inequality (Concept 3)

• In Gini terms:

• where Gi=individual country Gini, π=income share, yi = country income, pi = popul. share, μ=overall mean income, n = number of countries

• In Theil:

LppyypG j

n

ij

iij

n

i

n

i

iii

)1

1

i

n

i

i

n

i

iy

pTip

ln1

How are Concepts 2 and 3 related?

Page 3: International inequality (Concept 3)

1. Inequality between world citizens today

Page 4: International inequality (Concept 3)

Methodological issues

• GDI per capita or HS mean• Definitional difference (H&E, undisbursed profits)

and• Practical difference (under-surveying of the rich

and under-reporting of property Y)• Mixing of the two biases both poverty and

inequality down• Moreover, movements in NA and HS statistics

are different • If HS mean is it HSY or HSX?

Page 5: International inequality (Concept 3)

Methodological issues (cont.)

• Even if HS welfare indicator is selected definitions of X,Y vary in time & btw. countries

• Issues: self-employed Y, home C, imputation of housing, treatment of publicly provided H&E, use of top coding, under-estimation of property incomes

• What PPP to use• Equivalence scales & intra-HH inequality

Page 6: International inequality (Concept 3)

The difficulty stems from contradictory movements

• Greater inequality within nations

• Greater differences between countries’ mean incomes (think of US vs. Africa)

• But catching up of large and poor countries

• All of these forces determine what happens to GLOBAL INEQUALITY (but they affect it differently)

Page 7: International inequality (Concept 3)

2. First calculations of global inequality from household survey

data alone

Page 8: International inequality (Concept 3)

Population coverage

1988 1993 1998 2002

Africa 48 76 67 66

Asia 93 95 94 96

EEurope 99 95 100 97

LAC 87 92 93 96

WENAO 92 95 97 99

World 87 92 92 92

Non-triviality of the omitted countries (Maddison vs. WDI)

Page 9: International inequality (Concept 3)

GDI (US dollar) coverage

1988 1993 1998 2002

Africa 49 85 71 66

Asia 94 93 96 95

EEurope 99 96 100 99

LAC 90 93 95 95

WENAO 99 96 96 100

World 96 95 96 98

Page 10: International inequality (Concept 3)

Number of surveys (C-based)

1988 1993 1998 2002

Africa 14(11) 30(27) 24(24) 24(24)

Asia 19(10) 26(18) 28(20) 26(18)

EEurope 27(0) 22(0) 27(14) 26(16)

LAC 19(1) 20(4) 22(2) 21(1)

WENAO 23(0) 23(0) 21(3) 21(2)

World 102(22) 121(52) 122(63) 118(61)

Page 11: International inequality (Concept 3)

1988 1993 1998 2002

International dollars

Gini index

61.9

(1.8)

65.2

(1.8)

64.2

(1.9)

65.2

(1.6)

US dollars

Gini index

77.3

(1.3)

80.1

(1.2)

79.5

(1.4)

80.5

(1.1)

Global inequality(distribution of persons by $PPP or US$ income per capita)

Page 12: International inequality (Concept 3)

Confrontation with other Concept 3 calculations

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Dikhanov-War d

Bour gignon-Mor r isonMi lanovic

Dowr ick-Akmal

Sala-i -Mar tinChotikapanich-Val .-Rao

Bhal la

Sutcl iff e

Page 13: International inequality (Concept 3)

Global (concept 3) distribution is not well approximated by theoretical lognormal

distribution0

.2.4

.6.8

Densi

ty

0 5 10ln(inc)

Kernel density estimateNormal density

Page 14: International inequality (Concept 3)

3. Importance of differences between countries’ mean

incomes

Page 15: International inequality (Concept 3)

Composition of global inequality changed: from being mostly due to “class” (within-national), today it is mostly due to “location” (where people live; between-national)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1870 2000

C lass

Location

Location

Class

1870

2000

Based on Bourguignon-Morrisson (2002) and Milanovic (2005)

Page 16: International inequality (Concept 3)

A literary comparison: Elizabeth’s dilemma

Income in 1820 (£ pa)

Approx. position in 1820 income distribution

Mr. Darcy

10,000 Top 0.1%

Elizabeth’s family

3000/7~430 Top 1%

Elizabeth alone

50 Median

Gain 100 to 1

Income in 1999 (£ pc pa)

270,000

57,000

6,500

40 to 1

1820 position estimates based on Colquhoun 1801-3 data. 2000 data from LIS, and for 0.1% from Piketty (Data-central).

Page 17: International inequality (Concept 3)

1988 1993 1998 2002

Between country Gini (PPP dollars)

51.6 54.2 53.1 54.9

Share of total inequality (in %) 83 83 83 84

Between country Gini (US dollars)

69.5 71.7 70.8 73.3

Share of of total inequality (in %) 89 90 89 91

Share of between-country inequality in total inequality

Page 18: International inequality (Concept 3)

4. Global inequality (cont.)

Page 19: International inequality (Concept 3)

A 90-10 world: fifty-fiftyCumulative % of world population

Cumulative % of PPP world income/consumption

In a single country (UK)

5 0.2

10 0.7 2.0

25 2.9

50 9.6 25.0

75 24.7

90 50.4 71.5

Top 10 49.6 28.5

Top 5 32.7 18.4

Page 20: International inequality (Concept 3)

What is a Gini of 64-66; how big is it?

Top Bottom Ratio

In $PPP: 5% 33% 0.2% 165-1

10% 50% 0.7% 70-1

In US$: 5% 45% 0.15% 300-1

10% 67.5% 0.45% 150-1

5 countries 31,850 580 55-1

10 countries 28,066 660 42-1

Page 21: International inequality (Concept 3)

twoway (line Y02_c group if contcod=="BRA") (line Y02_c group if contcod=="IDN-R") (line Y02_c group if contcod=="DEU") (line Y02_c group if contcod=="LKA") (line Y02_c group if contcod=="CHN-U"), legend(off) xtitle(country vent> ile) ytitle(percentile of world income distribution) text(90 3 "Germany") text(62 5 "urban China") text(50 6 "Brazi l") text(52 12 "Sri Lanka") text(40 18 "rural India")

Germany

urban China

Brazil Sri Lanka

rural India

02

04

06

08

01

00

pe

rce

ntil

e o

f w

orl

d in

com

e d

istr

ibu

tion

0 5 10 15 20country ventile

Year 2002

Page 22: International inequality (Concept 3)

Note…

• Not even richest people in rural Indonesia intersect with poorest people in Germany

• Very little overlap between people in Sri Lanka and Germany

• But this is not true for Brazil and Russia: about a quarter of the population is better off than the poorest decile in Germany

• Important later for rules re. global transfers

Page 23: International inequality (Concept 3)

Poor and rich people and countries, 1998

People

Countries

Poor Middle income

Rich Total

Poor 3879 210 96 4185

Middle 189 35 52 277

Rich 92 115 707 913

Total 4160 360 855 5375

Page 24: International inequality (Concept 3)

5. Globalization, policy convergence and income

divergence

Page 25: International inequality (Concept 3)

Causal effect of globalization (openness) on global inequality

• Channel 1. Different effect on within-national income distributions (difference between poor and rich countries; HOS and revisions)

• Channel 2. Different effect on growth rates of poor and rich countries (the openness premium should be higher for poor countries)

• Channel 3. Different effect on populous and small countries

• Depends on history: are populous countries rich or poor at a given point in time?

Page 26: International inequality (Concept 3)

• Assume globalization is good for for poor, populous countries, no effect on within-national distribution

• In the current constellation, India and China grow faster => global inequality ↓ (mean income convergence, lower global inequality)

• Decouple poor and populous; let China and India be rich

• No change in individual effects of gloablization; mean convergence continues but global inequality may now go ↑

• Conclusion. Even if effects are known and unchanged, the outcome may differ.

Page 27: International inequality (Concept 3)

6. Does Global Inequality Matter?

Page 28: International inequality (Concept 3)

• No one in “charge” of it; there is no global government

• No one can do much about it

• No global taxation authority

Page 29: International inequality (Concept 3)

Does global inequality matter?

• NO, according to Ann Krueger (2002):

“Poor people are desperate enough to improve their material conditions in absolute terms rather than to march up the income distribution. Hence it seems far better to focus on impoverishment than on inequality.”

Page 30: International inequality (Concept 3)

• YES, according to Kuznets (1954)“…reduction of physical misery associated with

low income and consumption levels…permit[s] an increase…of political tensions”

BECAUSE

“the political misery of the poor, the tension created by the observation of the much greater wealth of other communities…may have only increased.”

Page 31: International inequality (Concept 3)

What may be the effects of global inequality?

• Globalization increases awareness of differences in living standards (aspiration level changes; empirical studies show it)

• Leads to migration

• Greater likelihood of conflict (Jennifer Government)

Page 32: International inequality (Concept 3)

We need some rules for global transfers

• They should flow from a rich to a poor country. That is easy.

• But they have to satisfy the same rules as at the national level, i.e.

• transfers should be globally progressive, that is flow from a richer person to a poorer person.

Page 33: International inequality (Concept 3)

In addition transfers have national income inequality implications

Progressive transfer at the global level and worsening national distributions (may not

be politically sustainable)

T B

Income

Income distribution in poor country

Income distribution in rich country

Page 34: International inequality (Concept 3)

Thus transfers have to satisfy

• Progressivity 1: reduce mean income differences between rich and poor countries

• Global progressivity: tax payers should be richer than beneficiaries

• National progressivities: in rich country, tax payers should be relatively rich (reduce rich country inequality) and in poor country, beneficiaries should be relatively poor (reduce poor country inequality)

Page 35: International inequality (Concept 3)

Mechanism of global transfers

• Transfers are no longer from state to state, or from inter-state organization to a state, but from global authority to poor citizens regardless of where they live (=change in paradigm)

• A natural complement to global tax authority is relationship with (poor) citizens, not (poor) states

And in cash…

Page 36: International inequality (Concept 3)

New Global Welfare AgencyTax on commodities consumed by the rich people in rich

countries

Money collected by the Agency

Aid in cash given to different poor categories of people in poor countries

Page 37: International inequality (Concept 3)

Several key points: GCB

• Symmetrical treatment of poor and rich countries (limited sovereignty for both: rich govts lose some tax-raising authority; poor govt cannot decide the use of funds)

• No loans, but grants (pure transfers)

• No projects, but cash to citizens

• No fine targeting, but broad categories

• Use NGOs and citizen groups