FGV Digital Repository
    • português (Brasil)
    • English
    • español
      Visit:
    • FGV Digital Library
    • FGV Scientific Journals
  • English 
    • português (Brasil)
    • English
    • español
  • Login
View Item 
  •   DSpace Home
  • FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo
  • FGV EESP - Centro de Estudos
  • FGV EESP - CND - Centro de Estudos do Novo Desenvolvimentismo
  • FGV EESP - CND - Papers
  • View Item
  •   DSpace Home
  • FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo
  • FGV EESP - Centro de Estudos
  • FGV EESP - CND - Centro de Estudos do Novo Desenvolvimentismo
  • FGV EESP - CND - Papers
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Browse

All of DSpaceFGV Communities & CollectionsAuthorsAdvisorSubjectTitlesBy Issue DateKeywordsThis CollectionAuthorsAdvisorSubjectTitlesBy Issue DateKeywords

My Account

LoginRegister

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

Homogeneous middles vs. heterogeneous tails, and the end of the ‘Inverted-U’: the share of the rich is what it’s all about

Thumbnail
View/Open
Text - Palma - Homogeneous middles vs. heterogeneous tails, and the end of the 'inverted-U'.pdf (1.551Mb)
Date
2011
Author
Palma, José Gabriel
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
This paper examines the current global scene of distributional disparities within-nations. There are six main conclusions. First, about 80 per cent of the world’s population now live in regions whose median country has a Gini not far from 40. Second, as outliers are now only located among middle-income and rich countries, the ‘upwards’ side of the ‘Inverted-U’ between inequality and income per capita has evaporated (and with it the statistical support there was for the hypothesis that posits that, for whatever reason, ‘things have to get worse before they can get better’). Third, among middle-income countries Latin America and mineral-rich Southern Africa are uniquely unequal, while Eastern Europe follows a distributional path similar to the Nordic countries. Fourth, among rich countries there is a large (and growing) distributional diversity. Fifth, within a global trend of rising inequality, there are two opposite forces at work. One is ‘centrifugal’, and leads to an increased diversity in the shares appropriated by the top 10 and bottom 40 per cent. The other is ‘centripetal’, and leads to a growing uniformity in the income-share appropriated by deciles 5 to 9. Therefore, half of the world’s population (the middle and upper-middle classes) have acquired strong ‘property rights’ over half of their respective national incomes; the other half, however, is increasingly up for grabs between the very rich and the poor. And sixth, Globalisation is thus creating a distributional scenario in which what really matters is the income-share of the rich — because the rest ‘follows’ (middle classes able to defend their shares, and workers with ever more precarious jobs in ever more ‘flexible’ labour markets). Therefore, anybody attempting to understand the within-nations disparity of inequality should always be reminded of this basic distributional fact following the example of Clinton’s campaign strategist: by sticking a note on their notice-boards saying 'It’s the share of the rich, stupid'.
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10438/16299
Collections
  • FGV EESP - CND - Papers [49]
Knowledge Areas
Economia
Subject
Renda - Distribuição
Pobreza
Keyword
Ideology
Income distribution
Income polarisation
Inequality
Institutional persistence
Neoliberalism
Poverty
Inverted-U
New left
Latin America
Africa
Brazil
Chile
Mexico
South Africa
US

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
@mire NV
 

 


DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
@mire NV
 

 

Import Metadata