Inequality, Poverty, Markets and the State: the Case of Brazil Nora Lus)g Tulane University Nonresident Fellow CGD and IAD Interna<onal Seminar A World Without Poverty Brasilia, November 18 and 19, 2014 OUTLINE •  The facts •  Inequality, poverty reduc)on and the middle class •  Why has inequality declined? •  Zooming in: Brazil –  Labor Markets –  Transfers •  Unintended consequences of fiscal policy in Brazil (Commitment to Equity Project, CEQ) 2 THE FACTS 3 Inequality in La<n America is high… …but has been declining since around 2000 •  Decline is pervasive and significant •  Larger than the rise in inequality in 1990s •  Important contribu)on to the decline in poverty •  Contributed to the rise of the middle-­‐class 4 LATAM IS THE MOST UNEQUAL REGION IN THE WORLD Gini Coefficient by Region (in %), 2004 60.0
55.0
53.2
Gini coefficient
50.0
44.7
45.0
40.0
35.0
32.2
38.9
38.9
39.1
South Asia
North Africa
and the
Middle East
East Asia and
the Pacific
33.6
30.0
25.0
20.0
High Incom e
Europe and
Central Asia
Ferreira and Ravallion, 2008. Sub-Saharan Latin Am erica
Africa
and the
Caribbean
5 Declining Inequality in 2000’s •  The Gini coefficient for household per capita income fell from a weighted (unweighted) average of 0.550 (0.532) in the early 2000s to 0.496 (0.483) circa 2012. •  On average, the decline equaled .86%/year •  The decline occurred in 16 of the 18 countries. •  The rate of decline ranged from an annual average of -­‐2.64 percent in Nicaragua to -­‐0.28 percent in Venezuela. 6 Average Yearly Change in Gini: 2000 (circa) 2012 (circa)
2.61
1.02 0.74 0.69 0.64
Nicaragua
Bolivia
Ecuador
El Salvador
Argentina
Brazil
Peru
Dom. Rep.
Panama
Chile
Mexico
Uruguay
Colombia
Guatemala
Paraguay
Venezuela
Costa Rica
Honduras
LAC-18
Indonesia
South Africa
China
Russia
USA
3.00
2.00
0.61
0.09
1.00
0.00
-1.00
-0.50 -0.42 -0.40 -0.28
-0.58
-0.70
-0.72
-0.74
-0.79
-0.86
-0.92
-1.00
-2.00
-1.28
-1.45
-2.08 -1.68
-3.00
-2.64
-4.00
Lus)g et al. (2014) based on SEDLAC 7 Panel A: Weighted averages of the Gini coefficient; 18 countries
0.58
0.56
0.54
0.52
0.50
0.48
0.46
HH per capita income
Lus)g et al. (2014) based on SEDLAC 2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
0.42
1992
0.44
HH equivalized income
8 Panel B: Weighted averages of the Gini coefficient, excluding Mexico
0.58
0.56
0.54
0.52
0.50
0.48
0.46
HH per capita income
Lus)g et al. (2014) based on SEDLAC 2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
0.42
1992
0.44
HH equivalized income
9 The decline of income inequality in the 2000s has been higher that the rise in the 1990s (Change in Gini points in %) Average of increase
10.0
Average of decrease
8.3
6.1
4.0
5.0
3.7
2.9
0.8
1.5
1.6
2.4
4.2
0.7
0.0
-5.0
-4.7
-2.9
-4.6
-4.5
-3.1
-6.5
-10.0
-4.1
-7.4
-8.5
-10.7
-11.3
-15.0
3.0
0.1
-12.2
-15.4
Argentina Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
SLV
MexicoNicaraguaPanama Paraguay Peru
Lus)g et al. (2014) based on SEDLAC 2002-2006
1992-2002
2000-2012
1992-2000
2003-2012
1997-2003
2003-2011
1997-2003
2001-2012
1989-2001
2001-2009
1993-2001
2000-2012
1989-2000
2001-2012
1995-2001
1998-2011
1992-1998
2001-2012
1985-2001
2000-2012
1997-2000
2002-2013
1992-2002
-20.0
UruguayVenezuela
Inequality, Poverty and the Middle-­‐Class 11 50.0
45.0
Decline in Poverty 1992-­‐2012 (Ave. Headcount Ra<o in %) 44.4
42.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
27.8
25.3
25.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
12.3
10.0
5.0
0.0
1992
2000
2012
Incidence of poverty, US$2.50 a day poverty line
Incidence of poverty, US$ 4 a day poverty line
Lus)g et al. (2014) based on SEDLAC 12 On average, 39 percent of the reduc<on in poverty was due to the decline in inequality c. 2001-­‐2010 -35
13 Change in poverty (percentage points)
-40%
Colombia
-30
Guatemala
-20%
Costa Rica
-25
Honduras
0%
Uruguay
-20
Venezuela
20%
Paraguay
-15
Panama
40%
Brazil
-10
LAC-18
60%
Peru
-5
Ecuador
80%
Chile
0
Bolivia
100%
Dom. Rep.
5
Argentina
120%
El Salvador
10
Mexico
140%
Nicaragua
% contribution of each effect
Redistribution effect
Growth effect
Change in poverty ($4 a day) in percentage points
Declining inequality has contributed to the expansion of the “middle-­‐class” Ferreira et al., 2012. 14 On average, 21 percent of the expansion of the middle-­‐class was due to the decline in inequality c. 2001-­‐2010 Redistribution effect
Growth effect
Change in the size of the middle class (percentage points)
25
20
80%
70%
15
60%
50%
10
40%
5
30%
20%
0
10%
Lus)g et al. (2014) based on SEDLAC El Salvador
Costa Rica
Honduras
Panama
Colombia
Peru
Uruguay
Paraguay
LAC-16
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Ecuador
Dom. Rep.
Nicaragua
-5
Bolivia
0%
Mexico
% contribution of each effect
90%
15 Change in middle class (percentage points)
100%
WHY? 16 Inequality in La<n America is high… …but has been declining since around 2000 •  In countries with high growth & low growth •  In countries with leh and nonleh governments •  In commodity exporters and commodity importers •  In high and low (for Latam standards) inequality countries 17 Determinants of the decline in inequality: candidates • Declining inequality of hourly labor income • Larger and more progressive transfers • Lower dependency ra)os • Higher par)cipa)on rates of adults 18 100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
Nonparametric
Parametric
Labor income
Transfers
Other non-labor income Pensions
Capital
Adult population
Occupation share
Lus)g et al. (2014) based on SEDLAC 19 Zooming in Brazil: Labor Market 20 Brazil: Decline in Inequality (Gini) .52
.54
.56
.58
.6
.62
Fig.1: Evolution of Household Per Capita Income Gini
Data: SEDLAC
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
Wang, Yang. 2013. “Decomposing the Changes in Male Wage Distribu)on in Brazil.” Tulane University, Ph.D. field paper 21 Ferreira, F .H. G., S. Firpo, and J. Messina (2014) “A More Level Playing Field? Explaining
the Decline in Earnings Inequality in Brazil, 1995-2012”, IRIBA Working Paper: 12,
The University of Manchester.
Source: Ferreira et al. (2014) 22 Ferreira, F .H. G., S. Firpo, and J. Messina (2014) “A More Level Playing Field? Explaining
the Decline in Earnings Inequality in Brazil, 1995-2012”, IRIBA Working Paper: 12,
The University of Manchester.
Source: Ferreira et al. (2014) 23 Brazil: Race and Gender Source: Ferreira et al. (2014) 24 Brazil: Expansion of Educa<on Source: Ferreira et al. (2014) 25 Brazil: Rela<ve Supply and Rela<ve Returns Lus)g et al. (2014) 26 Brazil: Decline in real wages for workers with ter<ary 14
15
16
17
18
Fig. 6: Average Hourly Wage of Tertiary Group: 2002-2011 Male
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Wang, Yang. 2013. “Decomposing the Changes in Male Wage Distribu)on in Brazil.” Tulane University, Ph.D. field paper 27 Brazil: Formaliza<on and Workers Earning Above the Minimum Wage Source: Ferreira et al. (2014) 28 Brazil: Rising minimum wage Fig.13: Minimum Wage in Reais: 2002 Price
Minimum Wage in 2002 Reais
400
350
300
250
200
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Wang, Yang. 2013. “Decomposing the Changes in Male Wage Distribu)on in Brazil.” Tulane University, Ph.D. field paper 29 Brazil: Decomposing: human capital, gender/
race, urban/rural, minimum wage, informality Source: Ferreira et al. (2014) 30 Brazil (2002-­‐2011): Fig.10: RIF Decomposition: 2002-2011 Male
.4
• Rela)ve Wages => Equalizing .3
.2
.1
0
-.1
1
11
21
31
41
51
quantile
Log Wage Difference
Wage Structure Effect
61
71
81
91
Composition Effect
100
• Composi)on Educa)on & Experience =>Slightly Unequalizing Wang, Yang. 2013. “Decomposing the Changes in Male Wage Distribu)on in Brazil.” Tulane University, Ph.D. field paper 31 Zooming in: Brazil Rela)ve Wages effect: •  Real average wages increased during most of the period •  Real average wages of less educated, less experienced, rural, and poorer workers increased •  Real average wages of the college-­‐educated declined over the period 32 Zooming in: Brazil Rela)ve Wages effect: •  Expansion of educa)on: •  Increase in rela)ve supply of skilled workers => decline in the skill premium •  Agricultural exports boom •  Increase in rela)ve demand of low-­‐skilled workers and workers living outside big metropolis => increase in rela)ve wages of low-­‐
skilled and poorer workers •  Rising minimum wages and formality •  => increase in rela)ve wages of low-­‐skilled and poorer workers •  Declining absolute real wages for workers with ter)ary •  Degraded ter)ary? •  Mismatch? •  Obsolescence of Skills of older workers? 33 Zooming in Brazil: Transfers 34 Brazil: Role of Transfers (Barros et al., 2010) •  Changes in the size, coverage, and distribu)on of public transfers account for 49 percent of the total decline in inequality •  Public transfers represent over 80 percent of nonlabor income and 29 percent of household income. 35 www.commitmentoequity.org 36 MARKET INCOME Construc)on of Income Concepts MINUS DIRECT TAXES NET MARKET INCOME PLUS DIRECT TRANSFERS DISPOSABLE INCOME Lus)g, Nora. 2014. “Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World. Round 1.” CEQ Working Paper No. 23, Center for Inter-­‐American Policy and Research and Department of Economics, Tulane University and Inter-­‐American Dialogue, forthcoming. 37 Redistribu<on in the rich and developing countries Change'in'Gini:'Disposable'vs.'Market'
(in'GINI'points)'
Ireland
Belgium
United Kingdom
Finland
Luxembourg
France
Netherlands
Germany
Austria
Portugal
Denmark
Slovenia
Sweden
South Africa(2010)
Spain
US(2011)
Czech Republic
Hungary
Malta
Italy
Slovakia
Latvia
Romania
Estonia
Cyprus
Lithuania
Greece
Brazil(2009)
Chile(2009)
Uruguay(2009)
Bulgaria
Poland
Mexico(2010)
Costa Rica(2010)
Peru(2009)
Bolivia(2009)
El Salvador (2011)
Colombia(2010)
!0.05%
Guatemala(2010)
0.00%
!0.10%
!0.15%
Brazil !0.20%
!0.25%
!0.30%
Sources: Lus)g, Nora. 2014. “Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World. Round 1.” CEQ Working Paper No. 23, Center for Inter-­‐American Policy and Research and Department of Economics, Tulane University and Inter-­‐American Dialogue, forthcoming. EUROMOD for EU,Higgins et al. (2014) for US. See CEQ teams at the end. Note: in these calcula)ons contributory pensions are part of market income and NOT treated as a government transfer. 38 Redistribu<on in Middle and Low Income Countries: CEQ 16 Change-in-Gini:-Disposable-vs.-Market(in-GINI-points)South-Africa(2010)-
Chile(2009)-
Brazil(2009)-
Uruguay(2009)--
Mexico(2010)--
Costa-Rica(2010)--
Peru(2009)--
!0.04%
Bolivia(2009)--
!0.03%
El-Salvador-(2011)--
!0.02%
Colombia(2010)-
!0.01%
Guatemala(2010)--
0.00%
!0.05%
!0.06%
!0.07%
Brazil !0.08%
!0.09%
Sources: Lus)g, Nora. 2014. “Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World. Round 1.” CEQ Working Paper No. 23, Center for Inter-­‐
American Policy and Research and Department of Economics, Tulane University and Inter-­‐American Dialogue, forthcoming. See CEQ teams at the end. Brazil: Higgins, Sean and Claudiney Pereira. 2014. “The Effects of Brazil’s Taxa)on and Social Spending on the Distribu)on of Household Income.” In Lus)g, Nora, Carola Pessino and John Scor. 2014. Editors. The Redistribu?ve Impact of Taxes and Social Spending in La?n America. Special Issue. Public Finance Review, May, Volume 42, Issue 3. 39 Note: in these calcula)ons contributory pensions are part of market income and NOT treated as a government transfer. MARKET INCOME Construc)on of Income Concepts MINUS DIRECT TAXES NET MARKET INCOME PLUS DIRECT TRANSFERS DISPOSABLE INCOME MINUS NET INDIRECT TAXES POST-­‐FISCAL INCOME Lus)g, Nora. 2014. “Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World. Round 1.” CEQ Working Paper No. 23, Center for Inter-­‐American Policy and Research and Department of Economics, Tulane University and Inter-­‐American Dialogue, forthcoming. 40 The impact of net cash transfers and net indirect taxes on inequality (Gini coefficient): CEQ 16 Changes"in"Gini"CoefAicients
0.9"
16000"
0.8"
14000"
0.7"
12000"
0.6"
10000"
0.5"
8000"
0.4"
6000"
0.3"
4000"
0.2"
2000"
0.1"
0.0"
0"
SA"
Bra"
Col"
Chi"
(2010)"(2009)"(2010)"(2009)"
Gini"of"Market"Income"
Mex"
(2010)"
Gini"of"Disposable"Income"
Gini"of"PostKAiscal"
GNI"per"capita"(2005"PPP)"
41 Net Payers to the Fiscal System Start at Decile... Guatemala Peru EI Salvador Costa Rica Armenia Net Payers Uruguay Bolivia Brazil Sri Lanka Mexico 0 1 2 3 4 5 Decile
6 7 8 9 10 42 Adding the Effect of Mone<zed Value of Public Spending on Educa<on and Health Lus)g, Nora, Carola Pessino and John Scor. 2014. Editors. The Redistribu?ve Impact of Taxes and Social Spending in La?n America. Special Issue. Public Finance Review, May, Volume 42, Issue 3. 43 Lindert’s (2006) historical result is also found in cross sec<on: Higher GDP/capita, more redistribu<on Change'in'Gini:'Post/fiscal'vs.'Market'
(decline'in'Gini'points'shown'in'posi<ve'quadrant)'
0.09$
0.08$
South Africa 0.07$
Brazil 0.06$
0.05$
CHL$
0.04$
BRA$
0.03$
MEX$
CRI$
0.02$
URY$
PER$
0.01$
COL$
0.00$
0$
2000$
SLV$
BOL$
4000$
GTM$
6000$
8000$
10000$
GNI/Capita$(2005$PPP)
12000$
14000$
Sources: Lus)g, Nora. 2014. “Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World. Round 1.” CEQ Working Paper No. 23, Center for Inter-­‐American Policy and Research and Department of Economics, Tulane University and Inter-­‐American Dialogue, forthcoming. See CEQ teams at the end. Brazil: Higgins and Pereira (2014). Note: in these calcula)ons contributory pensions are part of market income and NOT treated as a government transfer. 16000$
44 However, no Robin Hood Paradox And results do not depend on South Africa Change'in'Gini'points:'Post0fiscal'vs.'Market'
(decline'in'Gini'points'shown'in'posi<ve'quadrant)'
0.09$
0.08$
0.07$
0.06$
0.05$
0.04$
0.03$
0.02$
0.01$
0.00$
0.30$
Sputh$Africa$
Brazil URY$
MEX$
SLV$
0.35$
0.40$
0.45$
CRI$
PER$
BOL$
CHL$
BRA$
COL$
GTM$
0.50$
0.55$
0.60$
Mkt$Income$Gini
0.65$
0.70$
0.75$
Sources: Lus)g, Nora. 2014. “Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World. Round 1.” CEQ Working Paper No. 23, Center for Inter-­‐American Policy and Research and Department of Economics, Tulane University and Inter-­‐American Dialogue, forthcoming. See CEQ teams at the end. Brazil: Higgins and Pereira (2014). Note: in these calcula)ons contributory pensions are part of market income and NOT treated as a government transfer. 0.80$
45 Brazil Unintended consequences of fiscal policy: consump<on taxes increase poverty 46 MARKET INCOME Construc)on of Income Concepts MINUS DIRECT TAXES NET MARKET INCOME PLUS DIRECT TRANSFERS DISPOSABLE INCOME Lus)g, Nora. 2014. “Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World. Round 1.” CEQ Working Paper No. 23, Center for Inter-­‐American Policy and Research and Department of Economics, Tulane University and Inter-­‐American Dialogue, forthcoming. 47 Direct Transfers (net of direct taxes) reduce poverty (except in Ethiopia): CEQ 16 Change in Headcount Ratio ($2.5 PPP/Day):
Disposable vs. Market Income
(in percentage points)
2%%
)
10
ic
a(
20
00
fr
ut
h
B
A
ra
zi
l(2
(2
ay
U
ru
gu
iv
ol
9)
9)
00
00
ia
o(
B
M
ex
ic
r
(2
20
10
)
01
1)
(2
00
do
9)
So
E
lS
al
va
C
hi
le
(2
20
a(
ic
R
ta
os
9)
)
10
)
10
20
a(
al
m
C
G
ua
te
Pe
ru
(2
20
a(
C
ol
om
bi
!4%%
!6%%
00
10
!2%%
9)
)
0%%
!8%%
!10%%
!12%%
!14%%
Sources: Lus)g, Nora. 2014. “Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World. Round 1.” CEQ Working Paper No. 23, Center for Inter-­‐American Policy and Research and Department of Economics, Tulane University and Inter-­‐American Dialogue, forthcoming. See CEQ teams at the end. Brazil: Higgins and Pereira (2014). Note: in these calcula)ons contributory pensions are part of market income and NOT treated as a government transfer. 48 MARKET INCOME Construc)on of Income Concepts MINUS DIRECT TAXES NET MARKET INCOME PLUS DIRECT TRANSFERS DISPOSABLE INCOME MINUS NET INDIRECT TAXES POST-­‐FISCAL INCOME Lus)g, Nora. 2014. “Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World. Round 1.” CEQ Working Paper No. 23, Center for Inter-­‐American Policy and Research and Department of Economics, Tulane University and Inter-­‐American Dialogue, forthcoming. 49 Indirect Taxes increase poverty over and above market income poverty in six out of the CEQ 16 countries, including Brazil Change&in&Headcount&RaHo&($2.5&PPP/Day)&
(in%percentage%points)
6%%
4%%
2%%
0%%
ic
a(
20
Br
10
az
)&
Ur il(2
ug 00
ua 9)&
&
y(
20
09
)&&
Bo
liv
ia
M (20
09
ex
)&&
ic
o(
20
10
)&&
El
&S
al
va
do
r&(
20
Ch 11)
&&
ile
Co
(
st
20
a&
09
Ri
)&
ca
Gu
(2
at
em 01
al 0)&&
a(
20
Pe 10)
&&
ru
(2
00
9)
&&
Co
lo
m
bi
a(
20
10
)&
!2%%
Af
r
!4%%
So
ut
h&
!6%%
!8%%
!10%%
!12%%
!14%%
Disposable%vs.%Market%
Post!fiscal%vs.%Market%
Sources: Lus)g, Nora. 2014. “Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World. Round 1.” CEQ Working Paper No. 23, Center for Inter-­‐American Policy and Research and Department of Economics, Tulane University and Inter-­‐American Dialogue, forthcoming. See CEQ teams at the end. Brazil: Higgins and Pereira (2014). Note: in these calcula)ons contributory pensions are part of market income and NOT treated as a government transfer. 50 Changes#in#Headcount#Ratio:#Post@Aiscal#vs.#Market#Income###
(Poverty#Line:#US$2.50ppp/day)
0.9"
16000"
0.8"
14000"
0.7"
0.6"
0.5"
12000"
South Africa 10000"
8000"
0.4"
6000"
0.3"
Brazil 0.2"
4000"
Headcount"of"Market"Income""
Headcount"of"Disposable"Income"
Headcount"of"PostCDiscal"
Chi(2009)#
Mex(2010)#
Bra#(2009)#
0"
Peru#(2009)#
0.0"
Col#(2010)#
2000"
SA#(2010)#
0.1"
GNI"per"capita"(2005"PPP)"
Sources: Lus)g, Nora. 2014. “Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World. Round 1.” CEQ Working Paper No. 23, Center for Inter-­‐American Policy and Research and Department of Economics, Tulane University and Inter-­‐American Dialogue, forthcoming. See CEQ teams at the end. Brazil: Higgins and Pereira (2014). Note: in these calcula)ons contributory pensions are part of market income and NOT treated as a government transfer. 51 Note that Net Indirect Taxes can be equalizing and yet poverty increasing: Ethiopia Change'in'Gini:'Marginal'Contribu2on'of'Net'Indirect'
Taxes'
Change'in'Headcount'Ra0o'($2.5'PPP/Day):'Marginal'Contribu0on'from'Net'Indirect'Taxes'''
(in%percentage%points)%%
Gu
a
8%%
6%%
4%%
2%%
0.045%
0.026%
0.036%
0%%
&2%%
0.006%
&0.015%
&0.007%
0.006%
&0.012%
&0.016%
&4%%
0.012%
0.006%
&0.002%
&0.024%
&0.019%
&0.028%
&6%%
&8%%
&0.072%
ContribuUon%from%Net%Indirect%Taxes%
Change%in%Headcount:%Post&Fiscal%vs%Mkt%
Bo
l
Ind
Eth
i op
te
m
ala
(2
ivi
01
a(
0)
2
00
%%
In
do
9)
%%
ne
S r s i a( 2
i %L
an 012
k
) %%
Co a(2
00
lo
m
9)
bi
%
a
El
%Sa (20
1
lva
0)
Pe dor %
%( 2
ru
(2
01
00
1)
Et
9)
%%
hi
%
%
op
ia(
Co
20
st
a%R 11)%
ic
Jo
rd a(20
an
10
(2
01 )%%
M
ex
0
ico )%%
(
2
Ar
m 010
en
) %%
i
Ur a(20
ug
11
ua
) %%
y(
Br
az 200
9)
il(
%%
2
Ch 009
) %%
ile
(2
00
So
u t 9)%
h%
A
ia(2
011
)%
on e
si a
(20
12)
Sri%
%%
Lan
ka(
200
9)%
Per
u(2
009
)%
Co l
om
bia
(20
10)
%
Gu
ate
ma
la(2
010
Co s
) %%
ta%R
ica
(20
10)
Chi
%%
le(2
009
)%
E l %S
alv
ado
r%(2
011
Jor
) %%
dan
(20
10)
%%
Me
xico
(20
10)
%%
Bol
ivia
(20
09)
%%
Arm
eni
a(2
011
) %%
Uru
gua
y(2
009
) %%
Bra
zil(
200
9)%
S ou
th%
Afr
ica
(20
10)
%%
(in%GINI%points)
0.01%
0.00%
!0.01%
!0.02%
!0.03%
!0.04%
!0.05%
!0.06%
!0.07%
!0.08%
!0.09%
ContribuUon%from%Net%Indirect%Tax%
Gini%Change:%Post!fiscal%vs%Mkt%
Sources: Lus)g, Nora. 2014. “Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World. Round 1.” CEQ Working Paper No. 23, Center for Inter-­‐American Policy and Research and Department of Economics, Tulane University and Inter-­‐American Dialogue, forthcoming. See CEQ teams at the end. Note: in these calcula)ons contributory pensions are part of market income and NOT treated as a government transfer. 52 References •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Azevedo, J. P., L. F. Lopez-­‐Calva, N. Lus)g, E. Or)z-­‐Juarez (2015) “Inequality, Mobility and Middle Classes in La)n America”, in: Dayton-­‐Johnson, J. (2015) La?n America’s Emerging Middle Class. Palgrave McMillan. Bourguignon, F., F. Ferreira and N. Lus)g (2005) The Microeconomics of Income Distribu?on Dynamics in East Asia and La?n America, Oxford University Press, Washington, DC. Barros et al. (2010) “Markets, the State and the Dynamics of Inequality in Brazil.” In Lopez-­‐Calva, L. F. and N. Lus)g. Declining Inequality in La?n America: A Decade of Progress?, Brookings Ins)tu)on Press and UNDP. Ferreira, F .H. G., S. Firpo, and J. Messina (2014) “A More Level Playing Field? Explaining the Decline in Earnings Inequality in Brazil, 1995-­‐2012”, IRIBA Working Paper: 12, The University of Manchester. Higgins, Sean and Claudiney Pereira. 2014. “The Effects of Brazil’s Taxa)on and Social Spending on the Distribu)on of Household Income.” In Lus)g, Nora, Carola Pessino and John Scor. 2014. Editors. The Redistribu?ve Impact of Taxes and Social Spending in La?n America. Special Issue. Public Finance Review, May, Volume 42, Issue 3. Lopez-­‐Calva, L. F. and N. Lus)g (2010) Declining Inequality in La?n America: A Decade of Progress?, Brookings Ins)tu)on Press and UNDP. Lus)g, Nora, Carola Pessino and John Scor. 2014. Editors. The Redistribu?ve Impact of Taxes and Social Spending in La?n America. Special Issue. Public Finance Review, May, Volume 42, Issue 3. Lus)g, N., L. F. Lopez-­‐Calva, E. Or)z-­‐Juarez (2014) “Deconstruc)ng the Decline in Inequality in La)n America,” in Basu, Kaushik and Joseph S)glitz, eds. Proceedings of IEA roundtable on Shared Prosperity and Growth, 2015, Palgrave-­‐Macmillan Wang, Yang (2013) “Decomposing the Changes in Male Wage Distribu)on in Brazil.” Tulane University, Ph.D. field paper. 53 CEQ Teams (Year of Survey; C=consump<on & I=income)(MWB Version) 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Argen<na (2009, I): Nora Lus)g and Carola Pessino (CEQ Web Dec 2013) Public Finance Review, May 2014, Volume 42, Issue 3 Armenia (2011; I): Stephen Younger and Artsvi Khachatryan (May 31, 2014; paper) Bolivia (2009; I): Veronica Paz Arauco, George Gray-­‐Molina, Wilson Jimenez and Ernesto Yañez (CEQ Web Dec 2013) Public Finance Review, May 2014, Volume 42, Issue 3 Brazil (2009; I): Sean Higgins and Claudiney Pereira (CEQ Web Dec 2013) Public Finance Review, May 2014, Volume 42, Issue 3 Chile (2009, I): Jaime Ruiz-­‐Tagle and Dante Contreras (Oct. 25, 2014) Colombia (2010, I): Marcela Melendez, Nora Lus<g and Valen<na Mar<nez (May 2014) Costa Rica (2010; I): Pablo Sauma and Juan Diego Trejos (February 2014; paper) El Salvador (2011; I): Margarita Beneke, Nora Lus)g and Jose Andres Oliva (March 11, 2014) Ethiopia (2010/11; C): Ruth Hill, EyasuTsehaye, Tassew Woldehanna (Sept. 28, 2014) Guatemala (2011; I): Maynor Cabrera, Nora Lus)g and Hilcias E. Moran (August 27, 2014) Indonesia (2012; C) : Jon Jellema and Marhew Wai-­‐Poi (Sept. 9, 2014) Jordan (2010; C) : Morad Abdel-­‐Halim, Shamma Adeeb Alam, Yusuf Mansur, Umar Serajuddin, Paolo Verme (May 16, 2014) Mexico (2010; I): John Scor (CEQ Web Dec 2013) Public Finance Review, May 2014, Volume 42, Issue 3 Peru (2009; I): Miguel Jaramillo (CEQ Web Dec 2013) Public Finance Review, May 2014, Volume 42, Issue 3 South Africa (2010; I): Ingrid Woolard, Precious Zikhali, Mashekwa Maboshe, Jon Jellema (Aug. 25, 2014) Sri Lanka (2009/10; C): Nisha Aruna)lake, Gabriela Inchauste and Nora Lus)g (April 8, 2014; paper) United States (2011; I): Sean Higgins, Nora Lus)g, Whitney Ruble and Timothy Smeeding (paper Oct. 2014) Uruguay (2009; I): Marisa Bucheli, Nora Lus)g, Maximo Rossi and Florencia Amabile (CEQ Web Dec 2013) 54 Public Finance Review, May 2014, Volume 42, Issue 3 Thank you! 55