Bloc notes
Aucun article sélectionné.
Stratification sociale et inégalités
1. Les inégalités de revenu et la croissance
1.2. Inégalité des revenus et taux de croissance du revenu par habitant
Documents associés - Textes de référence
La lutte contre les inégalités comme facteur de la croissance asiatique
La lutte contre les inégalités comme facteur de la croissance asiatique
Birdsall, (1995), coll. ''The World Bank Economic Review", p. 496
In this article we show how the recent experience of East Asia also casts doubt on the conventional wisdom. East Asian economies have had rapid growth over three decades with relatively low levels of income inequality, and although evidence on changes in income inequality is fragile, these economies appear to have also achieved reductions in income inequality. Our argument is straight-forward : policies that reduced poverty and income inequality, such as emphasizing basic education and augmenting labor demand, also stimulated growth.
Moreover, low levels of income inequality may have stimulated growth.
Figure 1 shows the relationship across economies between percentage growth in GDP (1965-89) and average income inequality (1965-90) as measured by the ratio of the income share of the richest 20 percent to* that of the poorest 40 percent. The East Asian economies stand alone in the northwest corner; they achieved a combination of rapid growth and low inequality over the twentyfive-year period.
Figure 1. Income Inequality and Growtb of GDP, 1965-89
Growth of GDP per capita (percent)
Note: Income inequality is measured as the ratio of the incorne shares of the richest 20 percent to the poorest 40 percent of the population. For the East Asian econornies, the change in that ratio is shown using the earliest and the latest year for which that ratio is available. For ail other econornies, the average of that ratio is taken using all years in the period 1965-89 in which that ratio was available. Source: Worid Bank (1994).
In part, the association of rapid growth and low inequality is explained by policies and programs adopted by governments in East Asia that helped ensure widespread sharing in the benefits of economic growth. In addition to the postwar land reforms in Korea and Taiwan (China), a variety of other policies and programs had the effect of ensuring shared growth: public housing in Hong-Kong and Singapore, extensive investment in rural infrastructure in Malaysia and Thailand, and, most common, widespread access to high- quality basic education and health services
Equally important, the export-oriented, labor-demanding development strategy adopted in East Asla increased employment opportunities and wages. These policies and their successful implementation were the result of some combination of historical circumstances, wisdom, political design, and good luck. With regard to their replicability elsewhere, it may no matter why they were implemented. What matters is that policies for sharing growth seem to have also stimulated growth.
How much might low inequality stimulate growth? For our sample of lowand middle-income economies, the average annual growth in pet capita GDP from 1960 to 1985 was 1.8 percent. A one-standard-deviation increase in primary school and secondary school enrollment rates raises growth rates by 0.62 and 0.34 percentage points, respectively. A one-standard-deviation decrease in the level of income inequality raises the predicted growth rate by 0.32 of a percentage point. The effect of reducing inequality is substantial; for example, other things being equal, after twenty-five years, GDP per capita would be 8.2 percent higher in an economy with low inequality than in an economy with inequality one standard deviation higher.
© Melchior 2012
Ressources pédagogiques pour les professeurs de sciences économiques et sociales des lycées (SES)
