Can social spending cushion the inequality effect of globalization?

This paper examines whether social spending cushions the effect of globalization on within‐country inequality. Using information on disposable and market income inequality and data on overall social spending, and health and education spending from the ILO and the World Bank/WHO, we analyze whether social spending moderates the association between economic globalization and inequality. The results confirm that economic globalization—especially economic flows—associates with higher income inequality, an effect driven by non‐OECD countries. Health spending is strongly associated with lower inequality, but we find no robust evidence that any kind of social spending negatively moderates the association between economic globalization and inequality.     

Does the impact of financial liberalization on income inequality depend on financial development? Some new evidence

Instead of empirically finding that higher levels of financial development reduce the positive impact of financial liberalization on inequality, as others do, we come up with the opposite result: financial development strengthens the inequality-raising impact of financial liberalization. We suggest that by, e.g., allowing financial liberalization to lead to more volatility and uncertainty, the model of Bumann and Lensink (2016 “Capital Account Liberalization and Income Inequality.“ Journal of International Money and Finance 61: 143–162.) can be extended as such that also an amplifying instead of reducing effect of financial depth on the impact of financial liberalization on income inequality can be theoretically justified.     

金融发展加剧了中国收入不平等吗?——基于门槛回归模型的证据

作为现代经济的核心变量,金融发展的收入分配效应是宏观经济领域的一个新兴议题。文章系统梳理了国内外研究文献,总结金融发展影响收入不平等的传导机制,并利用中国1996-2009年省际面板数据和Hansen(1999)的门槛模型,对金融发展的收入分配效应进行了估计。研究结果表明,在样本期间内金融发展显著加剧了中国收入不平等,而且金融发展的收入分配效应表现出鲜明的门槛特征,跨越特定门槛值省区的金融发展对收入不平等的影响更大。     

收入不平等与经济增长：移动的库兹涅茨曲线*——新时期收入分配改革的思路与意义

准确判断收入不平等对经济增长的影响,对于客观评价中国各个阶段的收入分配制度改革尤为重要。本文在统一增长理论的框架下引入收入不平等因素,构建了一个人口数量、不平等和经济增长同时内生的理论模型,并利用CGSS数据构造收入不平等指标,使用中国省际非平衡面板数据进行经验检验。研究发现：收入不平等与经济增长之间呈现倒U型关系。更重要的是,随着经济发展水平的提高,倒U型曲线将逐渐向左移动,即最优的收入不平等程度随着经济发展水平的提高而逐渐降低。这一发现意味着改革开放以来,中国各个时期的收入分配制度改革均是在特定历史条件下的最优选择。本文的结论具有深刻的政策含义：为了提高经济增长率,需要进一步巩固“脱贫攻坚”成果,逐渐加大收入分配调节力度,使收入分配制度改革紧跟经济发展的步伐,根据经济发展水平不断缩小收入不平等程度。     

我国收入贸易条件变动分析:1995～2004

收入贸易条件衡量的是一国在国际分工中获得的总体贸易利益的多少,在对我国贸易条件的变化进行分析时应当合理考虑收入贸易条件指数的变动。近年来我国的收入贸易条件指数呈现出持续改善的趋势,这表明外贸规模的扩大对国民经济发展做出了积极的贡献,仅仅根据商品贸易条件指数下降而得出我国贸易条件出现严重恶化的结论缺乏充分的根据。从国际经济竞争的现实背景来考虑,我国应当在保持收入贸易条件指数不恶化的情况下,继续大力推动出口贸易量较快地增长。     

Regional Income Inequality in the United States: 1969–2017

Abstract:

This article contains an analysis of the nation’s 100 lowest and 100 highest per capita income counties in the United States from 1969 to 2017. The low-income counties are very different from the high-income counties. Compared to the high-income counties, the low-income counties are generally small, mainly rural, and geographically concentrated. The people of the low-income counties are also more likely to be from minority groups than the people of either the nation or the high-income counties. Despite major institutional and technological change, both groups of counties exhibit considerable stability over the last half century. A reasonable assertion from the analysis is that the nature of regional income inequality is not likely to change substantially over the next half-century.     

应对WTO和经济全球化,提升中国蔬菜业的国际竞争力

中国是世界公认的蔬菜大国,但目前还不是蔬菜强国,加入WTO和经济全球化给中国蔬菜业带来了千载难逢的发展机遇。通过对我国蔬菜业优势和劣势分析,旨在抓住机遇,扬长补短,尽快实现蔬菜大国向蔬菜强国的历史性跨越。     

Is Trade Liberalization an Important Cause of Increasing U.S. Wage Inequality? The Interaction of Theory and Policy

The majority of mainstream economists believe that globalization and trade liberalization have had a minor role in increasing U.S. wage inequality. A minority argues that capital mobility and outsourcing indicate a larger effect. This paper first surveys these views, and then argues that how we understand the policy consequences of trade liberalization helps determine the character of our analysis of the issue itself. Thus, a shift in policy perspective, to consider the "equity costs" of trade liberalization in terms of eroded U.S. labor market institutions, produces a larger framework for analyzing the consequences of globalization and trade liberalization than is available in traditional comparative advantage efficiency reasoning. From this wider perspective, trade liberalization has likely had a greater impact on U.S. wage inequality than even the minority mainstream position allows.     

相对收入与个人效用——来自中国的证据

本文考察相对收入和相对消费对人们的影响程度,并比较社会中不同收入的不平等程度是否对这种影响起作用。笔者在中国城镇居民中进行了调查实验,用特定指标衡量人们对收入和消费的相对性关注程度。实证分析发现：（1）相对收入和绝对收入对个人效用的影响始终存在,但在炫耀性消费品（如汽车和住房）和非炫耀性消费品（如假期和保险）上的影响程度不同;（2）人们对相对收入和相对消费的关注程度较为集中在同一个区间里;（3）教育程度和职业显著地影响相对收入对人们的效用,男性比女性显著地更加在意汽车和住房的相对消费;（4）社会收入不平等没有显著影响对相对收入的关注度,但对住房消费的相对性有影响。这些发现为我们了解消费行为决策和认识宏观经济中收入不平等的消费效应有一定的启示。     

Empirics for Growth and Distribution: Stratification, Polarization, and Convergence Clubs

This paper studies cross-country patterns of economicgrowth from the viewpoint of income distribution dynamics. Sucha perspective raises new empirical and theoretical issues ingrowth analysis: the profound empirical regularity is an emergingtwin peaks in the cross-sectional distribution, not simplepatterns of convergence or divergence. The theoretical problemsraised concern interaction patterns among subgroups of economies,not only problems of a single economy's accumulating factor inputsand technology for growth.     

Enrolment in Higher Education and Changes in Income Inequality

Using a cross‐section of countries, this paper empirically examines whether greater enrolment rates in higher education are associated with increases or decreases in subsequent income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient. It finds a negative association between the two, suggesting that countries with larger enrolment rates saw their income inequality decrease relative to other countries. These findings are robust to the inclusion of several control variables and to limiting the sample to non‐OECD countries.