English, Article, Journal or magazine article edition: Reform and Inequality during the Transition: An Analysis Using Panel Household Survey Data, 1990-2005 Milanovic, Branko; Ersado, Lire

User activity

Share to:
 
Bookmark: http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/186021
Physical Description
  • preprint
Language
  • English

Edition details

Title
  • Reform and inequality during the transition: An analysis using panel household survey data, 1990-2005
Author
  • Milanovic, Branko
  • Ersado, Lire
Physical Description
  • preprint
Notes
  • Using for the first time household survey data from 26 post-Communist countries, covering the period 1990-2005, this paper examines correlates of unprecedented increases in inequality registered by most of the economies. The analysis shows, after controlling for country fixed effects and type of survey used, that economic reform is strongly negatively associated with the income share of the bottom decile, and positively with the income shares of the top two deciles. However, breaking economic reform into its component parts, the picture is more nuanced. Large-scale privatization and infrastructure reform (mostly consisting of privatization and higher fees) are responsible for the pro-inequality effect; small-scale privatization tends to raise the income shares of the bottom deciles. Acceleration in growth is also pro-rich. But democratization is strongly pro-poor, as is lower inflation. Somewhat surprisingly, the analysis finds no evidence that greater government spending as share of gross domestic income reduces inequality.
  • RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:4780
  • Using for the first time survey data from 26 post-Communist countries, covering the period 1990-2005, the paper examines correlates of unprecedented increases in inequality registered by most of these economies. We find that, after controlling for country-fixed effects and type of survey used, economic reform (measured by the EBRD index) is strongly negatively associated with bottom deciles’ income shares and positively with income shares of the top two deciles. However, once economic reform is broken into its different component parts, the picture is more nuanced: large-scale privatization and infrastructure reform (mostly consisting of privatization and higher fees) are responsible for this pro-inequality effect while small-scale privatization tends to raise income shares of the bottom deciles. Acceleration in growth is also pro-rich. On the other hand, democratization (measured by the Polity measure) is strongly pro-poor, as is lower inflation. Somewhat surprisingly, we find no evidence that higher government spending as share of GDI reduces inequality.
  • Inequality; transition; economic policy
  • RePEc:pra:mprapa:7459
Language
  • English
Contributed by
OAIster

Get this edition

  • Set up My libraries

    How do I set up "My libraries"?

    In order to set up a list of libraries that you have access to, you must first login or sign up. Then set up a personal list of libraries from your profile page by clicking on your user name at the top right of any screen.

  • All (1)
  • Unknown (1)
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.

User activity


e.g. test cricket, Perth (WA), "Parkes, Henry"

Separate different tags with a comma. To include a comma in your tag, surround the tag with double quotes.

Be the first to add a tag for this edition

Be the first to add this to a list

Comments and reviews

What are comments? Add a comment

No user comments or reviews for this version

Add a comment