We investigate whether income inequality affects subsequent growth in a cross-country sample for 1965-90, using the models of Barro (1997), Bleaney and Nishiyama (2002) and Sachs and Warner (1997), with negative results. We then investigate the evolution of income inequality over the same period and its correlation with growth. The dominating feature is inequality convergence across countries. This convergence has been significantly faster amongst developed countries. Growth does not appear to influence the evolution of inequality over time. Outline

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/81822/1/02-28.pdf

Economic growth and income inequality

Начала политической экономии и податного обложения = The principles of political economy and taxation

r 9HE purpose of this paper is to explore a hypothesis, based on acIcumulating evidence, regarding the character of inventions likely to issue from the research laboratories of the large industrial corporations. Simply put, this hypothesis may be stated as follows: with few exceptions, the large industrial laboratories are likely to be minor sources of major (radically new and commercially or militarily important) inventions; rather they are likely to be major sources of essentially "improvement" inventions. Put more precisely, the hypothesis states that the proportion of all minor inventions originating in the large industrial laboratories is likely to exceed the proportion of all major inventions originating in these laboratories. Note that the stress on the relative importance of these laboratories as sources of improvement inventions is not necessarily a denigration of the economic importance of this contribution. The cumulative effect of these improvement inventions may be, and often has been, of substantial importance over long periods of time for advancing technology, investment opportunities, and economic growth. The stress on improvement inventions as the principal product of the research laboratories of the large industrial corporations is meant simply to emphasize that, whatever the importance of their contributions, most of the latter is not likely to involve radically new inventive activity. I cannot claim originality for this hypothesis. After it suggested itself in the course of my investigations, I discovered that others, some of them in the most unlikely positions,2 had earlier said much the same thing. But, apart from occasional remarks, I can find no discussions attempting to explain or justify it. And because, if reasonably accurate, it has numerous ramifications, I have felt the need to set down an extended analysis of 1 I wish to thank members of the Seminar on Law and Technology, sponsored by the University of Wisconsin Law School under the auspices of the Ford Foundation, for their many helpful comments on this paper. Especially do I wish to thank Professors Jacob Schmookler, Robert Merrill, John Stedman, Harrison White, and John Heath. 2 See particularly the statement quoted below (p. 114) of D)r. Frank Jewett, former president of Bell Laboratories.

The journal of political economy

What manner of organization is the National Bureau of Economic Research? How does it select research topics? Who does the work and what kind of tasks do they perform? Where do the funds come from? How does the National Bureau safeguard the scientific quality of its findings? How are the results disseminated? Visitors to the National Bureau often ask these and similar questions; perhaps the answers will be of interest to readers of the American Statistician. The National Bureau of Economic Research is a private non-profit corporation, formed, according to its charter, "to conduct, or assist in the making of exact and impartial investigations in the field of economic, social and industrial science, and to this end to cooperate with governments, universities, learned societies, and individuals." Hence it is not a government agency, nor an adjunct of a university, nor does it sell research services. The revenue from the only products it does sell, publications, barely covers the printing costs. Its funds are contributed by philanthropic foundations, by trade and professional organizations, by business concerns, trade unions, and individuals. Contributions are usually on a yearly basis, but some grants cover several years. Some of the funds are earmarked for specific studies; the balance goes to support a general program of research. The National Bureau is governed by a Board of Directors numbering about thirty, selected to represent various institutions and diverse points of view on economic problems. Over the years since the Bureau was founded in 1920 this body of men has made a significant contribution to the development of scientific inquiry in economics, both within the National Bureau and outside. Such outstanding economists as Wesley C. Mitchell, George E. Roberts, Allyn A. Young, Edwin F. Gay, Thomas S. Adams, and John R. Commons have been among its members. At the present time professors from a dozen universities are on the Board. Also, Directors from each of the following organizations are elected: American Statistical Association, American Economic Association, American Farm Economic Association, Economic History Association, American Institute of Accountants, American Management Association, Congress of Industrial Organizations, and American Federation of Labor. Finally, there is a group of Directors at Large, men from varied walks of life with an abiding interest in economic research. The Board serves an important function not only in shaping the broad lines of the research program but also in safeguarding the quality of the results. Matters of policy requiring prompt action are handled by an Executive Committee of eleven, elected by the Board from its membership. Arthur F. Burns, the Director of Research, is the member of the Committee who is directly responsible for the research program. The members of the research staff, numbering about twenty-five, direct the individual studies, and are aided in their work by upwards of forty-five research assistants. A staff of typists, bookkeepers, mimeograph operators, etc., brings the total payroll of the National Bureau to roughly a hundred persons. William J. Carson, the Executive Director, handles the Bureau's finances, accounts, and other administrative matters. Not all the employees of the National Bureau work at the main office at 1819 Broadway, New York City. DuLr Financial Research Program is housed at "Hillside," an estate about 10 miles north of Manhattan overlooking the HuLdson River. Other National BureauL investigators are to be fotund at various universities throughout the United States, since cooperative arrangements are maintained with a number of universities that permit their facultv members to engage in National Butreau studies. Government agencies, too, cooperate in similar ways. Such cooperative relationships are a vital feature of our work, and we try to foster them in many ways. The growing acceptance on the part of universities of the view that research is part of the job of a faculty member has helped to make these efforts productive. For example, for a number of years we have appointed promising young men or women holding university positions as Research Associates for one year. The objective is to enable scholars to pursue their research interests in fields in which the National Bureau also has an interest. Since 1930 twenty-six Research Associates, coming from eighteen American colleges or universities and two foreign universities, have been appointed under the plan. The work of several committees is another example of cooperation for the purpose of advancing research. Two committees, one on financial and the other on fiscal research, help to guide our studies in these areas. They are composed of experts from universities, government agencies, and private business. In 1935 the Universities-National Bureau Committee was established for the express purpose of promoting contact

The National Bureau of Economic Research

An assessment of interactions between global health initiatives and country health systems

This report completes the second phase of the Operations Evaluation Department's independent evaluation of the World Bank's involvement in global programs. This Phase 2 report is based on case studies of 26 (of a total of 70) Bank-supported global programs that accounted for 90 percent of the Bank's global program expenditures in 2002. It follows on the phase 1 report completed in 2002 and the meta-evaluation of the CGIAR completed in 2003 that evaluated Bank involvement in global programs. The phase 2 report's recommendations stress two key elements: 1) The need for a global strategy for the Bank that will focus Bank support on high-priority, well-funded global public goods programs and that will be based on a consultative process involving key partners; 2) Better routine management of the global portfolio in order to set international standards for quality, add value, and enhance returns to Bank country operations and clients. The study points out that some key elements of a Bank global strategy would likely include an understanding and exploitation of the comparative advantage of the Bank and its key partners, including U.N. agencies; a clear focus on key global public goods and global policies that adversely affect developing countries' prospects for growth and poverty alleviation; and support of poverty reduction activities that complement rather than compete with Bank country operations. With respect to the improvement in the portfolio, OED recommends that the Bank: a) Separate oversight from management; b) Improve standards of governance and management of individual programs; c) Revisit selection and exit criteria; and d) Strengthen evaluations of global programs and their review within the Bank.

Addressing the Challenges of Globalization: An Independent Evaluation of the World Bank's Approach to Global Programs

This year's annual review of development effectiveness (ARDE) is being written against the backdrop of a global financial crisis, declining growth, and massive fiscal stimulus efforts to revitalize markets. Demand for greater development support from the World Bank has grown, along with concerns that resources be used effectively and efficiently to achieve their development objectives. This ARDE focuses on the Bank's performance record in getting results from its projects and country programs and, as is customary, examines in depth one topic relating to development effectiveness. The focus of this ARDE is on the Bank's support for environmental sustainability, in response to a Board request for a synthesis of findings from recent Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) reports on the environment. This year's special focus getting results for sustainable development reflects the vital role of sound environmental stewardship for development and the grave threat that inaction poses of reversing gains in growth and poverty reduction. The Bank's record in implementing the 2001 environment strategy and advancing the results agenda is quite mixed. New sources of financing, including resources for global efforts, have helped lending and support for the environment to recover from the lows of the early 2000s; analytic work has fostered innovative approaches and enhanced environmental awareness; and direct support for environmental projects is showing improved performance, with tangible results. But implementation of the strategy in mainstream environmental work across sectors has been weak and must be strengthened. Project performance shows a clear improving trend.

Annual review of development effectiveness 2009 : achieving sustainable development

At the March 30-31, 2006, meeting of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/Development Assistance Committee (DAC) network on development evaluation, representatives of the World Bank's Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) presented their observations on the growing need to develop consensus principles and standards for the evaluation of Global and Regional Partnership Programs (GRPPs), based on their recent reviews of a sample of such programs and their evaluations. The meeting was attended not only by members from the evaluation units of 23 bilateral agencies and development cooperation ministries, but also by representatives of the African Development Bank (AfDB), the Asian Development Bank (AsDB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Participants at the meeting expressed broad support for the development of such principles and standards, and requested that IEG play a leading role in developing them. The present sourcebook of indicative principles and standards for evaluating GRPPs is the result of IEG response to this request. The purpose of the indicative principles and standards contained in this sourcebook is to improve the independence and quality of program-level evaluations of GRPPs in order to enhance the relevance and effectiveness of the programs.

Sourcebook for evaluating global and regional partnership programs : indicative principles and standards

This book is based on a global public policies and programs workshop held in July 2000. The papers examine conceptual issues along with the practical implementation problems of global public policies and programs. Some of the topics covered in this book are global financial instability, the implications of intellectual property rights protection for developing countries, and the promotion of international agricultural research.

Global public policies and programs : implications for financing and evaluation : proceedings from a World Bank Workshop

These are the proceedings from a World Bank workshop on global public policies, and programs, assembled from transcripts, and accompanying papers. The combination of market failure, and limited institutional capacity to influence economic, and social change across national borders, underlies public discontent with aid. This formed the basis for discussions, looking for new approaches to the development assistance business, taking into account the growing integration of the global economy, and arguing that, beyond supporting market-friendly reforms, aid strategies must be designed to overcome social, and structural constraints to sustainable development. The broad range of cases examined include efforts to craft commonly accepted standards for the design, and operation of large dams; they address issues of global financial instability; explore the implications of intellectual property rights protection for developing countries; describe the promotion of international agricultural research; probe the implementation of international public health programs; and, identify the dilemmas associated with the financing, and evaluation of global public policies, and programs. Such programs have become center stage because of irreversible processes associated with globalization, and, similar initiatives will dominate the development scene for years to come.

/pdf/global-public-policies-and-programs-implications-for-5fy15108gs.pdf

Christopher D. Gerrard

Papers

Addressing the Challenges of Globalization: An Independent Evaluation of the World Bank's Approach to Global Programs

Annual review of development effectiveness 2009 : achieving sustainable development

Sourcebook for evaluating global and regional partnership programs : indicative principles and standards

Global public policies and programs : implications for financing and evaluation : proceedings from a World Bank Workshop

Global Public Policies and Programs : Implications for Financing and Evaluation