Effects of Markets on Poverty and Economic Inequality: Evolutionary and Ethical Perspectives
AbstractTaking into account Kuznet’s hypothesis, considers the general relationship between the evolution and extension of market systems and the incidence of poverty and economic inequality. It suggests that a re-evaluation of the Kuznet’s curve is needed because income inequality has been rising in many countries, with growing economic liberalisation, expansion of globalisation and greater reliance on markets. Nevertheless, societies that experience a rapid transition from traditional, centrally controlled, or social welfare economic systems to market-based ones often experience a substantial rise in their incidence of poverty and income inequality, at least initially. Some of the reasons for this and the processes mentioned are outlined. The recent upward trend in economic inequality, particularly in more developed countries, seems to have a different genesis to the initial phase of rising inequality indicated by the Kuznet’s curve. Its basis seems to be the combined effect of the growing importance of inequality in human capital, especially resulting from educational differences, and market extension. The increased adoption of the user-pays approach to education could magnify social stratification and cement social inequalities. The essay concludes with a discussion of ethical issues. These issues include whether or not the payments of income based upon market competition are just, arguments for redistribution of income such as those of some utilitarians and of Rawls, and the relevance of critiques of these redistribution proposals, especially as they apply to the poor. Critiques include that of Richard Musgrave, and those based on the assumption on that the poor have a high preference for leisure, exhibit backward-bending labour supply curves at very low levels of income, and are likely to spend their extra income on non-essential commodities, such as gambling and alcohol, expenditure disapproved of by many in society when the poor engage in it. Some consideration is also given to A K Sen’s view that lack of social entitlements is a major source of poverty.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Queensland, School of Economics in its series Social Economics, Policy and Development Working Papers with number 123543.
Date of creation: Nov 2006
Date of revision:
Kuznet's curve; economic inequality; poverty; economic growth; Environmental Economics and Policy; Productivity Analysis;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Costa, Dora L, 1998.
"The Unequal Work Day: A Long-Term View,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 330-34, May.
- Kuznets, Simon, 1971.
"Modern Economic Growth: Findings and Reflections,"
Nobel Prize in Economics documents
1971-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
- Sen, Amartya K, 1977. "Starvation and Exchange Entitlements: A General Approach and Its Application to the Great Bengal Famine," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 33-59, March.
- Tisdell, Clem, 2001. "Globalisation and sustainability: environmental Kuznets curve and the WTO," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 185-196, November.
- Svizzero, Serge & Tisdell, Clement A., 2001.
"Reconciling Globalisation and Technological Change: Growing Income Inequalities and Remedial Policies,"
Economic Theory, Applications and Issues Working Papers
90511, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
- Serge Svizzero & Clem Tisdell, 2002. "Reconciling globalisation and technological change: Growing income inequalities and remedial policies," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 162-171, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.