Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Globalization and comparative compositional inequality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2019

Andrew Q. Philips
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Colorado Boulder, 333 UCB, Boulder, CO80309, United States
Flávio D. S. Souza
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, 2010 Allen Building, 4348 TAMU, College Station, TX77843-4348, United States
Guy D. Whitten
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, 2010 Allen Building, 4348 TAMU, College Station, TX77843-4348, United States
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Globalization has been one of the biggest driving forces of the last half century. There has been substantial disagreement about the impact that increased international integration has on income inequality. Though most agree that globalization positively affects economic output, it is no surprise that it leads to relative winners and losers within nations. The question that remains is where in the income distribution are these relative gains and losses occurring? We offer a broader picture of globalization's effects on inequality by using a dynamic compositional approach to test the impact of globalization and relative factor endowments on the composition of income. Using data from four countries, we model the effects of globalization on quantiles of the income distribution. Our findings suggest that globalization has substantial (and divergent) effects across income strata, and that these effects differ across nations based on relative factor endowments.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Acemoglu, D, Naidu, S, Restrepo, P and Robinson, JA (2013) Democracy, Redistribution and Inequality. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderson, AS and Nielsen, F (2002) Globalization and the great U-turn: income inequality trends in 16 OECD countries. American Journal of Sociology 107, 12441299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asteriou, D, Dimelis, S and Moudatsou, A (2014) Globalization and income inequality: a panel data econometric approach for the EU27 countries. Economic Modelling 36, 592599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azzimonti, M, De Francisco, E and Quadrini, V (2014) Financial globalization, inequality, and the rising public debt. The American Economic Review 104, 22672302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckfield, J (2006) European integration and income inequality. American Sociological Review 71, 964985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, T, Clarke, G, Groff, A, Keefer, P and Walsh, P (2001) New tools in comparative political economy: the database of political institutions. The World Bank Economic Review 15, 165176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beramendi, P and Anderson, CJ (2008) Democracy, Inequality, and Representation in Comparative Perspective. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Boix, C (1998) Political Parties, Growth and Equality: Conservative and Social Democratic Economic Strategies in the World Economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonica, A, McCarty, N, Poole, KT and Rosenthal, H (2013) Why hasn't democracy slowed rising inequality? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 27, 103123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boserup, SH, Kopczuk, W and Kreiner, CT (2016) Estate taxation and the intergenerational transmission of wealth the role of bequests in shaping wealth inequality: evidence from danish wealth records. The American Economic Review 106, 656661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corak, M (2013) Income inequality, equality of opportunity, and intergenerational mobility. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 27, 79102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Disposable Income in the National Accounts and in the Income Statistics (N.d.) Available at http://www.sverigeisiffror.scb.se/en/.Google Scholar
Dreher, A and Gaston, N (2008) Has globalization increased inequality? Review of International Economics 16, 516536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feenstra, RC (2015) Advanced International Trade: Theory and Evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Feenstra, RC and Hanson, GH (1997) Foreign direct investment and relative wages: evidence from Mexico's Maquiladoras. Journal of International Economics 42, 371393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garicano, L and Rossi-Hansberg, E (2005) Organization and Inequality in a Knowledge Economy. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, JC (2009) Globalization and the new politics of embedded liberalism.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckscher, EF and Ohlin, BG (1991) Heckscher-Ohlin Trade Theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Henisz, WJ (2002) The institutional environment for infrastructure investment. Industrial and Corporate Change 11, 355389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, T, Jacobs, AM and Matthews, JS (2016) Inequality and electoral accountability: class-biased economic voting in comparative perspective. The Journal of Politics 78, 10761093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggett, M, Ventura, G and Yaron, A (2011) Sources of lifetime inequality. The American Economic Review 101, 29232954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Income Statistics Division (N.d.) Available at http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng\&id=2060031.Google Scholar
Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada – IPEA (N.d.) Available at http://www.ipeadata.gov.br/Default.aspx.Google Scholar
Iversen, T and Cusack, TR (2000) The causes of welfare state expansion: deindustrialization or globalization? World Politics 52, 313349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, G, Griffiths, WE, Hill, RC, Lutkepohl, H and Lee, T-C (1985) The Theory and Practice of Econometrics, 2nd Edn, New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Kam, CD and Franzese, RJ Jr. (2007) Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Katz, JN and King, G (1999) A statistical model for multiparty electoral data. American Political Science Review 93, 1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keefer, PE (2013) DPI2012: Database of Political Institutions: Changes and variable definitions.Google Scholar
Keefer, P and Stasavage, D (2003) The limits of delegation: veto players, central bank independence, and the credibility of monetary policy. American Political Science Review 97, 407423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, M and Squire, L (2003) The simultaneous evolution of growth and inequality. The Economic Journal 113, 326344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luttmer, EF (2004) Neighbors as Negatives: Relative Earnings and Well-being. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, MC (2011) Land and racial wealth inequality. The American Economic Review 101, 371376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicilios Continua – PNAD (N.d.) Available at https://ww2.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/pesquisas/pesquisa\_resultados.php?id\_pesquisa=149.Google Scholar
Philips, AQ (2018) Have your cake and eat it too? Cointegration and dynamic inference from autoregressive distributed lag models. American Journal of Political Science 62, 230244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philips, AQ, Rutherford, A and Whitten, GD (2015) The dynamic battle for pieces of pie—modeling party support in multi-party nations. Electoral Studies 39, 264274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philips, AQ, Rutherford, A and Whitten, GD (2016a) Dynamic pie: a strategy for modeling trade-offs in compositional variables over time. American Journal of Political Science 60, 268283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philips, AQ, Rutherford, A and Whitten, GD (2016b) dynsimpie: a command to examine dynamic compositional dependent variables. Stata Journal 16, 662677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piketty, T (2014) Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piketty, T (2015) About capital in the twenty-first century. The American Economic Review 105, 4853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravallion, M (2003) The debate on globalization, poverty and inequality: why measurement matters. International Affairs 79, 739753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinert, ES (2007) How rich countries got rich and why poor countries stay poor. Constable.Google Scholar
Rigby, E and Wright, GC (2013) Political parties and representation of the poor in the American states. American Journal of Political Science 57, 552565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrik, D (2011) The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Schneider, BR and Soskice, D (2009) Inequality in developed countries and Latin America: coordinated, liberal and hierarchical systems. Economy and Society 38, 1752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzman, KC (1998) Globalization and democracy. Annual Review of Sociology 24, 159181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smeeding, TM (2002) Globalization, inequality, and the rich countries of the G-20: evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solt, F (2016) The standardized world income inequality database. Social Science Quarterly 97, 12671281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, JE (2002) Globalization and its Discontents, vol. 500, New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Tomz, M, Tucker, JA and Wittenberg, J (2002) An easy and accurate regression model for multiparty electoral data. Political Analysis 10, 6683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, M, Wittenberg, J and King, G (2003) Clarify: software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Journal of Statistical Software 8, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, A (1995) North-South Trade, Employment and Inequality: Changing Fortunes in a Skill-Driven World. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press on Demand.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, A (1997) Openness and wage inequality in developing countries: the Latin American challenge to East Asian conventional wisdom. World Bank Economic Review 11, 3358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Philips et al. Dataset

Link

Philips et al. supplementary material

Appendix

PDF 990 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 27
Total number of PDF views: 278 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 25th July 2019 - 22nd January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-r88h9 Total loading time: 0.291 Render date: 2021-01-22T02:15:23.008Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Globalization and comparative compositional inequality
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Globalization and comparative compositional inequality
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Globalization and comparative compositional inequality
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *