Ken Hanly raises an excellent point regarding the recent papers on inequality and growth. If the former is posited to have adverse effects on the latter because it induces "wasteful" political competition and government interventions, but, indeed, such interventions are the only means by which one might correct the depressing (in many senses!) inequality, then there is a vicious circularity. (I hope that painful sentence doesn't too grossly misrepresent your post, Ken :) ) The potential usefulness of these findings -- and, again, I don't think particularly original -- is twofold: (1) to remind neoclassical economists (Alesina and Rodrik are prominent members of that brethren) cloistered in computer rooms that inequality is BAD. Ceteris parabus, equal is better than unequal. This may seem like a mindless point, but I don't underestimate the nonchalance of my colleagues about such things. Neither, however, have I given up hope; I do think reminders can be fruitful. (2) many economies experience major shocks -- war, annexation, secession, regime shifts - - that have important one-off effects on the distribution of assets and income. Some believed (mistakenly, it appears) that South Africa might undergo such a shock, or, fifteen years earlier, Zimbabwe. But Eritrea or the post-Yugoslav states, among others, are still defining claims to property in the wake of major upheaval. Such processes occur with regularity. If leaders could be persuaded that redistribution to the poorest at such times is a dynamically good thing for the economy in aggregate, terrific. If research along these lines contributes toward that end, so much the better; if not, it is just another tree slaughtered in the name of "publications". Chris Barrett =================================================================== Christopher B. Barrett Phone: (608) 262-9491 Depts. of Agricultural Economics Fax: (608) 262-4376 and Economics Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Wisconsin-Madison 427 Lorch Street Madison, WI 53706