ArticlePDF Available

Income Inequality and Economic Growth: An Analysis Using a Panel Data


Abstract and Figures

A long time ago, economic growth was the main indicator of countries’ economic health. However, since the 1970s, the analysis of the relationship between economic growth and other economic phenomena such as inequality has begun to grow (Sundrum, 1974). Much of the literature on the link between economic growth and income inequality is based on Kuznets revolutionary theory. The purpose of our article is to suspect the causality relationship between growth and inequality. To do this, we used data from 189 countries for the period between 1990 and 2015. We estimated a global model and three other of each category of countries in terms of development. In the global model, economic growth is insignificant even if its sign is positive. The same result appears in the developing country model and the moderately developed countries one. However, in the developed countries model, economic growth is negatively and statistically related to inequality. The Kuznets curve is approved in our study only when using human development indicator in the place of growth. Growth explain inequality’s movement in our study only in the model of developed countries and its coefficient is negative.
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Economics and Finance; Vol. 10, No. 5; 2018
ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
Income Inequality and Economic Growth:
An Analysis Using a Panel Data
Mohamed Bouincha1 & Mohamed Karim1
1 EREMEFP, University of Mohammed V, Rabat, Morocco
Correspondence: Mohamed Karim, University of Mohammed V, Rabat, Morocco. Tel: 212-6618-3260. E-mail:
Received: February 13, 2018 Accepted: April 10, 2018 Online Published: April 25, 2018
doi:10.5539/ijef.v10n5p242 URL:
A long time ago, economic growth was the main indicator of countries economic health. However, since the
1970s, the analysis of the relationship between economic growth and other economic phenomena such as
inequality has begun to grow (Sundrum, 1974). Much of the literature on the link between economic growth and
income inequality is based on Kuznets revolutionary theory. The purpose of our article is to suspect the causality
relationship between growth and inequality. To do this, we used data from 189 countries for the period between
1990 and 2015. We estimated a global model and three other of each category of countries in terms of
development. In the global model, economic growth is insignificant even if its sign is positive. The same result
appears in the developing country model and the moderately developed countries one. However, in the
developed countries model, economic growth is negatively and statistically related to inequality. The Kuznets
curve is approved in our study only when using human development indicator in the place of growth. Growth
explain inequalitys movement in our study only in the model of developed countries and its coefficient is
Keywords: growth, inequality, GINI, panel data, human development indicator, GDP per capita
1. Introduction
Tackling the problem of income inequality is important because inequality hampers achievement of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and poverty reduction efforts in general; it leads to an inefficient
allocation of resources, a waste of production potential, a high rate of dependency and poor institutional
development (Anyanwu, 2011). In addition, a recent study by the World Bank linked the Arab spring and the
income distribution in the Arab region. Therefore, the analysis and monitoring of the evolution of inequalities is
primordial for the continuity of economic activities in the sense that the social climate and political stability
constitute pillars of economic prospection.
This is why several international organizations such as the World Bank and the OECD are giving more and more
importance to the analysis of the issue of redistribution and poverty in the world. The objective of our study is to
revisit the nature of the relationship between inequalities and growth. We will take advantage of the relative
abundance of data related to the topic in recent years. We will analysis what extent the Kuznets theory applies in
the case of a panel of several countries.
2. Literature Review
Most of the literature on the link between economic growth and income inequality is based on Kuznets
revolutionary theory. In his famous presidential address by the American Economic Association, published in
1955, examined the effect of economic growth on inequality. There are some patterns of growth in the economy
that determine the trajectory of inequality. In particular, it postulates, in its famous inverted U-shaped curve, that
structural transformation in the economy (which shifts resources from low-productivity sectors of the economy,
such as agriculture, to sectors of higher productivity as industry and services) is associated with an increase in
inequality (Kuznets, 1955). Later, when most people move to the most productive sectors, inequality will decline.
Since then, several studies have tried to verify or negate the hypothesis.
Adelman and Morris (1973), in addition to the logarithm of GNP per capita and its square root, used several
variables that represent the dynamics of the sample countries such as factor allocation across sectors, International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 10, No. 5; 2018
productivity gaps between sectors, distribution of wealth between households (GINI of land possessions),
education, savings mobilized inside and outside. Other institutional and political variables were introduced in
their model, such as the share of social expenditures, the share of public expenditures in GDP and initial
conditions specific to each country, such as population and abundance of natural resources (Bathelemy, 1995).
In this article, Barthélemy has made a very fine analysis of the article by Kuznets. For him, the publication of
Kuznets in 1955 is more of a quantitative analysis than an article of pure theory. He later explained the
contributions and foundations, the strengths and limitations of the theory. Barthelemy presented several
criticisms that economists have advanced on the Kuznets hypothesis by presenting several articles of study and
the variables that each economist has added compared to that of Kuznets (Bathelemy, 1995).
Charles L. Wright, in his 1978 article, argued that Kuznets theory is linked to the experience of a few European
countries that have taken a big step in development and are not applicable in developing countries (Wright,
In the 90s, an interesting literature revisited this old question. Alesina and Rodrik (1994), Persson and Tabellini
(1994), and Benabou (2000) looked in a different direction and constructed models of economic policy where the
differences between the rich and the poor, in their political and voting decisions, can be bad for economic growth
if there is more inequality.
Banerjee and Newman (1993) and Galor and Zeira (1993) focused on credit and investment constraints. This is
linked to the idea of inequality of opportunity. For them, financial exclusion is a blatant picture of unequal
opportunities. As such, Ferreira discussed in 2014 the relationship between growth and the inequality of
opportunity, which for him must be distinguished from other types of inequality caused by the effort of each
individual (Ferreira, Lakner, Lugo, & Ozler, 2014).
Milanovic (1994) used the Gini coefficient as variables to explain the inequalities by a vector of variables
composed of GDP per capita expressed in PPP of 1988, the ratio between the average income of the richest
region and that of the poorest one, the percentage of employees working in the public sector to replace the old
dummies for the former socialist countries. He also uses the share of social transfers in GDP to capture the social
policy pursued by the various countries. His hypothesis is that there is a negative relationship between
inequalities and social transfers.
Perseon and Tabellini has approved the negative relationship between growth and inequality using data from
developed countries such as the United States and other developing countries (Persson & Tabellini, 1994).
Birdsall, Ross, and Sabot (1995) worked on data from several East Asian countries that experienced rapid growth
in the last decades of the 20th century. They found a positive causal effect of low inequality on economic growth
and with low income inequality as an independent contributor to the rapid growth of East Asia. They concluded,
therefore, that growth sharing policies can also stimulate growth. In particular, investment in education is the key
to sustained growth, both because it contributes directly to productivity and because it reduces income inequality.
Roland BENABOU tried to explain why South Korea and the Philippines were in similar economic conditions in
1965, whereas in 1988, Korea made considerable progress in the Philippines. For him, it is the existing
difference, already in 1965, in the distribution of income that has created the difference between the two
tendencies. Subsequently, he presented the results of 24 studies that examine the relationship between inequality
and growth (Benabou, 1996).
Alain de Janvry and Elisabeth Sadoulet used the data for the period 1970-1994 for 12 Latin and North American
countries. They have shown that growth is effective in reducing poverty and inequality only if initial levels of
inequality and poverty are not too high and education levels are high enough. They have shown that income
growth following structural adjustment reforms is more effective at reducing poverty than income growth in the
context of import substitution industrialization policies (De Janvry & Sadoulet, 1996).
Klaus Deininger and Lyn Squire have used new transnational data on income and property distribution
represented by the Land GINI to determine that there is a strong negative relationship between initial inequality
in asset allocation and long-term growth. The study also shows that inequality reduces income growth for the
poor, but not for the rich. The available longitudinal data provide little support for the Kuznets hypothesis. The
study concluded that policies that increase overall investment and facilitate asset acquisition by the poor could be
doubly beneficial for growth and poverty reduction (Deininger & Squire, 1998).
In 2003, Adams analyzed the relationship between growth measured by per capita gross domestic product,
inequalities measured by the Gini index and poverty measured by the square of the poverty gap. The study
analyzed 101 observations from 50 developing countries. According to the study, growth is an important means International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 10, No. 5; 2018
of reducing poverty for developing countries. Indeed, economic growth reduces poverty because growth has
little impact on inequality. In the data set, income inequality increases on average by less than 1.0% per year.
Since income distribution is relatively stable over time, economic growth tends to increase the incomes of all
members of society, including the poor (Adams Jr, 2003).
Ferreira, at a seminar organized by the services of the head of the Moroccan government, divided the timeline of
the empirical literary on the relationship between inequalities and growth in three major phases. In phase 1, some
key articles were written by Alesina and Rodrik (1994), Persson and Tabellini (1994) and Deininger and Squire
(1998). They regress growth on initial inequality; they find a negative coefficient supporting the idea that initial
inequality is bad for growth.
This changed in phase 2. New articles looked at country data as panel data and not as cross-sectional survey data.
This approach reversed the results because they found positive coefficients. One possible explanation was that
previous results of cross-sectional data had been biased downwards by the existence of omitted, time-invariant
Finally, there was a third phase in the literature, which includes (Easterly, 2007) which finds that inequality, that
he represented by agricultural allocations, hinders growth. (Berg, Ostry, & Zettelmeyer, 2012) who observe how
inequality reduces the duration of periods of high growth. (Ravallion, 2012) which explores the fact that initial
poverty, rather than inequality, is negatively associated with economic growth. (Marrero & Rodríguez, 2013)
who find that when total income inequality is decomposed into inequality of effort and inequality of opportunity,
it is negatively associated with subsequent growth. They turn the regressions with the two components of
inequality and find that inequality of effort is positively linked to growth, but inequality of chances is negatively
associated with him.
The OECD concluded in one of its recent studies published in 2014 that high levels of inequality have given rise
to debates that are not about to be closed on the expected consequences for economic growth. On the one hand, it
is argued that inequality could foster growth by, for example, encouraging economic agents to work, invest, take
risks or increase their savings. On the other hand, it is argued that inequalities could affect growth, for example,
by reducing equality of opportunity. Indeed, the poorest are discouraged to invest in training, thus penalizing the
countrys human capital and reducing the potential for growth. A third theory is that increased inequality leads to
distortionary measures by disadvantaged populations, which affects the business climate (OECD, 2014).
3. Method
Through this article, we will, study the impact of growth on inequalities. We will estimate a global model for all
countries and three other models of each group of countries according to the level of development. This choice is
justified by the fact that the behavior of inequalities according to that of growth is different according to the
degree of development of the country. On the other hand, the HDI is a composite indicator that encompasses
education, health and per capita income; it is certainly going to be strongly correlated with several
social-economic variables that the model may not include.
To do this, we built a large database using data for 189 countries over the period 1990-2015. Apart from those we
calculated and the human development indicator, which is calculated in the database of UNDP (Note 1), all other
variables come from the database of the World Bank (World Development Indicators (Note 2)).
According to the literature, there are several variables of an economic, socio-demographic and political nature
that can explain the evolution of income inequalities. We have tried to integrate them into the overall model of
our study, which is as follows:
GINIi,t = f(GDPi,t, Unemi,t, Infli,t, HEMi,t, Debt i,t, Empli,t, RurPopi,t, NatResi,t, Densityi,t, Agrii,t, Healthi,t)
GINI = GINI index (World Bank estimate);
GDP = GDP per capita constant 2010 USD;
Unem = Unemployment total;
Infl = Inflation (consumer prices);
HEM = (Health expenditure on GDP + Education expenditure on GDP) / Military expenditure on GDP;
Debt = Central government debt total on GDP;
Empl = Employment to population ratio; International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 10, No. 5; 2018
RurPop = Rural population of total population;
NatRes = Total natural resources rents on GDP;
Density = Population density (people per Km²);
Agri = Agriculture value added per worker;
Health = Health expenditure on GDP.
For the three models estimated for each development class. We relied on the HDI to classify the countries of our
study into three classes. The first concerns developing countries, it contains the observations of the first third of
the total interval. The second concerns the medium-developed countries and corresponds to the second third,
while the third class relates to the developed countries represented by the highest third of the interval.
There are several types of models that can be estimated with panel data. However, the most common are Pooled
Regression model, Fixed Effects model Random Effects model. To decide on the model to estimate, we
performed the test Breusch -Pagan Lagrange multiply (LM) for random effects, the Hausman test to choice if
using Fixed or Random effect model and the test of heteroscedasticity (Note 3). The Hausman test is a useful
device for determining the specification of the common effects model. The other essential ingredient for the test
is the covariance matrix of the difference vector [b-β] (Greene, 2012).
3. Results
Before we start analyzing the results. It should be noted that there are countries that rely on consumption surveys
to calculate the GINI index as Morocco and those that rely on income surveys as most OECD countries. At the
economic level, it is clear that wealth inequalities are larger than income inequality and that income inequality is
higher than spending inequality. Data on the wealth of individuals and households are generally not available and
robust. Those concerning income are more used, especially in advanced countries. As in many developing
countries, the lack of adequate data on incomes in Morocco means that economic inequalities are measured
through household consumption expenditure.
3.1 Evolution of Inequalities in the World
The first finding that emerges from the data is that the majority of countries saw inequality decrease over the
study period. Indeed, the distribution of income is determined as a result of the general equilibrium of the
economy. Therefore, it is difficult to exactly identify the determinants of these movements. However, there are a
few factors that the literature has highlighted. Figure 1 shows the evolution of the GINI index average for the
period 2010-2015 in comparison with that of the period 1990-2000.
Figure 1. The evolution of the GINI indicator between 1990 and 2015
For (Ferreira, 2016), the decline in inequality between countries has been driven by globalization and the rise of
industry in Asia. According to Richard Freeman of Harvard University, the entry of nearly 2 billion Asians into
the labor force, for the production of goods that were not marketed twenty-five years ago, contributed to these
changes in inequality. Recently, rising demand for commodities, both in China and elsewhere, has spawned
benefits for commodity producers in Africa and Latin America. This super-cycle certainly contributed to stronger
growth in these regions as well.
20 30 40 50 60 70
Average of GINI 2010-2015
20 30 40 50 60 70
Average of GINI 1990-2000
Y = X International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 10, No. 5; 2018
3.2 Inequalities and Social Problems
It is obvious that inequalities have a negative effect on the socio-economic conditions of countries. The data in
our study show a significant and negative correlation between the GINI index and the human development index.
On the other hand, inequalities are positively correlated with the incidence of several social diseases and
phenomena such as HIV, suicide, infant and neonatal mortality, incidence of tuberculosis and intentional
homicides. Table 1 shows the correlation coefficients between the HDI and several social phenomena and some
diseases that may have inequalities as a cause.
Table 1. The correlation between the GINI index and some social variables
Correlation of Pearson
Sig. (bilateral)
Number of observations
Human Development Indicator
Adolescents out of school, female
Incidence of tuberculosis
Incidence of malaria
Incidence of HIV
Increase in poverty gap at $1.90
Low birthweight babies
Maternal mortality ratio
Mortality rate, infant
Mortality rate, neonatal
Smoking prevalence
Suicide mortality rate
Several social studies such as Gartner (1990) support a causal relationship between increased income inequalities
(Cusson & Boisvert, 1994). Indeed, an unequal redistribution of income normally creates social tensions between
different segments of the population. And logically, violence in all its images such as homicides, theft, suicide
increases putting authority to increase security spending at the expense of social services such as education and
health. This process can bring the state into a vicious circle of violence and inequality without limit.
Figure 2. The GINI index and some socio-economic and socio-demographic variables
Figure 2 shows the relationship between the GINI index and the ratio of out-of-school children, the
unemployment rate, the neonatal mortality rate, the maternal mortality ratio, vulnerable employment, the
proportion of the population over- the poverty rate, the prevalence of intentional homicides, the share of
020 40 60 80
Children out of school
20 30 40 50 60 70
GINI index
020 40 60
Unemployment, total
20 30 40 50 60 70
GINI index
020 40 60 80
Mortality rate, neonatal
20 30 40 50 60 70
GINI index
500 1000 1500 2000
Maternal mortality ratio
20 30 40 50 60 70
GINI index
020 40 60 80 100
Vulnerable employment, total
20 30 40 50 60 70
GINI index
020 40 60
Poverty gap at $1.90 a day
20 30 40 50 60 70
GINI index
0.02 .04 .06 .08 .1
Increase in poverty gap at $1.90
20 30 40 50 60 70
GINI index
050 100 150
Intentional homicides
20 30 40 50 60 70
GINI index
020 40 60
Firms losses due to theft and vandalism
20 30 40 50 60 70
GINI index
0 2 4 6
Incidence of HIV
20 30 40 50 60 70
GINI index
050 100 150 200
Mortality rate, infant
20 30 40 50 60 70
GINI index
010 20 30 40
Low-birthweight babies
20 30 40 50 60 70
GINI index International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 10, No. 5; 2018
companies reporting losses due to theft and vandalism, the incidence of HIV, the infant mortality rate, and the
share of Newborns who suffer from underweight. Most variables are positively correlated with GINI. Indeed, the
most unequal countries suffer more from social tensions, communicable diseases and the consumption of Drugs
and alcohol. Disadvantaged groups use these products to compensate for hatred towards society and sometimes
use violence against the rich as the last way to express their anger, thus increasing the level of societal violence.
3.3 Inequality, Growth and Development
The first finding that comes out of the data is the decrease in the level of inequality with the increase in per
capita income. Figure 3 presents the distribution of the GINI index in relation to GDP per capita in constant $ of
2010. There is a high concentration of observations in the low income bracket. This is due to the large number of
countries with low per capita GDP in the world in addition to the countries experiencing the same problem
before increasing per capita output in recent years such as China and some Gulf countries.
Figure 3. GINI index and GDP per capita across several countries
In general, the more the per capita income of a country increases, its distribution among the different social strata
becomes more equitable. This is partly explained by the fact that the increase in income benefits the poor rather
than the rich with the implementation of distributive policies with economic development. As proof, as shown in
Table 2 below, the correlation coefficients between the GDP per capita and the GINI index differ according to
the development class. Indeed, for the class of developing countries (0,194HDI <0,38275), the GDP per capita
is not correlated with the index of GINI even if the coefficient is positive. This is due to the large number and
heterogeneity of developing countries. Indeed, in this category, there are countries that are very poor in which
poverty affects the whole population and therefore the distribution imbalance is low like the ones like the
countries of the small islands, as there are big countries that are developing countries with huge natural resources
but benefiting a minority of the population and therefore with a large distribution imbalance.
Table 2. The coefficient of correlation between the GINI index and the GDP per capita according to the
development class
Coefficient of correlation
GINI index
GDP per capita
(constant 2010 US $)
0.1842 (0.2683)
0.4331* (0.0000)
0.2956* (0.0000)
-0.3532* (0.0000)
Countries with average development that is lower or higher (0.38275HDI<0.76025) are characterized by
inequalities in a positive correlation with per capita income. These countries put in place economic policies to
increase the national production but they benefit in the first place the favored classes because they still hold the
large part of the means of production. The best example of this class is Morocco and most MENA countries,
these countries are characterized by high levels of inequalities of access to finance, land inequalities and
inequalities of wealth.
20 30 40 50 60 70
0 50000 100000 150000
GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$)
GINI index (World Bank estimate) International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 10, No. 5; 2018
It is at a higher level of development (HDI> 0.76025) that the correlation between GDP per capita and the GINI
index becomes negative and statistically significant. To reach this stage, countries must put in place distribution
rules that make it possible for society to benefit from the fruits of growth. The example of the developed
countries is the Nordic countries. The setting of their tax, education, health and social protection systems enables
them to reduce or even eliminate the inequalities of opportunity.
Figure 4 below shows the distribution of the GINI index as a function of the human development index. The
distribution of the observations exactly follows the inverted U shape of Kuznets. We can therefore conclude that
Kuznets theory applies exactly except that the level of development of countries must be considered instead of
economic growth.
Figure 4. Inequalities and human development
In principle, developing countries are experiencing high levels of inequality. In addition, most countries give
importance to the issues of growth and unemployment as means to develop before tackling the issue of the
distribution of the fruits of growth. Therefore, inequalities increase for developing countries and those
moderately developed. It is arriving at an advanced stage of development that countries are implementing their
redistributive mechanisms to reduce inequality while increasing the wealth produced.
3.4 Econometric Results
The first analysis of the data indicates that much of the variance in the variables is due to differences between
countries and a small share of variations in the same countries over the years of the study (Note 4). This is due to
the large number of countries in the panel (189 countries) and their heterogeneity despite our study covering a
relatively long duration (25 years).
The tests carried out show that our method of estimation should be as random effects model with
heteroscedasticity presence and absence of autocorrelation. Indeed, the test result Breusch -Pagan Lagrange
multiply (LM) obliges us not to use an OLS model and testing of hausman forces us to use a Random effect
model and not a fixed model effects. Wald test indicates the presence of the heteroscedasticity in the model (Note
5). Therefore, we felt a Random effect robust model.
20 30 40 50 60 70
GINI index (World Bank estimate)
.2 .4 .6 .8 1
GINI index and HDI in panel countries International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 10, No. 5; 2018
Dependent variable : GINI index
(World Bank estimate)
All countries
Developing countries
Medium development
Developed countries
GDP per capita constant 2010 USD
Unemployment total
Inflation (consumer prices)
(Health + Education) / Military
Central government debt total
Employment to population ratio
Rural population of total population
Total natural resources rents
Population density (people per K)
Agriculture value added per worker
Health expenditure on GDP
t statistics in parentheses: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.
The model results confirm our analysis charts. Indeed, growth reduces inequality unless proper redistribution
mechanisms are in place to know the model of developed countries in our study. In the global template (all
countries), although its coefficient is positive, growth does not explain changes in inequality with a p-value of
0.471, so economic growth should not be included in the model of inequality.
By cons in the model of developed countries, an increase in the growth of a percentage point can reduce
inequalities with -0.0000793 units. For both models of moderately developed countries and developing countries,
the growth rates are positive but not significant statistically.
According to the global model, the evolution of inequalities depends, among other things, the unemployment
rate, the rate of the central government into debt, the rural population share in the total population on the density
of the population, and the ratio between the amount of public spending on education and health of military
expenditures. An increase in the unemployment rate with a percentage point increases income inequality with
0.0970 unit. For cons, the more the state invests a point of GDP in education and health at the expense of
military loads, more inequality decrease of -0,181 unit. An increase in population density (persons per km 2 area)
increases inequality 0.0260 unit. Indeed, more people live in an area increasingly limited, income inequality
increased. In addition, an increase in the share of rural population in the total population with a percentage point,
more than the income inequality increases with 0.260 units.
The coefficients of the inflation, the total natural resources rents and the agriculture value added per worker
positive are in the model purpose They Are not statistically significant. The same thing for the employment to
population ratio but their coefficients is negatives. Those results affirmed the economic literature and logic.
4. Conclusion
The growth reduces inequality just if the country has reached an advanced level of development. The results of
our study show that the condition sine qua non for growth reduces inequality is the implementation of
redistributive mechanisms that aim to benefit all strata of the fruits of growth. Growth was negatively correlated
e with inequality but the relationship is positive for developing countries and the moderately developed
The Lorenz curve established a U-shaped relationship between growth and reverse the inequalities but our study
is that we must consider the level of development instead of growth. This assertion has yet to develop in depth
through an analysis of the long-term relationship between the two variables. International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 10, No. 5; 2018
Adams Jr, R. H. (2003). Economic growth, inequality, and poverty: Findings from a new data set. Retrieved
Alesina, A., & Rodrik, D. (1994). Distributive Politics and Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 109(2), 465-490.
Anyanwu, J. C. (2011). International remittances and income inequality in Africa. Review of Economic and
Business Studies, 7(5), 117-148.
Banerjee, A. V., & Newman, A. F. (1993). Occupational choice and the process of development. Journal of
Political Economy, 101(2), 274-298.
Bathelemy, philippe. (1995). lhypothèse de Kuznets est-elle encore dactualité? Revue Région &
Développement, (2).
Benabou, R. (1996). Inequality and growth. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 11, 11-74.
Benabou, R. (2000). Unequal societies: Income distribution and the social contract. American Economic Review,
Berg, A., Ostry, J. D., & Zettelmeyer, J. (2012). What makes growth sustained? Journal of Development
Economics, 98(2), 149-166.
Birdsall, N., Ross, D., & Sabot, R. (1995). Inequality and growth reconsidered: lessons from East Asia. The
World Bank Economic Review, 9(3), 477-508.
Cusson, M., & Boisvert, R. (1994). Lhomicide conjugal à Montréal, ses raisons, ses conditions et son
déroulement. Criminologie, 27(2), 165-183.
De Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (1996). Growth, poverty, and inequality in Latin America: A causal analysis,
1970-94. Review of Income and Wealth. Retrieved from
Deininger, K., & Squire, L. (1998). New ways of looking at old issues: inequality and growth. Journal of
Development Economics, 57(2), 259-287.
Easterly, W. (2007). Inequality does cause underdevelopment: Insights from a new instrument. Journal of
Development Economics, 84(2), 755-776.
Ferreira, F. H. (2016). Inégalité de revenu et inégalité dopportunité
: évolution récente et relations (pp. 18-35).
Presented at the La problématique des inégalités: Un enjeu crucial pour le développement du Maroc, Rabat
Ferreira, F. H., Lakner, C., Lugo, M. A., & Ozler, B. (2014). Inequality of opportunity and economic growth: A
cross-country analysis.
Galor, O., & Zeira, J. (1993). Income distribution and macroeconomics. The Review of Economic Studies, 60(1),
Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis.
Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 1-28.
Marrero, G. A., & Rodríguez, J. G. (2013). Inequality of opportunity and growth. Journal of Development
Economics, 104, 107-122.
Milanovic, B. (1994). The Gini-Type Functions: An Alternative Derivation. Bulletin of Economic Research,
46(1), 81-90.
OECD. (2014). Does income inequality hurt economic growth? FOCUS on Inequality and Growth.
Park, H. M. (2011). Practical guides to panel data modeling: A step-by-step analysis using stata. Public
Management and Policy Analysis Program, Graduate School of International Relations, International
University of Japan.
Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (1994). Is inequality harmful for growth? The American Economic Review, 600-621.
Ravallion, M. (2012). Why dont we see poverty convergence? The American Economic Review, 102(1), International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 10, No. 5; 2018
Sundrum, R. M. S. (1974). Aspects of Economic Inequality in Developing Countries. The Bangladesh Economic
Review, 2(1), 445-468.
Wright, C. L. (1978). Income inequality and economic growth: examining the evidence. The Journal of
Developing Areas, 13(1), 49-66.
Note 1. UNDP: United Nations Development Program,
Note 2. See:;
Note 3. See (Park, 2011) for more information about tests and models to use.
Note 4. Appendix A presents the details on the decomposition of the variations of the variables;
Note 5. For more information on test results, see Appendix B, C and D.
Appendix A. Descriptive analysis of model variables International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 10, No. 5; 2018
Appendix B. Testing for random effects: Breusch-Pagan Lagrange multiplier (LM)
Appendix C. Housman test to choice if using Fixed or Random effect model
Appendix D. Test of heteroscedasticity International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 10, No. 5; 2018
Appendix E. Global model results
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (
... Previous research tried to explain the affecting factors on income inequality from various perspectives. Bouincha and Karim (2018) reveals that the Kuznets Hypothesis occurred in the developed countries with high Human Development Index. This result was supported by Odedokun and Round (2001). ...
... The stability of macroeconomy can be indicated by inflation and therefore income distribution is more evenly distributed. Bouincha and Karim (2018) states that the inflation coefficient does not significantly affect inequality with negative-marked coefficients. Ali (2014) studied a research of cointegration analysis on inflation, the inequalty of income and the growth of economy in Pakistan. ...
... The initial step in the regression of panel data estimation was to examine whether unit roots were cotained in the variables at hand. To examine the economic growth, inflation and exchange rate impact on income inequality, we used a broadly similar model to Bouincha and Karim (2018). The basic model can be expressed as follows: ...
Full-text available
The study aims to examine and analyse the inequality of income in ASEAN countries. The income inequality among ASEAN countries was measured by using the Williamson index. The trend of inequality was also described in a graph. Furthermore, the affecting factors of the inequality of income such as economic growth, inflation and exchange rate were analyzed by using panel data regression. The study used the data from 1994 to 2019. The results showed that the average of Williamson index is 0.71, which indicates the high inequality in ASEAN. Meanwhile, the trend of inequality during the last 25 years showed a decline from year to year. The result shows that the income inequality is affected by inflation and exchange rate significantly. Consequently, this highlights the significance of exchange rate and inflation on the reduction of inequality and also the promotion of ASEAN economic integration.
... Factors that affect the level of income inequality are influenced by the economic sector as evidenced by the results of the research by Bucevska (2020) and Bouincha & Karim (2018) who found economic growth encourages increased income in lower class society and reduces inequality levels. Some other studies argue that increasing human resources through education is a key factor (Cram, 2017;Lee & Lee, 2018). ...
... It can be understood that most of the OIC countries are developing countries. Other empirical studies show that economic growth also exacerbates inequality (Alamanda, 2021;Balseven & Tugcu, 2017;Bouincha & Karim, 2018). ...
Full-text available
This study aimed to determine the factors that influence the level of income inequality in member countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OC). The research period used was from 2012 to 2021, using the System Generalized Method of Moment (GMM) analysis tool. The variables used consist of the Gini ratio (proxy of income inequality), economic growth, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), inflation, the average length of schooling (human capital proxy), and corruption perception index (sharia proxy). The results showed that sharia, human, and inflation variables had a negative effect, while economic growth and FDI had a positive and significant effect on income inequality in OIC countries. These results show that in addition to economic factors and human capital, sharia elements cannot be released in overcoming income inequality in OIC countries. Sharia is a driving factor in a more even distribution of income. Keywords: Income Inequality, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), System Generalized Method of Moment (GMM), Sharia ABSTRAK Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi tingkat ketimpangan pendapatan di negara anggota Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Periode penelitian yang digunakan adalah dari tahun 2012 sampai dengan tahun 2021, dengan menggunakan alat analisis System Generalized Method of Moment (GMM). Variabel yang digunakan terdiri dari rasio gini (proksi ketimpangan pendapatan), pertumbuhan ekonomi, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), inflasi, rata-rata lama sekolah (proksi human capital), dan indeks persepsi korupsi (proksi syariah). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa variabel syariah, human, dan inflasi berpengaruh negatif, sedangkan pertumbuhan ekonomi dan FDI berpengaruh positif dan signifikan terhadap ketimpangan pendapatan di negara-negara OIC. Hasil ini menunjukkan bahwa selain faktor ekonomi dan human capital unsur syariah tidak bisa dilepaskan dalam mengatasi ketimpangan pendapatan di negara OIC. Syariah menjadi faktor pendorong dalam distribusi pendapatan yang lebih merata. Kata kunci: Ketimpangan Pendapatan, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), System Generalized Method of Moment (GMM), Syariah REFERENCES Abdulkarim, F. M., & Ali, H. S. (2019). Financial inclusions, financial stability, and income inequality in oic countries: A GMM and quantile regression application. Journal of Islamic Monetary Economics and Finance, 5(2), 419–438. doi:10.21098/jimf.v5i2.1069 Alamanda, A. (2021). The effect of economic growth on income inequality: Panel data analysis from fifty countries. Info Artha, 5(1), 1–10. doi:10.31092/jia.v5i1.1176 Anto, M., H. (2011). Introducing an Islamic Human Development Index (I-HDI) to measure development in OIC countries. Islamic Economic Studies, 19(2), 69–95. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297. doi:10.2307/2297968 Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1998). Dynamic panel data estimation using DPD98: A guide for users. Manuscript, Oxford University. Auda, H. (2013). Novel symmetry tests in regression models based on gini mean difference. Metron, 71(1), 21–32. doi:10.1007/S40300-013-0004-1 Badriah, L. S. (2019). Ketimpangan distribusi pendapatan kaitannya dengan pertumbuhan ekonomi dan kemiskinan serta faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhinya. Sustainable Competitive Advantage (SCA-9) FEB UNSOED, 9(1), 232–248. Balseven, H., & Tugcu, C. T. (2017). Analyzing the effects of fiscal policy on income distribution: A comparison between developed and developing countries. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 7(2), 377–383. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143. doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8 Boediono. (2011). Pengantar ilmu ekonomi: Ekonomi makro (Empat). Yogyakarta: Penerbit Buku Bhakti Profesindo (BPFE). Bouincha, M., & Karim, M. (2018). Income inequality and economic growth: An analysis using a panel data. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 10(5), 242-253. doi:10.5539/ijef.v10n5p242 Bucevska, V. (2020). Determinants of income inequality in EU candidate countries: A panel analysis. Economic Themes, 57(4), 397–413. doi:10.2478/ethemes-2019-0023 Bulir, A. (1998). Income inequalities: Does inflation matter? IMF Staff Papers, 21–34. doi:10.2307/4621662 Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2022). World inequality report 2022. Retrieved from World Inequality Database website Chapra, M. U. (1993). Islamic and economic development. Islamabat: The Internasional Institute of Islamic Thought. Chapra, M. U. (2008). Ibn Khaldun’s theory of development: Does it help explain the low performance of the present-day muslim world? Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(2), 836–863. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.051 Checchi, D. (2001). Education, inequality and income inequality. LSE STICERD Research Paper, 52. Coady, D., & Dizioli, A. (2017). Income inequality and education revisited: Persistence, endogeneity, and heterogeneity. IMF Working Papers, 17(126), 1. doi: 10.5089/9781475595741.001 Coibion, O., Gorodnichenko, Y., Kueng, L., & Silvia, J. (2012). Innocent bystanders? Monetary policy and inequality in the U.S. International Monitery Fund Working Paper Series, 1–55. Retrieved from Cram, J. A. (2017). Does human capital play a role in the growing income inequality in the OECD countries ? Senior Theses, Trinity College, Hartford. Retrieved from Dabla-Norris, E., Kochhar, K., Ricka, F., Suphaphiphat, N., & Tsounta, E. (2015). Causes and consequences of income inequality: A global perspective. IMF Working Paper, 15(13), 1. doi:10.5089/9781513555188.006 Dendo, M., Suryowati, K., & Statistika, J. (2021). Pemodelan tingkat inflasi di Indonesia menggunakan regresi data panel dinamis dengan estimasi FD-GMM Deyshappriya, N. P. Arellano-Bond dan SYS-GMM Blundell-Bond. Jurnal Statistika Industri dan Komputasi, 06(02), 159–170. Deyshappriya, N. P. R. (2017). Impact of macroeconomic in Asian countries. Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI), 696. Retrieved from Dilmaghani, A. K., & Tehranchian, A. M. (2015). The impact of monetary policies on the exchange rate: A GMM approach. Iranian Economic Review, 19(2), 177–191. Esmaeili, A., Mansouri, S., & Moshavash, M. (2011). Income inequality and population health in Islamic countries. Public Health, 125(9), 577–584. doi:10.1016/J.PUHE.2011.06.003 Fatoni, A., Herman, S., & Abdullah, A. (2019). Ibn Khaldun model on poverty: The case of Fatoni Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) Countries. Journal of Islamic Monetary Economics and Finance, 5(2), 341–366. doi:10.21098/jimf.v5i2.1066 Fauziana, H., Wardhana, A. K., & Rusgianto, S. (2022). The effect of education, income, unemployment, and poverty toward the gini ratio in member of OIC Countries. Daengku: Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Innovation, 2(2), 181–191. doi:10.35877/454RI.DAENGKU874 Figini, P., & Gorg, H. (2006). Does foreign direct investment affect wage inequality? An empirical investigation. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2336. doi:10.2139/ssrn.934507 Firdaus, M. (2020). Aplikasi ekonometrika dengan e-views, stata dan R (Edisi Pertama). Bogor: IPB Press. Galli, R., & Hoeven, R. Van Der. (2001). Is inflation bad for income inequality : The importance of the initial rate of inflation. Employment Paper 2001/29. International Labour Organization. Retrieved from International Labour Organization website Gründler, K., & Potrafke, N. (2019). Corruption and economic growth: New empirical evidence. European Journal of Political Economy, 60. doi:10.1016/J.EJPOLECO.2019.08.001 Gupta, S., Davoodi, H., & Alonso-Terme, R. (2002). Does corruption affect income inequality and poverty? Economics of Governance, 3(1), 23–45. doi:10.1007/s101010100039 Jensen, N. M., & Rosas, G. (2007). Foreign direct investment and income inequality in Mexico, 1990-2000. International Organization, 61(3), 467–487. doi:10.1017/S0020818307070178 Jhingan, M. L. (2018). Ekonomi pembangunan dan perencanaan (18th ed.). Jakarta: Rajawali. Khaldun, I. (2013). Mukaddimah (Tiga). Jakarta: Pustaka Al-Kausar. Kharlamova, G., Stavytskyy, A., & Zarotiadis, G. (2018). The impact of technological changes on income inequality: The EU states case study. Journal of International Studies, 11(2), 76–94. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2018/11-2/6 King, L. P., & Váradi, B. (2002). Beyond Manichean economics: Foreign direct investment and growth in the transition from socialism. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 35(1), 1–21. doi:10.1016/S0967-067X(01)00021-6 Kuncoro, M. (2010). Ekonomika pembangunan: Masalah, kebijakan, dan politik. Jakarta: Erlangga. Kuncoro, M. (2013). Mudah memahami dan menganalisis indikator ekonomi. Yogyakarta: Unit Penerbit Dan Percetakan STIM YKPN. Le, Q. H., Do, Q. A., Pham, H. C., & Nguyen, T. D. (2021). The impact of foreign direct investment on income inequality in Vietnam. Southeast Asian Journal of Economics, 9(1), 107–138. doi:10.3390/economies9010027 Lee, J.-W., & Lee, H. (2018). Human capital and income inequality. Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) Working Paper Series, 810. Retrieved from Linawati, Y., Wibowo, M. G., Sunaryati, Wau, T., & Abduh, M. (2021). Financial deepening, macroeconomics, and income inequality in Indonesia: An autoregressive distributed lag approach. Journal of Research in Business and Management, 9(8), 23–32. Luan, Z., Zhou, Z., & Dhongde, S. (2017). The relationship between annual gdp growth and income inequality: developed and undeveloped countries. April, 1–18. Retrieved from Maestri, V., & Roventini, A. (2012). Inequality and macroeconomic factors: A time-series analysis for a set of OECD Countries. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–33. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2181399 Mahmooda, S., & Noorb, Z. M. (2015). Effect of human capital inequality and income inequality, estimated by Generalized Method of Moment (GMM). Asia Pacific Journal of Advanced Business and Social Studies, 1(1), 62–71. Mangkoesoebroto. (1993). Ekonomi publik (3rd ed.). Yogyakarta: Penerbit Buku Bhakti Profesindo (BPFE). Mihaylova, S. (2015). Foreign direct investment and income inequality in Central and Eastern Europe. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 22(2), 23–42. Mileva, E. (2007). Using Arellano–Bond dynamic panel GMM estimators in stata. Economics Department Fordham University, 55–92. Mohamad, N. M., Masron, T. A., Wijayanti, R., & Jamil, M. M. (2020). Islamic banking and income inequality: The role of corporate social responsibility. Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, 54(2), 77-90. doi:10.17576/JEM-2020-5402-07 Munir, K., & Kanwal, A. (2020). Impact of educational and gender inequality on income and income inequality in South Asian countries. International Journal of Social Economics, 47(8), 1043–1062. doi:10.1108/IJSE-04-2020-0226 Pan-Long, T. (1995). Foreign direct investment and income inequality: Further evidence. World Development, 23(3), 469–483. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(95)00136-Z Krugman, P., & Obstfeld, M. (2004). Ekonomi Internasional (5th ed.). Jakarta: Erlangga. Ravinthirakumaran, K., & Ravinthirakumaran, N. (2018). The impact of foreign direct investment on income inequality: A panel autogressive distributed lag approach for the asia-pacific economic cooperation developing economies. Asia-Pacific Sustainable Development Journal, 25(1), 57–84. doi:10.18356/d30b620b-en Rego, P. D. A. N. de S. (2021). The impact of corruption on income inequality: The role of the political regime. Social Sciences:Economics and Business, Repository University of Porto, 981–993. Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in stata. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 9(1), 86–136. doi:10.1177/1536867X0900900106 Rusydiana, A. S. (2018). Menguji kausalitas antarvariabel ekonomi dan politik: Ibn Khaldun theory on wealth. Jurnal Syarikah : Jurnal Ekonomi Islam, 4(1), 49-58. doi:10.30997/jsei.v4i1.1031 Samuelson, P. A., & Nordhaus, W. D. (1985). Ekonomi (12th ed.). Jakarta: Erlangga. Saputri, S., & Wibowo, M. G. (2018). Determinan pembiayaan UMKM di Indonesia tahun 2011-2015: Pendekatan generalized method of moment (GMM). Al-Amwal: Jurnal Kajian Ekonomi dan Perbankan Syari’ah, 10(1), 32–47. doi: 10.24235/amwal.v10i1.2809 Sheikh, M. R., Ashraf, A., Naheed, K., & Tufail, A. (2022). Economic openness, democracy and income inequality nexus in OIC countries. Harf-o-Sukhan: Scholarly Research Journal, 6(2), 24–33. Stack, S. (1978). The effect of direct government involvement in the economy on the degree of income inequality: A cross-national study. American Sociological Review, 43(6), 880-888. doi:10.2307/2094627 Suanes, M. (2016). Foreign direct investment and income inequality in Latin America: A sectoral analysis. CEPAL Review, 2016(118), 45–61. doi:10.18356/13c68e36-en Sukirno, S. (2013). Makro ekonomi teori pengantar (3rd ed.). Jakarta: Rajawali. Thalassinos, E., Uǧurlu, E., & Muratoǧlu, Y. (2012). Income inequality and inflation in the EU. European Research Studies Journal, 15(1), 127–140. Todaro, M. P. (2003a). Pembangunan Ekonomi di Dunia Ketiga. In 1 (6th Edition). Jakarta: Erlangga. Todaro, M. P. (2003b). Pembangunan Ekonomi Di Dunia Ketiga. In 2 (6th Edition). Jakarta: Erlangga. Todaro, M., & Smith, S. C. (2012). Economic Development (11th edition). Boston: Addison-Wesley. Transparency International. (2023). Corruption perceptions index 2022. Retrieved from Ulu, M. İ. (2018). The effect of government social spending on income inequality in OECD: A panel data analysis. International Journal of Economics Politics Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(3), 184–202. UNESCO INSTITUTE For STATISTICS. (2013). UIS methodology for estimation of mean years of schooling. Retrieved from Wang, Y., & Li, H. (2017). An empirical study on the impact of educational gap on income gap. Proceedings of 2017 International Conference on Education Science and Economic Management (ICESEM 2017), 560–563. doi:10.2991/icesem-17.2017.127 Wicaksono, E., Amir, H., & Nugroho, A. (2017). The source of income inequality in Indonesia: a regression-based inequality decomposition. ADBI Working Paper, 667, 1–16. Retrieved from World Bank. (2022). Gini index data. World Bank. Retrieved from World Inequality Database. (2020). Data - WID - World Inequality Database. World Inequality Database. Retrieved from
... Income inequalities are closely related to the level of income obtained by economic units and the various forms of financial resources they may hold. According to researchers [e.g., Voitchovsky, 2009;Charles-Coll, 2013;Litwiński, 2017;Bouincha and Karim, 2018], any analysis of economic inequality requires the phenomenon to be considered in positive terms (without value judgments) and in a normative approach (seeking to answer whether the occurrence of income inequality is a "justified" phenomenon). Table 1 presents the essential assumptions of income inequality theories formulated by the representatives of classical and neoclassical economics. ...
Full-text available
In the socioeconomic development of each country, income rates constitute a measure of the economic situation. They are also the principle factor influencing social stratification. When discussing the income of European households in a regional approach, one may analyze changes, regional development indicators, and the degree to which needs are satisfied. It is underlined in the relevant literature that the differences observed across macroeconomic and microeconomic indicators are reflected in the phenomenon of income inequality, and their levels are also differentiated by the biological type of households. In view of the above, this study analyzed the financial standing of households from the spatial standpoint (selected EU countries) and considered the fractions of households isolated based on their biological composition in the light of inequality indices: Gini, Atkinson, and Theil. Inequality rates were computed using the median net equivalized income. The material examined in this study consisted of secondary data collected and published in the Eurostat database.
... This, therefore, results in equal income. The negative relationship between the variables is in line with the previous findings, such as Ridzuan et al. [71] for Indonesia, Jun et al. [72] for China, and Bouincha and Karim [73] for 189 selected countries using panel estimation. ...
Full-text available
Despite the recent reduction in the poverty rate in Indonesia, income inequality has not shown any improvement. Income inequality, also known as income disparity, has been a prolonged issue in Indonesia and has caused great dissatisfaction among the public. Many of them do not feel an improvement in their wellbeing. Most studies explore these issues based on microeconomics perspectives, and limited studies focus on macroeconomic determinants. Thus, it is imperative to investigate the potential macroeconomic determinants of income inequality in Indonesia, particularly energy consumption (ENC), corruption (COR), foreign direct investment (FDI), and other supporting determinants such as economic growth (GDP), financial development (FD), and CO2 emissions. Data from 1984 to 2020 were collected and analyzed, employing the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach. The findings indicate that economic growth, corruption, and FDI can contribute to a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. At the same time, greater CO2 emissions can intensify income inequality in Indonesia both in the short and long run. Pollution, as captured by CO2 emissions, can affect the health of the poor. Health problems create difficulties for poor people to work and reduce the probability of earning income, ultimately widening income inequality. FD and energy use, on the other hand, do not influence income distribution in the long and short run. The findings indicate that boosting economic growth and FDI significantly reduce income disparity in Indonesia. Various policy recommendations are suggested in these studies based on the long-run outcomes.
... According to Kuznets's (1955), revolutionary theory, where resources shift to the high-productivity sector from lower productivity sectors like agricultural to the industrial sector, that rises income-inequality rate. Bouincha & Karim (2018) used the Kuznets theory but they use human capital as a proxy variable of growth rate. The authors use panel data from 189 different countries between 1990 and 2015 where growth works negatively to lessen income inequality. ...
Full-text available
Most of the developing countries in the world are facing a well-known challenging factor-like income inequality that affects the issue of balanced growth and welfare. The core goal of this paper is to investigate whether the Human Capital Index (HCI) joined with Good Governance (GG) variables have a significant impact on reducing income inequality in upper middle income (UMI) and lower middle income (LMI) countries or not. The first point is to investigate the relationship between HCI and income inequality and the second one is to find out the joint effect (HCI and GG) on income inequality (Gini Coefficient). The author divides all the countries based on income levels like UMI and LMI countries according to WB. For the UMI, HCI has no significant positive impact on reducing income inequality. However, if HCI works combined with good governance indicators like (HCI*RL), (HCI*RQ), and (HCI*GE), these interacted variables do not have significant power to reduce income inequality in UMI countries. Contrarily, for LMI countries, HCI helps to diminish income inequality significantly. When citizens achieve technical and educational qualifications, it helps them earn more money and shrinks income inequality significantly. Moreover, when HCI joints with good governing variables like PS, RQ, and RL that help to reduce income inequality significantly in LMI countries. There are some significant differences between UMI and LMI in foreign investment, job opportunities, foreign investment, and macroeconomic conditions that generate income-gap. This analysis finds that LMI countries grab influential effect in reducing income inequality in their economy compared to UMI countries.
... The disparity of income per capita between districts/cities has increased nationally, while it varied intra-provincially, some have increased, some have decreased, and some have remained constant before and after regional autonomy. Bouincha and Karim (2018) found that growth can reduce inequality if a country has reached an advanced level of development. The unemployment rate, central government debt, rural population, population density, and the ratio of spending on health and education are factors that determine inequality. ...
Growth and inequality are economic indicators that are strongly linked to the development process. Regional inequality has long been an issue in Indonesia. This study aims to analyze inequality and economic growth at the city/district level throughout Indonesia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. It uses secondary data sourced from the Central Statistics Agency (BPS) from 2017 to 2020. The analyzed GRDP and GRDP per capita data consist of 514 cities/districts and 34 provinces. The analytical method used is the Theil Index and Williamson Index (IW). The results revealed that the level of income inequality, calculated based on Theil's Index, was 0.258 in 2019. That value increased to 0.516 in 2020. From 2017 to 2020, the level of inequality in Indonesia increased, followed by inequality within the province itself (within-group), while inequality between provinces (between-group) tended to decrease. The contribution of inequality within the province (within-group) is 53%-63% to the national Theil Index, the rest comes from inequality between groups (between provinces).
Full-text available
Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries have registered outstanding economic growth in recent decades. However, poverty is still pervasive, deep, and severe in the region. This paper aims to analyze the impact of the recent economic growth on poverty reduction in 27 SSA countries using a new dynamic panel data set. Adopting System GMM estimation, this study found that economic growth has been associated with poverty reduction. Also, the previous level of poverty had an intense impact on the prevalent poverty status in the region. Moreover, although nonmonetary measures and income measures of poverty produce similar results (showing a reduction in poverty), nonincome poverty, especially destitution data, suggest that SSA countries are poorer even than previously understood. We suggest that SSA countries should promote a policy of income-enhancing (i.e., economic growth) to ramp up poverty reduction.
Abstrak Ketimpangan antar kabupaten di Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah bisa saja terjadi karena perbedaan sumber daya alam, sumber daya manusia dan sumber daya buatan serta tingkat teknologi yang dimilikinya. Hal lain yang juga menyebabkan terjadinya ketimpangan regional adalah terjadinya pemekaran beberapa kabupaten yang diakibatkan oleh perasaan tidak puas terhadap pemerintah. Hal ini disebabkan karena hanya terkonsentrasinya pembangunan di suatu wilayah tertentu. Indeks Wiliamson digunakan untuk menjawab pertanyaan penelitian pertama yakni perhitungan tingkat ketimpangan wilayah menggunakan PDRB per kapita sebagai komponen yang diteliti. Klaseen Typology digunakan untuk menjawab pertanyaan penelitian kedua yaitu untuk mengetahui pola pertumbuhan ekonomi. Berdasarkan Hasil perhitungan Indeks Williamson diketahui bahwa tingkat ketimpangan di Pulau Sulawesi Tengah masih termasuk kategori tinggi. Berdasarakan hasil Tipologi Klassen diketahui bahwa provinsi yang masih termasuk kategori daerah tertinggal adalah Sulawesi Tenggara, Gorontalo, Sulawesi Utara. Kata Kunci: klaseen typology; indeks williamson; provinsi sulawesi tengah. Abstract Inequality between districts in Central Sulawesi Province may occur due to differences in natural resources, human resources and artificial resources and the level of technology they have. Another thing that also causes regional inequality is the division of several districts caused by feelings of dissatisfaction with the government. This is because only the concentration of development in a certain area. The Williamson Index is used to answer the first research question, namely the calculation of regional inequality levels using GRDP per capita as the component studied. Klaseen Typology is used to answer the second research question, namely to find out patterns of economic growth. Based on the results of the Williamson Index calculation, it is known that the level of inequality in Central Sulawesi Island is still in the high category. Based on the results of the Klassen Typology it is known that the provinces that are still included in the category of underdeveloped regions are Southeast Sulawesi, Gorontalo, North Sulawesi.
This study re-examines the validity of Kuznets curve hypothesis for six South Asian countries, namely, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, India, and Bangladesh, over the period 1991–2018. The Pooled Mean Group (PMG) technique results in the short and long run reveal an S-shaped curve relationship between income inequality and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita for all countries, that is, negative at the beginning, positive after the first turning point (GDP per capita level, US$473), and negative after the second turning point (GDP per capita level, US$3827) when GDP per capita reaches the maximum level. In contrast, the country-specific results show, that the first and second turning points of GDP per capita are US$468 and US$2298 for India, US$445 and US$1408 for Pakistan, US$450 and US$9045 for Bhutan, and US$925 and US$6836 for Sri Lanka, which support the validity of the S-shaped curve. Moreover, the results also show the existence of N-shaped curve with GDP per capita (i.e. first and second) turning points of US$473 and US$2864 for Bangladesh and US$105 and US$3568 for Nepal. The findings suggest that income inequality gaps in Asian countries seem to be conditional on the levels of GDP per capita. In this regard, expansionary fiscal policy, specifically in the form of government spending, promotion of exports and employment, and price stability can play a vital role in increasing the GDP per capita levels and narrowing the income inequlaity gaps in the selected Asian countries.
Full-text available
This paper analyzes the role of wealth distribution in macroeconomics through investment in human capital. It is shown that in the presence of credit markets' imperfections and indivisibilities in investment in human capital, the initial distribution of wealth affects aggregate output and investment both in the short and in the long run, as there are multiple steady states. This paper therefore provides an additional explanation for the persistent differences in per-capita output across countries. Furthermore, the paper shows that cross-country differences in macroeconomic adjustment to aggregate shocks can be attributed, among other factors, to differences in wealth and income distribution across countries.
Full-text available
This paper investigates the impact of migrant remittances on income inequality in African countries, using a panel of five eight-year non-overlapping windows for the period 1960-2006. The results suggest that, first, international migrant remittances have a significant positive impact on income inequality in African countries. After instrumenting for the possible endogeneity of remittances, a 10 percent increase in remittances as a percentage of GDP will lead, on average, to a 0.013 percent increase in income inequality in Africa. Second, initial per capita GDP strongly increases income inequality. Third, inflation rate appears to be the strongest factor fueling income inequality in the Continent. Fourth, education significantly reduces income inequality. Fifth, the North African dummy and remittances inflows to North Africa largely reduce income inequality in the sub-region while doing the opposite in Sub-Saharan Africa. The policy implications of these results are discussed.
Full-text available
Consistent with the provocative hypothesis of Engerman and Sokoloff [Engermann, Stanley and Kenneth Sokoloff (1997), “Factor Endowments, Institutions, and Differential Paths of Growth Among New World Economies: A View from Economic Historians of the United States,” in Stephen Haber, ed. How Latin America Fell Behind, Stanford CA: Stanford University Press., Sokoloff, Kenneth L. and Stanley L. Engerman (2000), Institutions, Factor Endowments, and Paths of Development in the New World, Journal of Economic Perspectives v14, n3, 217–32.], this paper confirms with cross-country data that agricultural endowments predict inequality and inequality predicts development. The use of agricultural endowments –specifically the abundance of land suitable for growing wheat relative to that suitable for growing sugarcane – as an instrument for inequality is this paper's approach to problems of measurement and endogeneity of inequality. The paper finds inequality also affects other development outcomes – institutions and schooling –which the literature has emphasized as mechanisms by which higher inequality lowers per capita income. It tests the inequality hypothesis for development, institutional quality and schooling against other recent hypotheses in the literature. While finding some evidence consistent with other development fundamentals, the paper finds high inequality to independently be a large and statistically significant barrier to prosperity, good quality institutions, and high schooling.
Examines two intellectual currents in the analysis of income distribution which may be broadly defined according to their association with one of the following hypotheses: l. divergence- convergence hypothesis that relative income inequality increases during the early stages of economic growth before ultimately decreasing as the latter periods of growth are reached (also known as the Kuznets hypothesis, the 'U' hypothesis, and the inverted 'U' hypothesis); and 2. institutional hypothesis that institutional structures and governmental policies are the chief determinants of relative inequality. -Author
Conjugal homicide is a situation where one person murders another person with whom he or she is involved through a matrimonial, quasi-matrimonial or other romantic relationship, the study of this type of homicide is based on the entirety of conjugal murders known to police (77) and committed in different municipalities on the island of Montreal during two time periods, namely 1954 to 1962 and 1985 to 1989. The great majority of these crimes are committed by a man onto a woman. Analyses show that possessiveness — understood to be the desire of one person to exclusively control the other — is by far the reason which leads a man to murder the woman he supposedly loves. However, this desire to possess or control is not in itself sufficient for a man to execute his criminal activity, since a number of conditions must coexist : the woman questions her relationship with the man ; the man may physically strike the woman ; the man has the advantage of greater physical strength; the period of time involved is sufficiently lengthy allowing the crisis to develop and enter its critical phase and finally, the perpetrator succeeds in surpassing the inhibitions which initially impede one from killing another.
We identify structural breaks in economic growth in 140 countries and use these to define growth spells: periods of high growth preceded by an upbreak and ending either with a down break or with the end of the sample. Growth spells tend to be shorter in African and Latin American countries than elsewhere. We find that growth duration is positively related to: the degree of equality of the income distribution; democratic institutions; export orientation (with higher propensities to export manufactures, greater openness to FDI, and avoidance of exchange rate overvaluation favorable for duration); and macroeconomic stability (with even moderate instability curtailing growth duration).
Average living standards are converging among developing countries and faster growing economies see more progress against poverty. Yet we do not find poverty convergence; countries starting with higher poverty rates do not see higher proportionate rates of poverty reduction. The paper tries to explain why. Analysis of a new dataset suggests that, at given mean consumption, high initial poverty has an adverse effect on consumption growth and also makes growth less poverty-reducing. Thus, for many poor countries, the growth advantage of starting out with a low mean is lost due to a high incidence of poverty. (JEL D63, I31, I32, O15)