Tracking positive and negative effects of inequality on long-run growth

Abstract

Despite extensive research controversy remains on the effects of income inequality on economic growth. The literature proposes several transmission channels through which these effects may occur and even the existence of two different forms of inequality. However, empirical studies have not generally distinguished between these channels, nor have they considered the two forms of inequality and their separate effects on growth. In this paper, we review the theory and the evidence of the transmission channels through which inequality influences growth. We contribute to the literature by using a system of recursive equations, following a control function approach, to empirically assess the relevance of these channels and to differentiate between two forms of inequality. In a single model, we capture both a negative and a positive effect of inequality on long-run economic growth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    The most used measures are the Gini coefficients and the Theil indices. Some authors have also worked with shares and ratios of the percentiles along the whole distribution of income. On one side, the percentage of the third quartile has been of particular interest to capture the weight of the middle class on the basis that having a strong middle class boosts economic development (Easterly 2001; Partridge 2005). On the other side, the use of different percentile ratios allows for a focus on differentiated effects depending on the specific distributional forms of income (Voitchovsky 2005).

  2. 2.

    In a similar vein, Davis and Hopkins (2011) argue that panel techniques are not very informative about the relationship between inequality and long-run economic growth.

  3. 3.

    Ferreira (1999) presents “a brief overview to theories of growth and distribution”, including a review of three mechanisms that give rise to an effect of distribution on growth: political economy channels, capital market imperfections, and social conflict channels. More recently, Ehrhart (2009) and Galor (2009) present a short, though exhaustive and comprehensive, overview of the theories and empirical evidence of the relationship between inequality and economic development. Neves and Silva (2013) provide a critical survey of the empirical literature to explain the sources of conflicting results.

  4. 4.

    Barro (2000) provides a good explanation of how some approaches can predict a negative or a positive effect on growth, depending on the circumstances. As Barro notes, even under the sociopolitical instability approach, lower inequality may not lead to higher growth: if economic resources are required for the poor to effectively threaten sociopolitical stability, then income-equalising transfers promote stability only to the extent that that they do not encourage the poor to involve themselves in disruptive actions rather than work.

  5. 5.

    Saint-Paul and Verdier (1996) challenge the conventional political economy approach and argue that, in fact, unequal societies redistribute less and that this in turn is detrimental to growth. More recently, Woo (2011) has suggested a fiscal volatility channel for inequality to negatively influence growth.

  6. 6.

    Even controlling for fertility, Barro finds a negative effect of inequality in poor countries and a positive effect in rich countries.

  7. 7.

    In particular, in early stages of development, when physical capital accumulation is the prime engine for growth, inequality can enhance the process of development by channelling resources towards individuals whose marginal propensity to save is higher, allowing for higher levels of investment. In later stages of development, when human capital accumulation becomes the prime engine for growth, and given credit constraints, increased inequality leads to a lower spread of education among individuals, handicapping the process of development due to diminishing returns of human capital. Finally, as capital markets develop and credit constraints are relaxed, inequality becomes irrelevant.

  8. 8.

    Voitchovsky (2005) does find parallel positive and negative effects in a single model by using different parts of the income distribution. Inequality at the top end of the distribution is positively associated with growth, while inequality lower on the distribution is negatively related to subsequent growth. However, the paper acknowledges that its empirical analysis “is not very informative regarding the different channels through which inequality might affect income.”

  9. 9.

    Long-run growth is a function of more than just initial conditions. Exogenous shocks will surely play a role in economic growth. But, as long as these shocks are truly exogenous, this type of econometric approach should be consistent. We acknowledge an anonymous referee for this comment.

  10. 10.

    The use of residual variation in recursive estimation to disentangle opposing dynamics has already been used in the macroeconomics literature. As far as we know, however, it is the first time it has been used for inequality.

  11. 11.

    We acknowledge an anonymous referee for raising this argument.

  12. 12.

    Out of 67 possible explanatory variables, Sala-i-Martin et al. (2004) found 18 that were significantly related to long-run growth during 1960–1996. Results suggest that main determinants for growth include initial levels of per capita GDP—the neoclassical idea of conditional convergence—and variables for natural resource endowments, physical and human capital accumulation, macroeconomic stability. Productive specialisation also seems to negatively affect growth, with a negative and significant effect found for the fraction of primary exports in total exports.

  13. 13.

    These coefficients are adjusted from the WIID database for different possible objects of measure and related to households or families and for the entire population, allowing us to address concerns about international comparability of inequality data. We have previously used these adjusted coefficients, as have other authors (e.g. Atkinson and Brandolini 2010). We rely on income, rather than land or wealth inequality, because income distribution possibly reflects two sources of inequality, namely inequality of opportunities and inequality of returns, which influence economic growth in opposite directions (Neves and Silva 2013).

  14. 14.

    The selected countries are those for which reliable data for all variables used here have been found. The sample includes major countries from all world regions.

  15. 15.

    As in Easterly (2007), the considered geographical determinants appear to be highly correlated with institutional variables. However, introducing institutional variables directly is challenging given that institutions are expected to be endogenous to economic performance. More recently, Galor and Özak (2015) use soil types to build a Caloric Suitability Index that they use to predict long-run economic development.

  16. 16.

    We also consider several other variables for social unrest and violence as robustness checks in the estimations described in Sect. 4. Aside from social unrest and violence, other authors consider variables related to liberties, rights, and institutions. However, data for these variables are only available from the 1980s and economic performance is expected to affect them. We therefore restrict our analysis to the selected variables, which are some of the most commonly used in the literature and help to reduce endogeneity.

  17. 17.

    When we regress inequality on our controls, fertility rates do not add significant explanatory power, and their use as a valid instrument for inequality is rejected by the instrument tests implemented.

  18. 18.

    See Terza et al. (2008) for a good explanation of 2SRI and the requisites or its consistency.

  19. 19.

    We test for the relevance and validity of our approach in different ways. For relevance, we look at the F statistic and the Partial-R-squared of the first regression and perform under-identification tests. For validity, we perform tests of over-identifying restrictions.

  20. 20.

    We test for the endogeneity of inequality. While Durbin and DWH tests reject the null hypothesis of no endogeneity, the Wooldridge test, which considers robust standard errors, does not (but with a p value of 0.12 comes close to suggesting endogeneity).

  21. 21.

    We acknowledge the potential impact of multicollinearity in some of the results. In the PE and the CMI channels, the partial R square in the first-stage regression (shown in Table 4) is relatively low, what results in high multicollinearity in the second stage. In any case, these two channels report low estimated coefficients, and consequently non-significance does not seem to be the result of multicollinearity. The other problematic channel, Fertility, on the contrary, reports a high point estimate (−0.037 for inequality and 0.028 for the residual). However, the standard errors are also high. In this case, multicollinearity may be driving non-significant results.

  22. 22.

    Indeed, the previously studied correlations of our two components of inequality with growth and capital accumulation become stronger if we consider developing and the developed countries separately.

  23. 23.

    In particular, we test parameter heterogeneity for the coefficients for our two components of inequality based on the OECD-non-OECD dichotomy.

  24. 24.

    Thus, we expect to partly control for heterogeneity across countries.

  25. 25.

    Chambers and Krause (2010) provide evidence of the second phase of Galor and Moav’s (2004) hypothesis, in particular that in countries with low educational attainment the negative effects of inequality increase with higher capital stocks.

References

  1. Acemoglu D (2005) The form of property rights: oligarchic vs. democratic societies. MIT mimeo, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  2. Acemoglu D, Robinson J (1994) Persistence of power, elites and institutions. Am Econ Rev 98(1):267–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alesina A, Rodrik D (1994) Distributive politics and economic growth. Quart J Econ 109:465–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alesina A, Özler S, Roubini N, Swagel P (1996) Political instability and economic growth. J Econ Growth 1:189–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alesina A, Perotti R (1996) Income distribution, political instability, and investment. Eur Econ Rev 40:1203–1228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aghion P, Caroli E, García-Peñalosa C (1999) Inequality and economic growth: the perspective of new growth theories. J Econ Literat 37(4):1615–1660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Atkinson A, Brandolini A (2010) On analyzing the world distribution of income. World Bank Econ Rev 24(1):1–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barro RJ (2000) Inequality and growth in a panel of countries. J Econ Growth 5:5–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barro RJ, Lee JW (1993) International comparisons of educational attainment. J Monet Econ 32:363–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Binder M, Georgiadis G (2011) Determinants of human development: capturing the role of institutions. CESIFO Working Paper No. 3397

  11. Bourguignon F (1996) Equity and economic growth: permanent questions and changing answers? Document de trevail No 96–15. DELTA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bourguignon F, Verdier T (2000) Oligarchy, democracy, inequality and growth. J Dev Econ 2(62):285–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brescia R (2010) The cost of inequality: social distance, predatory conduct, and the financial crisis. NYU Annual Survey of American Law 66

  14. Brock WA, Durlauf S (2001) Growth empirics and reality. World Bank Econ Rev 15:229–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Castells-Quintana D, Royuela V (2014) Agglomeration, inequality and economic growth. Ann Reg Sci 52:343–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chambers D, Krause A (2010) Is the relationship between inequality and growth affected by physical and human capital accumulation? J Econ Inequal 8:153–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen B (2003) An inverted-U relationship between inequality and long-run growth. Econ Lett 78:205–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Clarke G (1995) More evidence on income distribution and growth. J Dev Econ 47:403–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Collier P (2009) Beyond greed and grievance: feasibility and civil war. Oxford Econ Pap 61:1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Davis L (2008) Scale effects in growth: a role for institutions. J Econ Behav Organ 66:403–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Davis L, Hopkins M (2011) The institutional foundations of inequality and growth. J Dev Stud 47(7):977–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. De Dominicis L, Florax R, de Groot H (2008) A meta-analysis on the relationship between income inequality and economic growth. Scott J Polit Econ 55(5):654–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Durlauf S, Johnson P, Temple J (2005) Growth econometrics. In: Aghion P, Durlauf S (eds) Handbook of economic growth. Elsevier, New York, pp 255–677

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ehrhart C (2009) The effects of inequality on growth: a survey of the theoretical and empirical literature. ECINEQ Working Paper Series 2009-107

  25. Easterly W (2001) The middle class consensus and economic development. J Econ Growth 6:317–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Easterly W (2007) Inequality does cause underdevelopment: insights from a new instrument. J Dev Econ 84:755–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Engermann S, Sokoloff K (1997) Factor endowments, institutions, and differential paths of growth among new world economies: a view from economic historians of the United States. In: Haber S (ed) How Latin America Fell Behind. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  28. Falkinger J, Zweimüller J (1997) The impact of income inequality on product diversity and economic growth. Metroeconomica 48(3):211–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fallah B, Partridge M (2007) The elusive inequality-economic growth relationship: are there differences between cities and the countryside? Ann Reg Sci 41:375–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ferreira F (1999) Inequality and economic performance: a brief overview to theories of growth and distribution. The World Bank, Washington

  31. Forbes K (2000) A reassessment of the relationship between inequality and growth. Am Econ Rev 90(4):869–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Galor O (2009) Inequality and economic development: the modern perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  33. Galor O, Moav O (2004) From physical to human capital accumulation: inequality and the process of development. Rev Econ Stud 71(4):1001–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Galor O, Özak O (2015) Land Productivity and Economic Development: Caloric Suitability vs. Agricultural Suitability. Working Papers 2015-5, Brown University, Department of Economics

  35. Galor O, Zeira J (1993) Income distribution and macroeconomics. Rev Econ Stud 60(1):35–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gruen C, Klasen S (2008) Growth, inequality, and welfare: comparisons across time and space. Oxf Econ Pap 60:212–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hall R, Jones Ch (1999) Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? Quart J Econ 114(1):83–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Heston A, Summers R, Bettina A (2012) Penn World Table Version 7.1. Centre for international comparisons of production, Income and Prices. University of Pennsylvania

  39. Imbens GW, Wooldridge JM (2009) New developments in Econometrics. Cemmap Lecture Notes 14

  40. Kaldor N (1956) Alternative theories of distribution. Rev Econ Stud 23(2):83–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Keefer P, Knack S (2002) Polarization, politics and property rights: links between inequality and growth. Public Choice 111:127–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kremer M, Chen D (2002) Income distribution dynamics with endogenous fertility. J Econ Growth 7:227–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Krugman P (2008) The return of depression economics and the crisis of 2008. Penguin, London

  44. Krugman P (2012) End this depression now!. Norton, London

    Google Scholar 

  45. Koo L, Dennis B (1999) Income inequality, fertility choice and economic growth: theory and evidence. Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID), Development Discussion Paper No 687

  46. Marrero G, Rodriguez J (2013) Inequality of opportunity and growth. J Dev Econ 104:107–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Murphy K, Shleifer A, Vishny R (1989) Income distribution, market size, and industrialization. Quart J Econ 104(3):537–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Neves PC, Silva SMT (2013) Survey article: inequality and growth. J Dev Stud. doi:10.1080/00220388.2013.841885

    Google Scholar 

  49. Partridge M (2005) Does income distribution affect U.S. state economic growth? J Reg Sci 45:363–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Perotti R (1994) Income distribution and investment. Eur Econ Rev 38:827–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Perotti R (1996) Growth, income distribution and democracy: what the data say? J Econ Growth 1:149–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Persson T, Tabellini G (1994) Is inequality harmful for growth? Theory and evidence. Am Econ Rev 84:600–621

    Google Scholar 

  53. PRS Group (2012) International Country Risk Guide Researchers Dataset. Data Web Site: http://hdl.handle.net/10864/10120 PRS Group

  54. Rajan R (2010) Fault Lines: How hidden fractures still threaten the world economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sachs J, Warner A (1995) Economic reform and the process of economic integration. Brookings Pap Econ Act 1:1–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sachs J, Warner A (1997) Natural resource abundance and economic growth. CID at Harvard University. Data Web Site: www.cid.harvard.edu/ciddata.html

  57. Saint-Paul G, Verdier T (1996) Inequality, redistribution and growth: a challenge to the conventional political economy approach. Eur Econ Rev 40:719–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sala-i-Martin X, Doppelhofer G, Miller R (2004) Determinants of long-term growth: a Bayesian averaging of classical estimates (BACE) approach. Am Econ Rev 94(4):813–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sokoloff K, Engermann S (2000) Institutions, factor endowments, and paths of development in the New World. J Econ Persp 14(3):217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Stiglitz J (2009) The global crisis, social protection and jobs. Int Labour Rev 148(1–2):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Svensson J (1998) Investment, property rights and political instability: theory and evidence. Eur Econ Rev 42:1317–1341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Terza J, Basu A, Rathouz P (2008) Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: addressing endogeneity in health econometric modelling. J Health Econ 27:531–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Todaro MP (1997) Economic development. Longman, London

    Google Scholar 

  64. Voitchovsky S (2005) Does the profile of income inequality matter for economic growth? Distinguishing Between the Effects of Inequality in Different Parts of the Income Distribution. J Econ Growth 10(3):273–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Woo J (2011) Growth, income distribution, and fiscal policy volatility. J Dev Econ 96(2):289–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  67. World Bank (2006) Equity and Development, World Development Report 2006. World Bank, Washington DC

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Raul Ramos, Gustavo Marrero, and Paula Herrera-Idárraga for valuable comments. We are also grateful for comments received at the XVI Spanish Applied Economics Meeting in Granada, and at the UBEconomics seminars-2015. We acknowledge the support of ECO2013-41022R.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Castells-Quintana.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 8

Table 8 Empirical Evidence on the channels: channels considered, variables used and main result

Appendix 2

See Table 9

Table 9 Variables used

Appendix 3

See Table 10

Table 10 List of countries

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castells-Quintana, D., Royuela, V. Tracking positive and negative effects of inequality on long-run growth. Empir Econ 53, 1349–1378 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-016-1197-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Inequality
  • Economic growth
  • Development
  • Control function approach

JEL Classification

  • O1
  • O4