Abstract
Abstract. This paper is a short review of Mamoon (2007) analysis on inequality where it is contrasted with growth. The economic processes or institutional dynamics that are good for growth may not be a priority if inequalities are the prime consideration. For example rule of law and control for corruption are the most salient factors to mitigate inequality but though they are also good for growth, it is good regulation that takes the lead in growth promotion. China has been benefitting from good market regulation - a pro capitalist economic tool kit while suffering from rising inequality that may be due to less emphasis on control for corruption.
Keywords. Inequality, Growth, Globalization, Institutions.
JEL. F20, F15.References
Chen, S., & Ravallion, M. (2003). Household welfare impacts of China’s accession to the World Trade Organization, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No.3040. [Retrieved from].
Chong, A., & Gradstein, M. (2004). Inequality and Institutions, Inter-American Development Bank, Working Paper, No.506. [Retrieved from].
Cockburn, J. (2002). Trade liberalization and poverty in Nepal: A computable general equilibrium micro simulation analysis, The Centre for the Study of African Economies Working Paper Series. Working Paper No.170. [Retrieved from].
Cornai, G., Andrea, T.A., & Kiiski, S. (2004). Income distribution changes and their impact in the post-Second World War period, in C.A. Giovanni (eds), Inequality, Growth, and Poverty in an Era of Liberalisation and Globalization, Oxford Press for UNU_WIDER and UNDP.
Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2003). Institutions, trade and growth, Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(1), 133-162. doi. 10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00206-4
Engerman, S.L., & Sokoloff, K.L. (2002). Factor endowments, inequality, and paths of development among new world economies, NBER Working Paper, No.9259. doi. 10.3386/w9259
Friedman, J. (2000). Differential impacts of trade liberalisation on Indonesia’s poor and non-poor, Conference on International Trade and Poverty, Stockholm, October 20.
Glaeser, E.L., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2004). Do institutions cause growth, Journal of Economic Growth, 9(3), 271-303. doi. 10.1023/B:JOEG.0000038933.16398.ed
Gupta, S., Davoodi, H., & Alonso-Terme, R. (1998). Does corruption affect income inequality and poverty?, IMF Working Paper, No.WP/98/76. [Retrieved from].
Hellman, J., & Kaufmann, D. (2002). The inequality of influence, Worl Bank, Washington.
Kaufman, D., Kraay, A., & Lobaton, Z. (2000). Governance matters II: Updated indicators for 2000/01, Policy Research Working Paper, No.2772, The World Bank. [Retrieved from].
Keefer, P. (2002). Polarisation, politics, and property rights: Links between inequality and growth, Public Choice, 111(1-2), 127-154. doi. 10.1023/A:1015168000336
Lofgren, H. (1999). Trade reform and the poor in morocco: A rural-urban general equilibrium analysis of reduced protection, TMD Discussion Paper, IFPRI, No.38. [Retrieved from].
Mamoon, D., & Murshed, S.M. (2005). Are institutions more important than integration?, Institute of Social Studies, Working Paper Series, No.416. [Retrieved from].
Rodrik, D. Subramanian A., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development, Journal of Economic Growth, 9(2), 131-165. doi. 10.1023/B:JOEG.0000031425.72248.85
Yudaeva, K. (2003). Globalisation and inequality in CIS countries: Role of institutions, GDN Conference Paper. [Retrieved from].
