IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/glodps/1352.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Inequality is not always a political choice, but reducing it (to an optimal degree) is

Author

Listed:
  • Duong, Khanh
  • Nguyen Phuc Van

Abstract

In a global context, per-capita income disparities between countries persistently widen, while internal income inequality in most nations continues to increase. Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz argues that such inequality is a result of deliberate political decisions. However, inequality transcends mere political constructs, being influenced by natural and societal laws. For instance, research by Scheffer et al. reveals intriguing parallels between species abundance in the Amazon and human societal structures, while Fuchs and Thurner's study aligns inequality levels in the virtual economy of Pardus with those observed in Sweden and the United Kingdom, suggesting non-political factors in shaping inequality. This multidisciplinary examination reveals that inequality is not solely a product of political choice. Economically, inequality can stimulate short-term growth through increased physical capital, such as savings. However, it also potentially reduces human capital and hinder long-term prosperity. Sociologically, inherited inequality is seen as unjust, yet the principle of fairness - rewarding greater effort - often trumps equality. Anthropologically, hunter-gatherer societies' egalitarianism diminished with increased production and the emergence of economic competition. Rogers et al.'s findings indicate an existential advantage in hierarchical societies over egalitarian ones. Thus, inequality is partly an outcome of natural and societal dynamics. This study underscores the critical role of politics in managing inequality. In modern democracies, the political system is responsible for addressing free-market generated inequalities. This involves striving for an 'optimal inequality,' guided by models like the Boltzmann distribution, to balance stability and inclusiveness. Different distribution patterns can yield diverse societal happiness levels, even under similar inequality and external conditions. This study concludes that an ideal democracy supporting the less privileged enhances societal happiness. Nonetheless, efforts to mitigate inequality face challenges from democratic system flaws, ethical dilemmas, and information disparities between rich and poor.

Suggested Citation

  • Duong, Khanh & Nguyen Phuc Van, 2023. "Inequality is not always a political choice, but reducing it (to an optimal degree) is," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1352, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:glodps:1352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/280280/1/GLO-DP-1352.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christina Starmans & Mark Sheskin & Paul Bloom, 2017. "Why people prefer unequal societies," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(4), pages 1-7, April.
    2. Bourguignon, Francois, 1981. "Pareto Superiority of Unegalitarian Equilibria in Stiglitz' Model of Wealth Distribution with Convex Saving Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(6), pages 1469-1475, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dani Rodrik, 2018. "Populism and the economics of globalization," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 12-33, June.
    2. Grossmann, Volker, 2008. "Risky human capital investment, income distribution, and macroeconomic dynamics," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 19-42, March.
    3. Shinhye Chang & Rangan Gupta & Stephen M. Miller, 2018. "Causality Between Per Capita Real GDP and Income Inequality in the U.S.: Evidence from a Wavelet Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 135(1), pages 269-289, January.
    4. Jang Ok Cho & Hyo-Youn Chu & Hyung Seok E. Kim & Jaywon Lee, 2016. "Productivity Distribution and Economic Growth," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 32, pages 23-40.
    5. Bourguignon, Francois, 2005. "The Effect of Economic Growth on Social Structures," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 27, pages 1701-1747, Elsevier.
    6. Filip Gesiarz & Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & Tali Sharot, 2020. "The motivational cost of inequality: Opportunity gaps reduce the willingness to work," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-18, September.
    7. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Neil Lee & Cornelius Lipp, 2021. "Golfing with Trump. Social capital, decline, inequality, and the rise of populism in the US," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 14(3), pages 457-481.
    8. Cowell, Frank A., 2014. "Piketty in the long run," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 65992, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Günther Rehme, 2011. "Endogenous Policy And Cross‐Country Growth Empirics," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 58(2), pages 262-296, May.
    10. Kirill Borissov & Stefano Bosi & Thai Ha-Huy & Leonor Modesto, 2017. "Heterogeneous Human Capital, Inequality and Growth: The Role of Patience and Skills," EUSP Department of Economics Working Paper Series 2017/03, European University at St. Petersburg, Department of Economics.
    11. Cecilia Garcia-Penalosa & Eve Caroli & Philippe Aghion, 1999. "Inequality and Economic Growth: The Perspective of the New Growth Theories," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(4), pages 1615-1660, December.
    12. Garcia Penalosa, Cecilia & Turnovsky, Stephen J., 2005. "Second-best optimal taxation of capital and labor in a developing economy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 1045-1074, June.
    13. Gustavo A. Marrero & Juan Gabriel Rodríguez, 2019. "Inequality and growth: The cholesterol hypothesis," Working Papers 501, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    14. Oded, Galor, 2011. "Inequality, Human Capital Formation, and the Process of Development," Handbook of the Economics of Education, in: Erik Hanushek & Stephen Machin & Ludger Woessmann (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Education, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 441-493, Elsevier.
    15. Bofinger, Peter & Scheuermeyer, Philipp, 2016. "Income Distribution and Aggregate Saving: A Non-Monotonic Relationship," CEPR Discussion Papers 11435, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Rocco Caferra & Alessandro Cascavilla & Andrea Morone, 2022. "Family affairs or Government's duty? The tax morality of a mobile society," Working Papers 2022/09, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    17. Yohannes G. Hailu & Mulugeta S. Kahsai & Tesfa G. Gebremedhin & Randall W. Jackson, 2011. "Is Income Inequality Endogenous In Regional Growth?," Journal of Income Distribution, Ad libros publications inc., vol. 20(3-4), pages 43-56, September.
    18. Andreas Siemoneit, 2021. "Justice as a Social Bargain and Optimization Problem," Papers 2106.00830, arXiv.org.
    19. Hsuan-Wei Lee & Yen-Ping Chang & Yen-Sheng Chiang, 2020. "Status hierarchy and group cooperation: A generalized model," Papers 2004.00944, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    20. Mehmet Balcilar & Rangan Gupta & Wei Ma & Philton Makena, 2021. "Income inequality and economic growth: A re‐examination of theory and evidence," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 737-757, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    wealth inequality; socioeconomic inequality; optimal inequality; fairness;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:glodps:1352. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/glabode.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.