inequalitydevelopmentintheworldsystem

inequalitydevelopmentintheworldsystem内容摘要：

power structures, that is, horticultural, agrarian and industrial systems – the latter differentiated according to peripheral, semiperipheral and core position – explain the observed pattern between level of economic development and ine inequality within countries” (Bornschier and ChaseDunn, 1985, p128) Inverted UShaped Relationship between Inequality and Level of Economic Development Legend: I: Horticultural systems II: Simple and advanced systems III: Industrial system. a=Peripheral position with still dominant agrarian system。 b=Peripheral position with small importance of agrarian system。 c=Core position. Empirics of World Ine Inequality (Firebaugh, 1999) • Different rates of population growth among nations played the predominant role in determining change in the distribution of per capita ine across nations • The centuriesold trend of rising inequality leveled off from 1960 to 1989 Convergence Theory • National economies will tend to converge because of the principle of diminishing returns to capital and labor (Solow, 1956) • “As rich industrial nations begin to experience diminishing returns, poorer nations (who are farther from the point of diminishing returns) will tend to catch up as they industrialize.” (Firebaugh, 1999) Convergence Theory • The new growth theory (endogenous growth theory) (Romer, 1986。 Lucas, 1988) challenges the convergence thesis by arguing that the principle of diminishing returns can be overe by specialized inputs made possible by research • Conditional convergence (Barro, 1991: Barro and SalaiMartin, 1992: Mankiw, Romer, and Weil, 1992) • Unconditional convergence The Polarization Thesis • Worldsystem and dependency perspectives • “If rich nations benefit more from international exchange, and if this exchange is the primary source of national ine differences…then so long as rich and poor nations continue to engage economically we can expect national ines to continue to diverge.” (Firebaugh, 1999) Crossnational Evidence • Berry et al., 1983。 Peacock et al., 1988。 Schultz, 1998: there has been little or no change in intercountry inequality in recent decades • Jackman, 1982。 Sheehey, 1996。 Jones, 1997。 Korzeniewicz and man, 1997): national ines have continued to diverge Crossnational Evidence • Making sense of these findings weighting: studies that do not weight generally find divergence, whereas studies that weight generally find little change in intercountry inequality over recent decades purchasing power parity (PPP) China: weighted studies that exclude China are suspect Crossnational Evidence • When each national economy is given the same weight, the data indicate national divergence • Weighted studies find stability • Do we want to give nations or individuals equal weight? Weighted versus Unweighted Convergence • Economists: each nation represents one unit (one economy)。 economic trends in Luxembourg count just as much as economic trends in China, even though China has nearly 3,000 times more people • Sociologists: whether there is intercountry convergence in the case where individuals, not nations, are given equal weight Changing Ine Ratios versus Changing Population Shares • The ine ratios are in fact diverging, yet change in population shares across countries offsets that divergence, so weighted intercountry ine inequality does not increase • “…all the important dimensions of the 1960 89 trend in intercountry ine inequality are related to differences in the population growth rates of richer and poorer nations” (Firebaugh, 1999) Theories of Inequality Within Countries Kuzs, Nielsen, and friends The Kuzs Curve • Kuzs theorized about longterm changes in the distribution of ine • Examined changes in inequality within countries – Each country treated as an insulated unit – Development trajectory of a given country unrelated to that of other countries Hi, I‟m Simon Kuzs, the man behind the curve. Two Primary Forces Leading to Increased Intracountry Inequality 1) “Concentration of savings in the upperine brackets” (p. 7) – Kuzs found that most savings in the United States were possessed by individuals in the upper ine brackets – Saving has a cumulative effect。 over time, the upper ine groups would e to control increasing shares of assets 2) Shift in ine distribution from agricultural to nonagricultural sectors Differences in structure of ine distribution (p. 7): – “(a) the average per capita ine of the rural population is usually lower than that of the urban” – “(b) inequality in the percentage shares within the distribution for the rural population is somewhat narrower than in that for the urban population” Shift from Agricultural to Nonagricultural Sectors Kuzs focused on inequality resulting from population shifts from sector A (agricultural) to sector B (nonagricultural) As the population shifts from rural to urban, inequality increases • The nonagricultural sector is characterized by higher levels of withinsector inequality. • The greater ine inequality in the nonagricultural sector, as pared to the agricultural, increasingly affects overall ine inequality as greater proportions of the population bee urbanized • Inequality between agricultural and nonagricultural will widen over time as urban productivity outpaces rural productivity Level of Inequality According to the Interaction of (1) Proportion of Population in Sectors A and B, and (2) Ine Disparity between Sectors • When ine inequality is low, the range is widest at a proportion of A to B of • At high levels of per capita ine disparity, inequality peaks at a higher proportion of A to B Level of ine disparity Level of Inequality。