Inequality and Growth

本研究考察了收入分配对发展过程影响的动态演变。它开发了统一的增长模型，涵盖了不同制度之间的过渡，这些制度以收入不平等与发展过程之间的关系为特征。对这一长期过渡过程的统一建模是经济学家面临的一个重大研究挑战，这些经济学家对理解收入不平等在发展过程中的作用和长期经济增长的决定感兴趣。强加一个单一模型来解释不平等与发展过程之间关系的整个演变的约束是一门学科，它将提高对潜在现象的理解，并将产生更好的可检验的预测和政策影响。该研究在关于不平等对经济增长影响的不同观点之间提供了跨时期的调和。它认为，人力资本积累取代物质资本积累成为经济增长的主要引擎，改变了不平等对发展过程的定性影响。在工业化的早期阶段，由于物质资本积累是经济增长的主要来源，不平等通过将资源引向边际储蓄倾向较高的个人，从而促进了发展进程。然而，在发展的后期，由于资本技能的互补性，人力资本的回报增加，人力资本成为经济增长和平等的主要引擎，在信贷限制的情况下，刺激对人力资本的投资，促进经济增长。然而，随着工资的增长，信贷约束变得不那么具有约束力，不平等对人力资本积累和增长的不利影响减弱，不平等的总体影响变得不那么显著。该研究假设，自19世纪以来欧洲发生的阶级结构变化反映了资本家精心策划的社会转型。基于对历史证据的仔细研究，拟议的研究将提出与传统观点相反的观点，这种阶级结构的变化可能是合作过程的结果，而不是纯粹的分裂过程。资本积累的过程逐渐加剧了劳动力的相对稀缺性，并产生了通过人力资本积累来增加劳动力的激励。由于物质资本和人力资本在生产中的互补性，资本家是大众潜在的人力资本积累的主要受益者之一。因此，他们有动力在财政上支持公共教育，这将维持他们的利润率，并改善他们的经济福利。研究提出了一个假设，即在土地丰富、两极分化程度高的社会中，由于人力资本和土地之间的互补性较低，教育改革将被推迟。因此，研究认为，与资本充裕的社会相比，土地充裕的社会的发展过程会更慢，两极分化的持续时间会更长。因此，土地丰度的初始差异可能是各国社会结构、制度和经济绩效持续差异的原因。

This research examines the dynamic evolution of the effect of income distribution on the process of development. It develops unified growth models that encompass the transition between distinct regimes that have characterized the relationship between income inequality and the process of development. The unified modeling of this long transition process is a significant research challenge facing economists interested in the understanding of the role of income inequality in the process of development and in the determination of long-run economic growth. Imposing the constraint that a single model would account for the entire evolution of the relationship between inequality and the process of development is a discipline that would improve the understanding of the underlying phenomena and would generate superior testable predictions and policy implications.The research provides an intertemporal reconciliation between conflicting viewpoints about the effect of inequality on economic growth. It argues that the replacement of physical capital accumulation by human capital accumulation as a prime engine of economic growth has changed the qualitative impact of inequality on the process of development. In early stages of industrialization as physical capital accumulation is a prime source of economic growth, inequality enhances the process of development by channeling resources towards individuals whose marginal propensity to save is higher. In later stages of development, however, as the return to human capital increases due to capital-skill complementarity, human capital becomes the prime engine of economic growth and equality, in the presence of credit constraints, stimulates investment in human capital and promotes economic growth. As wages increase, however, credit constraints become less binding, the adverse effect of inequality on human capital accumulation and growth subsides, and the overall effect of inequality becomes less significant. The research hypothesizes that changes in class structure that have taken place in Europe since the 19th century reflect a deliberate transformation of society orchestrated by the Capitalists. Based on a careful examination of historical evidence, the proposed research will argue that contrary to conventional wisdom, the changes of this class structure could have been an outcome of a cooperative rather than a purely divisive process. The process of capital accumulation has gradually intensified the relative scarcity of labor and has generated an incentive to augment labor via human capital accumulation. Due to the complementarity between physical and human capital in production, the Capitalists were among the prime beneficiaries of the potential accumulation of human capital by the masses. They had therefore the incentive to financially support public education that would sustain their profit rates and would improve their economic well being, The research develops the hypothesis that in land abundant societies with a high degree of polarization education reforms would be delayed, due to the low degree of complementarity between human capital and land. Thus the research argues that, in contrast to a capital abundant society, in a land abundant society the process of development would be slower and polarization would persist longer. Hence, initial differences in land abundance may be the cause of persistence differences in the structure of society, institutions and economic performance across countries.