fbpx

Inequality Is Declining in Developing Nations and Will Decline in the West, Too

Commentators in the West often write as if increasing economic inequality were a world-wide phenomenon. The implication is that globalization, or economic “neo-liberalism,” uniformly creates an increasing gulf between the haves and have-nots everywhere in the world. In fact, however, inequality has not been getting generally worse in the developing world. In a good number of developing nations, inequality has been declining, and for the same reason it’s been increasing in the West. This development, however, throws a wrench into the narrative that globalization uniformly increases economic inequality. It also suggests increasingly inequality will taper off on its own accord in the West.

Among other characteristics, globalization reflects decreasing costs to the mobility of economic inputs and outputs. Globalization means it is generally cheaper for labor and capital to cross national borders. It means it is cheaper for finished products to cross national borders. Uniformly declining costs, however, have different effects in different nations, depending on their relative ratios of capital to labor. This is a cross-national implication of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem.

What the theorem suggests is this: declining costs will increase returns to relatively abundant factors of production and will decrease returns to relatively scarce factors of production. What factors are relatively abundant and which factors are relatively scarce, however, differ across different countries. For example, in the United States, and in the West more generally, capital is abundant relative to labor. In most lesser-developed nations, labor is abundant relative to capital. As the cost of moving factors of production across national borders declines, and so the cost of production itself, then the theorem predicts different outcomes in different countries, depending on nation’s relative mix of labor and capital.

In the West, where capital is abundant relative to labor, the theorem predicts increasing returns to capital holders, and decreasing returns to labor. Given that wealthy households tend to own more capital than poorer households, this implies what we see in the West, that the rich get richer. (Keep in mind this is relative affluence. That the “poor get poorer” means only relative to the rich, it does not necessarily entail that less affluent households in the West have less to eat or to spend in absolute terms.)

In developing nations, however, where labor is abundant relative to capital, the theorem predicts the opposite of the West’s experience. It predicts increasing returns to labor and decreasing returns to capital. Given, again, that wealthy households tend to hold more capital than poorer households, this suggests declining economic inequality in lesser-developed nations. The poor would be getting richer and the richer would be getting poorer, relative to each other.

To be sure, the decline in absolute numbers of extreme poverty throughout the world – one billion souls escaping extreme poverty in recent decades – is certainly pertinent evidence. Nonetheless, it is possible in these countries that, even with astonishing decreases in absolute poverty, relative inequality has nonetheless increased.

Economists Nathalie Chusseau and Joël Hellier, in a working paper on “Inequality in Emerging Countries,” report “diverse” trends in inequality within lesser developed nations. This may seem to be a weak result. It is much more significant than it first appears.

Recall first that the economic inequality has been increasing throughout the developed nations in recent decades. This is not the experience in less developed nations. Chusseau and Hellier report “Emerging East Asian countries experienced a decrease in inequality during the seventies and eighties” with unclear trends in recent decades. So, too, “After a continuous increase in inequality in the 1990s, a majority of Latin American countries have experienced a decrease in inequality in the 2000s.” They suggest the overall evidence implies “a turning point towards more equality could have occurred in the 2000s for a number of [emerging] countries.” I don’t want to style the evidence as more consistent than they present it: inequality in fact increased in many lesser developed nations at different times during this period. The point, however, is this trend has not been consistent as it has among developed nations. And, indeed, during these same decades, in numerous developing countries, economic inequality in fact declined.

More compelling news comes in Chusseau and Hellier’s unpacking of what caused the declining inequality in countries in which it has declined and what caused the increasing inequality in those countries in which it increased. They write:

The Stolper-Samuelson effect lowers inequality, as well as growth-related pro-education policies. On the other hand, technological transfers, the cornering of new skill intensive industries, the increase in the size of the South and technological catching up tend to increase inequality.

First we should note their conclusion that the “Stolper-Samuelson effect lowers inequality” (as well as increased education). Secondly, however, they observe it is technology transfers (also a result of globalization) that has increased inequality by increasing income going to skilled workers.

It is important to note increasing inequality caused by technologically skilled labor is not inequality increasing due to increase returns to capital. It is not the one-percent getting richer. This inequality results from the development of a middle class. We don’t want to “solve” this cause of inequality, we want more workers to take advantage of technologically-inspired income gains.

There are a couple of lessons for the West. First, the Western experience with increasing economic inequality cannot be generalized worldwide. Secondly, there is a connection between increasing returns to capital in the West and increasing wages in lesser-developed nations. This means there is a connection between increasing inequality in the West and decreasing inequality due to the Stolper-Samuelson effect in lesser-developed nations. Finally, the process generating increased inequality in the West will not continue indefinitely. As relative ratios of capital to labor equilibrate over time, outsized returns to capital in the West, and outsized returns to labor in developing countries, will disappear. Economic inequality in the West will stop increasing, and labor income will once again increase at the same rate as the return on capital. Increasing inequality in the West is a huge, one-off occurrence.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on October 31, 2018 at 09:30:29 am

[…] View Original: Inequality Is Declining in Developing Nations and Will Decline in the West, Too […]

read full comment
Image of Inequality Is Declining in Developing Nations and Will Decline in the West, Too | MemePosts
Inequality Is Declining in Developing Nations and Will Decline in the West, Too | MemePosts
on October 31, 2018 at 10:52:34 am

Now, what exactly has been asserted?

read full comment
Image of Anthony
Anthony
on October 31, 2018 at 11:53:26 am

The Stolper-Samuelson effect lowers inequality, as well as growth-related pro-education policies. On the other hand, technological transfers, the cornering of new skill intensive industries, the increase in the size of the South and technological catching up tend to increase inequality.

Really? I wouldn’t have guessed. I mean, wow. That’s really … quite … bad writing. These guys need an editor.

I think they mean that the data show that the Stolper-Samuelson effect has lowered inequality in the developing world, but that confounding variables--technological transfers, the cornering of new skill-intensive industries, the increase in the size of the South, and technological catching up—increase inequality, so the net change may not look very large. The excerpt also says that the Stolper-Samuelson effect “lowers … growth-related pro-education policies.” I suspect that the authors mean that growth-related pro-education policies ALSO lower inequality, but I’m not sure.

This illustrates the quirky nature of measuring inequality: As you turn a subsistence farmer into a coder, you may raise his income—and that salutary event may raise inequality within his country, even as it reduces inequality between nations.

[T]he process generating increased inequality in the West will not continue indefinitely. As relative ratios of capital to labor equilibrate over time, outsized returns to capital in the West, and outsized returns to labor in developing countries, will disappear. Economic inequality in the West will stop increasing, and labor income will once again increase at the same rate as the return on capital. Increasing inequality in the West is a huge, one-off occurrence.

1. This conclusion may in fact reflect the lesson of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem. But note that Chusseau and Hellier found (in 2012) that the theorem’s predictions panned out weakly.

2. More to the point, I THINK Rogers is saying that inequality in the developed world will stop growing once labor in the developed world is reduced to the status of labor in the developing world. Yippee.

Ok, that’s not quite fair. The idea is not that labor in the developed world would be reduced; it’s that labor (really, the productivity/cost ratio for labor) in the developing world would be bid up to developed-world levels, thereby eliminating capital’s asymmetric advantage in investing in the developing world. Once the developing world becomes developed, inequality should stop growing—all else being equal.

I celebrate the rising economic circumstances of the least of these, my brothers. But I don’t anticipate that they’ll reach developed world status any time soon.

Likewise, I also celebrate the rising economic circumstances of the most of these my brothers. Now let’s get to redistribution. Even if Stolper-Samuelson gives us cause to anticipate a cap on the growth of globalization-induced inequality in the developed world, it gives us no cause to expect that inequality to decline on its own. Moreover, I do not understand Stolper-Samuelson to address substitution between different factors of production—for example, the tendency for capital-rich nations to substitute capital (e.g. automation) for labor, thereby (arguably) further depressing the demand for labor. As the authors note, there are many competing dynamics at play. Whatever the overall effect of Stolper-Samuelson may be, it ain't the whole ballgame.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on October 31, 2018 at 12:34:21 pm

Here is the buried lede, the flaw that renders the inequality diamond worthless: (Keep in mind this is relative affluence. That the “poor get poorer” means only relative to the rich, it does not necessarily entail that less affluent households in the West have less to eat or to spend in absolute terms.)

Mucking around with models and coefficients is fun, and it pays well. Importantly, it is something for people to do. People train for years to learn how to do it, and by God they are going to continue doing it whether it needs doing or not.

At this point in Western civilizational development (and elsewhere as well, as the writer attests), inequality is merely an abstract numeric relationship, only a formal mathematical property. It has no real social or moral meaning like it once did, for the reasons given by the writer (even if only in parenthesis). Various political actors continue to assert "inequality" as though it were self-evidently significant, and rely on the continued broad acceptance of that self-evidence, because to question its significance is to disprove it and thus to deprive said political actors of one of their stock-in-trade easy slogans and motivational tools. By dint of continued sheer repetition is its "significance" sustained today.

read full comment
Image of QET
QET
on November 01, 2018 at 10:41:12 am

And I must ask:

"WHY IS THE ELIMINATION OF INEQUALITY EVEN CONSIDERED TO BE A PROPER GOAL?"

One may want to consider what such an EQUAL world would look like? Its implications for economics, politics, individual human flourishing / striving and more importantly, the effects upon human interchange and the implications for political life.

It strikes me that once we dispense with all the grand theories, all the data driven analyses / predictions, that we are left with nothing more than some fuzzy fantasy akin to a religious doctrine.

And the Lord said: "Let there be NO income inequality".....

Let us examine the goal, its underlying predicates and (un)expected outcomes.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on November 01, 2018 at 11:03:10 am

The logical endpoint of "equality" as a political organizing principle is complete social entropy.

read full comment
Image of QET
QET
on January 07, 2020 at 05:57:05 am

[…] why globalization implies workers in less developed countries gain even if American workers lose (here and here, hint: this phenomenon follows from some implications of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem). […]

read full comment
Image of The Faulty Rhetoric of Income Stagnation
The Faulty Rhetoric of Income Stagnation

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.