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
