Multi-annual Macroeconomic Framework 2010 - 2013 states that economic growth 2003 - 2009 was pro-poor, because poverty reduced, and because the relative increase in income of the poorest quintile was greater than the increase in the richest quintile. If this is true, it means that income inequality has been reduced, and this also says using a downward variation of the Gini index of income, from 0.53 to 0.47 in the period. However
are hesitant to believe it easily, since at least the following two points:
First, the share of wages and capital gains have increased the distance gap. While in 2003 wages accounted for 25.0% of global GDP, in 2008 only 20.9%. Instead changed operating surplus of 58.7% in 2003 to 63.0% in 2008. Ie workers received minor part - in relative terms - of the wealth produced in the period, what were the owners of companies.
Considering this, and to give credit to the data one could assume that there was homogeneity in wages, but what this really meant to reduce income inequality when most of the income produced ended up in a few hands?
Second, at the regional level the reality of increasing wealth is not uniform. While many of the poorer regions have grown less, the poor have not grown faster. Assuming a vegetative social mobility, "in the period one can say that income inequality by region can not be decreased?
For the two answers to the questions are affirmative, it would have been something like a structural change in the economic organization of the country in the decade. Has this happened? At least watching the first graph, we can conclude that the model has increased extraction will not absorb a lot of manpower, and that the wealth produced is evaporated as factor income, thanks to the good international prices and pay no taxes or royalties. See more
0 comments:
Post a Comment