## _sdn1402 - Executive Summary

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_sdn1402 - Executive Summary](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/_sdn1402.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/_sdn1402.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/_sdn1402.pdf.json)

---

### Background and research question
- Economists examine links between inequality, crisis risk, and sustainable growth, including relationships among inequality, leverage, and the financial cycle, and political-economy influences on financial excess.
- This paper exploits a recently-compiled cross-country dataset (Solt, 2009; SWIID 3.1) that distinguishes market (pre-tax) inequality from net (post-tax) inequality and defines redistribution as the difference between market and net Gini coefficients.
- Core question: What do historical macroeconomic data say about the relationship between inequality, redistribution, and growth—both medium-term growth (five-year averages) and the duration of growth spells?

### Data and approach
- Inequality measures: Gini coefficients (0 to 100) for market and net income (SWIID 3.1).
- Redistribution: market Gini minus net Gini.
- Empirical methods:
  - Panel regressions relating five-year average real per capita growth to lagged controls, net inequality, and redistribution (system-GMM).
  - Duration analysis (proportional hazard model) relating the probability a growth spell will end to initial income, inequality, and redistribution (time-varying covariates).
- Samples: "full", "baseline", and "restricted" samples following Solt (2009) conventions; baseline used for primary results with robustness checks across samples.

### Stylized facts on inequality and redistribution
- Global median inequality has held remarkably steady over the past half century, though trends differ by group:
  - Market inequality has risen in the OECD over the past three decades and fallen in developing countries.
  - The gap between market and net inequality is much larger in industrial countries than in developing countries.
- Correlations between the paper’s redistribution measure and conventional transfers measures range roughly from 0.42 to 0.70 (Table 1), indicating substantial but not perfect overlap.
- Empirical relationship between market inequality and redistribution (Table 2, fixed effects):
  - Whole sample coefficient on Market inequality = 0.483*** (standard error 0.0523).
  - OECD countries coefficient = 0.619*** (0.0831).
  - Non-OECD countries coefficient = 0.405*** (0.0566).
- Example magnitude: an increase in market inequality from the 50th to the 75th percentile (market Gini from 45 to 51) is associated with an increase in redistribution by 3 Gini points.

### Main empirical findings — medium-term growth (five-year averages)
- Baseline system-GMM results (Table 3, column 1):
  - Log(initial income) coefficient = -0.0069** (0.0034).
  - Net inequality coefficient = -0.1435*** (0.0444).
  - Redistribution coefficient = 0.0046 (0.0492) — tiny and statistically insignificant.
- Interpretation and magnitude:
  - A change in net Gini from 37 to 42 (an increase of 5 Gini points) is associated with a decrease in annual growth by 0.5 percentage points (for example, from 5.0 percent to 4.5 percent), holding redistribution and initial income constant.
  - The direct effect of redistribution on growth is generally indistinguishable from zero in baseline and extended specifications; the combined (total) effect of redistribution—direct effect plus its indirect effect via lowering net inequality—is on average pro-growth.
- Robustness:
  - Results that higher net inequality lowers growth while redistribution is generally insignificant hold across alternative samples (Table 4) and with addition of controls (investment, education, shocks, institutions, openness, debt).
  - No strong evidence of nonlinearities in inequality’s effect on growth in the baseline specifications.

### Main empirical findings — duration of growth spells
- Baseline hazard model (Table 5, column 1):
  - Net inequality hazard ratio = 1.060** (0.0266). Interpretation: a one-Gini-point increase in inequality is associated with a 6 percentage point higher risk that a growth spell will end in the next year (equivalently, a decrease in expected spell length of about 7 percent).
  - Redistribution: evidence of nonlinearity. Splitting redistribution at the top 25th percentile:
    - Redistribution × Top 25th percentile hazard ratio = 1.098*** (0.0322).
    - Redistribution × Bottom 75th percentile hazard ratio = 0.987 (0.0690).
- Threshold and interpretation:
  - Further redistribution appears to have a negative direct effect on growth duration when redistribution is very large (above roughly 13 Gini points, i.e., the top 25th percentile). For these extreme cases the hazard ratio > 1 suggests higher risk of spell termination.
  - For redistributions below that threshold (bottom 75th percentile), there is no evidence that further redistribution shortens growth spells.
  - Overall, for typical (non-extreme) redistributions the indirect pro-growth effect through reduced inequality dominates or offsets any direct adverse effect.
- Robustness and limits:
  - The negative direct effect for very large redistributions is not robust to all model specifications and controls (it weakens when controlling for shocks, institutions, debt, openness).
  - Data scarcity for long-duration spells and reliable redistribution measures, especially in older series and developing-country pre-1985 observations, limits precision for the duration analysis (Table 6).

### Summary of quantitative magnitudes and key statistical estimates (selected)
- Market inequality → redistribution (fixed effects):
  - 0.483*** (0.0523) whole sample;
  - 0.619*** (0.0831) OECD;
  - 0.405*** (0.0566) non-OECD (Table 2).
- Growth regressions (system-GMM, baseline):
  - Log(initial income) = -0.0069** (0.0034).
  - Net inequality = -0.1435*** (0.0444).
  - Redistribution = 0.0046 (0.0492). (Table 3, column 1)
- Growth spell hazard (baseline proportional hazard model):
  - Net inequality hazard ratio = 1.060** (0.0266).
  - Redistribution × Top 25th percentile hazard ratio = 1.098*** (0.0322).
  - Redistribution × Bottom 75th percentile hazard ratio = 0.987 (0.0690). (Table 5, column 1)
- Illustrative impact:
  - Increase in net Gini from 37 to 42 → decrease in annual growth by 0.5 percentage points (from 5.0 percent to 4.5 percent), holding redistribution and initial income constant.

### Policy-relevant conclusions and implications
- Inequality is a robust and powerful determinant of both the pace of medium-term growth and the duration of growth spells, even after controlling for redistribution.
- There is little evidence, on average, of a large trade-off between redistribution and growth:
  - Typical redistributive policies (those below the extreme top 25th percentile threshold of redistribution) do not show a statistically significant direct negative effect on growth and, via reduced net inequality, are on average pro-growth.
  - Very large redistributions appear to be associated with adverse direct effects in some specifications, but this result is fragile and statistically imprecise.
- Policy implications:
  - Extreme caution or inaction on redistribution is unlikely to be justified on macroeconomic growth grounds alone; in many cases redistribution has not produced bad growth outcomes and the resulting narrowing of inequality has supported faster and more durable growth.
  - Emphasis should be placed on designing redistribution to be as efficient as possible (for example, prioritizing transfers or taxes that minimize disincentives and that target growth-friendly public investments, health, and education).

### Research agenda
- Improve measurement of redistribution (including in-kind provision and indirect taxes) and extend reliable long-run data series.
- Further work to identify causal channels and heterogeneity in country-specific contexts, and to determine the levels at which redistribution becomes growth-destructive.

*Source: _sdn1402 - Executive Summary (PDF chapter/section).*

### Executive Summary ......................................................................................................

### _sdn1402 - Executive Summary

### Major sections
- Executive Summary (page 4)
- I. Introduction (page 5)
- II. A Review of the Literature on Equality, Redistribution and Growth (page 7)
- III. Inequality and Redistribution: Some Facts (page 11)
- IV. Inequality, Redistribution, and Growth: Empirical Results (page 15)
  - A. Medium-term growth (page 17)
  - B. Growth spell duration (page 21)
- V. Conclusion (page 25)
- References (page 27)

### Tables listed
- Table 1. Correlation Between Redistribution and Transfers
- Table 2. Correlation Between Market Inequality and Redistribution
- Table 3. The Effect of Inequality and Redistribution on Growth
- Table 4. Alternative Samples: Inequality, Redistribution, and Growth
- Table 5. The Effect of Inequality and Redistribution on the Duration of Growth Spells
- Table 6. Alternative Samples: Inequality, Redistribution, and the Duration of Growth Spells

### Figures listed
- Figure 1. Interrelationships Between Inequality, Redistribution, and Growth
- Figure 2. Evolution of Market and Net Inequality, 1960–2010
- Figure 3. Market and Net Inequality by Country Group
- Figure 4. Growth, Inequality, and Redistribution
- Figure 5. Duration of Growth Spells, Inequality, and Redistribution
- Figure 6. The Effect of Inequality and Redistribution on Growth
- Figure 7. Redistribution: The Top 25 Percent and the Bottom 75 Percent
- Figure 8. The Effect of Inequality and Redistribution on Growth Spell Duration

### Editor’s note
- This is a revised version of SDN/14/02 as posted in February 2014, to include an online data appendix, and to correct a few issues with the data and statistical procedures, none of which is consequential for the results.
- The resulting changes are to Tables 2, 3, and 4; Figures 6 and 8; and the associated text on pages 17, 18, and 24.

*Source: _sdn1402 - Executive Summary (PDF chapter/section).*

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

### Background and research question
- Economists examine links between inequality, crisis risk, and sustainable growth, including relationships among inequality, leverage, and the financial cycle, and political-economy influences on financial excess.
- This paper exploits a recently-compiled cross-country dataset (Solt, 2009; SWIID 3.1) that distinguishes market (pre-tax) inequality from net (post-tax) inequality and defines redistribution as the difference between market and net Gini coefficients.
- Core question: What do historical macroeconomic data say about the relationship between inequality, redistribution, and growth—both medium-term growth (five-year averages) and the duration of growth spells?

### Data and approach
- Inequality measures: Gini coefficients (0 to 100) for market and net income (SWIID 3.1).
- Redistribution: market Gini minus net Gini.
- Empirical methods:
  - Panel regressions relating five-year average real per capita growth to lagged controls, net inequality, and redistribution (system-GMM).
  - Duration analysis (proportional hazard model) relating the probability a growth spell will end to initial income, inequality, and redistribution (time-varying covariates).
- Samples: "full", "baseline", and "restricted" samples following Solt (2009) conventions; baseline used for primary results with robustness checks across samples.

### Stylized facts on inequality and redistribution
- Global median inequality has held remarkably steady over the past half century, though trends differ by group:
  - Market inequality has risen in the OECD over the past three decades and fallen in developing countries.
  - The gap between market and net inequality is much larger in industrial countries than in developing countries.
- Correlations between the paper’s redistribution measure and conventional transfers measures range roughly from 0.42 to 0.70 (Table 1), indicating substantial but not perfect overlap.
- Empirical relationship between market inequality and redistribution (Table 2, fixed effects):
  - Whole sample coefficient on Market inequality = 0.483*** (standard error 0.0523).
  - OECD countries coefficient = 0.619*** (0.0831).
  - Non-OECD countries coefficient = 0.405*** (0.0566).
- Example magnitude: an increase in market inequality from the 50th to the 75th percentile (market Gini from 45 to 51) is associated with an increase in redistribution by 3 Gini points.

### Main empirical findings — medium-term growth (five-year averages)
- Baseline system-GMM results (Table 3, column 1):
  - Log(initial income) coefficient = -0.0069** (0.0034).
  - Net inequality coefficient = -0.1435*** (0.0444).
  - Redistribution coefficient = 0.0046 (0.0492) — tiny and statistically insignificant.
- Interpretation and magnitude:
  - A change in net Gini from 37 to 42 (an increase of 5 Gini points) is associated with a decrease in annual growth by 0.5 percentage points (for example, from 5.0 percent to 4.5 percent), holding redistribution and initial income constant.
  - The direct effect of redistribution on growth is generally indistinguishable from zero in baseline and extended specifications; the combined (total) effect of redistribution—direct effect plus its indirect effect via lowering net inequality—is on average pro-growth.
- Robustness:
  - Results that higher net inequality lowers growth while redistribution is generally insignificant hold across alternative samples (Table 4) and with addition of controls (investment, education, shocks, institutions, openness, debt).
  - No strong evidence of nonlinearities in inequality’s effect on growth in the baseline specifications.

### Main empirical findings — duration of growth spells
- Baseline hazard model (Table 5, column 1):
  - Net inequality hazard ratio = 1.060** (0.0266). Interpretation: a one-Gini-point increase in inequality is associated with a 6 percentage point higher risk that a growth spell will end in the next year (equivalently, a decrease in expected spell length of about 7 percent).
  - Redistribution: evidence of nonlinearity. Splitting redistribution at the top 25th percentile:
    - Redistribution × Top 25th percentile hazard ratio = 1.098*** (0.0322).
    - Redistribution × Bottom 75th percentile hazard ratio = 0.987 (0.0690).
- Threshold and interpretation:
  - Further redistribution appears to have a negative direct effect on growth duration when redistribution is very large (above roughly 13 Gini points, i.e., the top 25th percentile). For these extreme cases the hazard ratio > 1 suggests higher risk of spell termination.
  - For redistributions below that threshold (bottom 75th percentile), there is no evidence that further redistribution shortens growth spells.
  - Overall, for typical (non-extreme) redistributions the indirect pro-growth effect through reduced inequality dominates or offsets any direct adverse effect.
- Robustness and limits:
  - The negative direct effect for very large redistributions is not robust to all model specifications and controls (it weakens when controlling for shocks, institutions, debt, openness).
  - Data scarcity for long-duration spells and reliable redistribution measures, especially in older series and developing-country pre-1985 observations, limits precision for the duration analysis (Table 6).

### Summary of quantitative magnitudes and key statistical estimates (selected)
- Market inequality → redistribution (fixed effects): 0.483*** (0.0523) whole sample; 0.619*** (0.0831) OECD; 0.405*** (0.0566) non-OECD (Table 2).
- Growth regressions (system-GMM, baseline):
  - Log(initial income) = -0.0069** (0.0034).
  - Net inequality = -0.1435*** (0.0444).
  - Redistribution = 0.0046 (0.0492). (Table 3, column 1)
- Growth spell hazard (baseline proportional hazard model):
  - Net inequality hazard ratio = 1.060** (0.0266).
  - Redistribution × Top 25th percentile hazard ratio = 1.098*** (0.0322).
  - Redistribution × Bottom 75th percentile hazard ratio = 0.987 (0.0690). (Table 5, column 1)
- Illustrative impact: Increase in net Gini from 37 to 42 → decrease in annual growth by 0.5 percentage points (from 5.0 percent to 4.5 percent), holding redistribution and initial income constant.

### Policy-relevant conclusions and implications
- Inequality is a robust and powerful determinant of both the pace of medium-term growth and the duration of growth spells, even after controlling for redistribution.
- There is little evidence, on average, of a large trade-off between redistribution and growth:
  - Typical redistributive policies (those below the extreme top 25th percentile threshold of redistribution) do not show a statistically significant direct negative effect on growth and, via reduced net inequality, are on average pro-growth.
  - Very large redistributions appear to be associated with adverse direct effects in some specifications, but this result is fragile and statistically imprecise.
- Policy implications:
  - Extreme caution or inaction on redistribution is unlikely to be justified on macroeconomic growth grounds alone; in many cases redistribution has not produced bad growth outcomes and the resulting narrowing of inequality has supported faster and more durable growth.
  - Emphasis should be placed on designing redistribution to be as efficient as possible (for example, prioritizing transfers or taxes that minimize disincentives and that target growth-friendly public investments, health, and education).
- Research agenda:
  - Improve measurement of redistribution (including in-kind provision and indirect taxes) and extend reliable long-run data series.
  - Further work to identify causal channels and heterogeneity in country-specific contexts, and to determine the levels at which redistribution becomes growth-destructive.

*Source: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (sdn1402) — analysis based on SWIID 3.1 and the summarized empirical results presented in the source document.*

### REFERENCES

### REFERENCES

### Bibliographic entries
- Aghion, P., E. Caroli, and C. Garcia-Penalosa, 1999, “Inequality and Economic Growth: The Perspective of the New Growth Theories,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 37(4), pp. 1615–60.
- Alesina, A., and R. Perotti, 1996, “Income Distribution, Political Instability and Investment,” European Economic Review, Vol. 40(6), pp. 1203–28.
- Alesina, A., and D. Rodrik, 1994, “Distributive Politics and Economic Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 109(2), pp. 465–90.
- Alvaredo F., 2011, “A Note on the Relationship between Top Income Shares and the Gini Coefficient,” Economics Letters, Vol. 110(3), pp. 274–77.
- Banerjee, A.V., and E. Duflo, 2003, “Inequality and Growth: What Can the Data Say?” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 8(3), pp. 267–99.
- Barro, R.J., 1990, “Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogeneous Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98(5), pp. 103–25.
- Barro, R.J., 2000, “Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries,” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 5(1), pp. 5–32.
- Barro, R.J., and J.W. Lee, 2012, “A New Data Set of Educational Attainment in the World, 1950-2010,” NBER Working Paper 15902 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research).
- Bassett, W.F., J.P. Burkett, and L. Putterman, 1999, “Income Distribution, Government Transfers, and the Problem of Unequal Influence,” European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 15(2), pp. 207–28.
- Benabou, R., 2000, “Unequal Societies: Income Distribution and the Social Contract,” American Economic Review, Vol. 90(1), pp. 96–129.
- Benabou, R., 2002, “Tax and Education Policy in a Heterogeneous-Agent Economy: What Levels of Redistribution Maximize Growth and Efficiency?” Econometrica, Vol. 70(2), pp. 481–517.
- Benhabib, J., 2003, “The Tradeoff Between Inequality and Growth,” Annals of Economics and Finance, Vol. 4(2), pp. 491–507.
- Berg, A., and J.D. Ostry, 2011, “Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” IMF Staff Discussion Note 11/08 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Berg, A., J.D. Ostry, and J. Zettelmeyer, 2012, “What Makes Growth Sustained?” Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 98(2), pp. 149–66.
- Bleaney, M., N. Gemmell, and R. Kneller, 2001, “Testing the Endogenous Growth Model: Public Expenditure, Taxation, and Growth Over the Long Run,” Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 34(1), pp. 36–57.
- Caminada, K., K. Goudswaard, and F. Koster, 2012, “Social Income Transfers and Poverty: A Cross-Country Analysis for OECD Countries, International Journal of Social Welfare, Vol. 21(2), pp. 115–26.
- Dollar, D., T. Kleineberg, and A. Kraay, 2013, “Growth Is Still Good for the Poor,” Policy Research Working Paper No. 6568 (Washington: World Bank).
- Dollar, D., and A. Kraay, 2002, “Growth is Good for the Poor,” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 7(3), pp. 195–225.
- Easterly, W., 2007, “Inequality Does Cause Underdevelopment: Insights from a New Instrument,” Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 84(2), pp. 755–76.
- Forbes, K.J., 2000, “A Reassessment of the Relationship between Inequality and Growth,” American Economic Review, Vol. 90(4), pp. 869–87.
- Galor, O., and O. Moav, 2004, “From Physical to Human Capital Accumulation: Inequality and the Process of Development,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 71(4), pp. 1001–26.
- Hausmann, R. and B. Klinger, 2006, “Structural Transformation and Patterns of Comparative Advantage in the Product Space,” CID Working Paper No. 128, August (Cambridge, Mass.: Center for International Development).
- Halter, D., Oechslin, M., and J. Zweimüller, 2010, “Inequality and Growth: The Neglected Time Dimension,” CEPR Discussion Paper No. 8033 (Centre for Economic Policy Research).
- International Monetary Fund, forthcoming, “Fiscal Policy and Income Inequality” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Jaimovich, N., and S. Rebelo, 2012, “Non-Linear Effects of Taxation on Growth,” NBER Working Paper No. 18473 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research).
- Kaldor, N., 1957, “A Model of Economic Growth,” The Economic Journal, Vol. 67(268), pp. 591–624.
- Lane, P.R., and G. Milesi-Ferretti, 2007, “The external wealth of nations mark II: Revised and Extended estimates of foreign assets and liabilities, 1970-2004”, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 73 (2), pp. 223-250.
- Lazear, E.P., and S. Rosen, 1981, “Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 89(5), pp. 841–64.
- Lindert, P.H., 2004, Growing Public: Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, U.K.: University Press).
- Lustig, N., C. Pessino, and J. Scott, 2013, “The Impact of Taxes and Social Spending on Inequality and Poverty in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay: An Overview,” Working Paper No. 1313, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
- Meltzer, A., and S. Richard, 1981, “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 89(5), pp. 914–27.
- Milanovic, B., 2000, “The Median Voter Hypothesis, Income Inequality, and Income Redistribution: An Empirical Test with the Required Data,” European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 16(3), pp. 367–410.
- OECD, 2011, Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising (OECD Publishing).
- Okun, A.M., 1975, Equality and Efficiency: the Big Trade-Off (Washington: Brookings Institution Press).
- Paulus, A., M. Čok, F. Figari, P. Hegedüs, N. Kump, O. Lelkes, H. Levy, C. Lietz, S. Lüpsik, D. Mantovani, L. Morawski, H. Sutherland, P. Szivos, and A. Võrk, 2009, “The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Income Distribution in the Enlarged EU,” in An Enlarged Role for Tax Benefit Models: assessing policies in the enlarged European Union, ed. by O. Lelkes and H. Sutherland (Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate).
- Perotti, R., 1996, “Growth, Income Distribution, and Democracy: What the Data Say,” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 1(2), pp. 149–87.
- Persson, T., and G. Tabellini, 1994, “Is Inequality Harmful for Growth?” The American Economic Review, Vol. 84(3), pp. 600–21.
- Persson, T., and G. Tabellini, 1996, “Federal Fiscal Constitutions: Risk Sharing and Redistribution,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 104(5), pp. 979–1009.
- Polity IV, 2012, Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2012. http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm
- Pritchett, L., 2000, “Understanding Patterns of Economic Growth,” World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 14(2), pp. 221–50.
- Rajan, R., 2010, Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy, (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
- Reich, R., 2011, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future (New York: Random House.)
- Rodrik, D., 1999, “Where Did All the Growth Go? External Shocks, Social Conflict, and Growth Collapses,” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 4(4), pp. 385–412.
- Saint-Paul, G., and T. Verdier, 1993, “Education, Democracy and Growth,” Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 42(2), pp. 399–407.
- Saint-Paul, G., and T. Verdier, 1997, “Power, Distributive Conflicts, and Multiple Growth Paths,” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 2(2), pp. 155–68.
- Solt, F., 2009, “Standardizing the World Income Inequality Database,” Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 90(2), pp. 231–42.
- Stiglitz, J., 2012, The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future, W. W. Norton & Company.
- Tanzi, V., and H. Zee, 1997, “Fiscal Policy and Long-Run Growth,” IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 44(2), pp. 179–209.
- Thewissen, S.H., 2013, “Is it the Income Distribution or Redistribution that Affects Growth?” Socio-Economic Review, forthcoming (advance online publication October 2013).
- Wilkinson, R., and K. Pickett, 2009, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger (New York: Bloomsbury Press).

*_sdn1402 - REFERENCES_*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/_sdn1402.pdf_