## _wp1542 - Section V discusses effort and progress made towards inclusive growth in some Asian ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [_wp1542 - Section V discusses effort and progress made towards inclusive growth in some Asian](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/_wp1542.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/_wp1542.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/_wp1542.pdf.json) --- ### II. INCLUSIVE GROWTH IN ASIA: TRENDS AND STYLIZED FACTS - Inclusive growth is multidimensional and lacks consensus on definition and measurement. - Operational approaches cited: - Growth is inclusive if people in lower income brackets benefit equally or more than the population as a whole. - Beegle et. al. (2014) / World Bank shift: adds promotion of shared prosperity to ending extreme poverty (measured as the number of people living with less than USD 1.25 a day). - Beegle et. al. (2014) target: boost incomes of the poorest 40 percent of the population in every country; operationally would add 1.3 billion people to the World Bank’s target population. - Alternative (Klasen (2010)): inclusive growth = “disadvantage-reducing” growth that reduces regional, ethnic, and gender disparities. - Working definition used in the paper: inclusive growth captures both pace and distribution of economic growth; compares country-specific income distribution indifference curves over time. - Empirical proxy used: Anand et al. (2013) measure that accounts for both changes in growth and in income distribution. ### A. Poverty — findings and statistics - Asia experienced substantial poverty declines in recent decades; East Asia and Pacific experienced the most dramatic reductions. - Absolute poverty measured at $1.25-$2.50 a day (2005 prices): East Asia and the Pacific had the fastest decline, followed by South Asia. - Moderate poverty ($4.00-$5.00): significant reduction in East Asia and the Pacific since the early 1990s, at a pace comparable with Latin America and Europe and Central Asia. - China’s contribution (1990–2010): about 530 million people moved out of extreme poverty; the rest of the developing world saw a reduction of 170 million. - China: share of population living on less than $1.25 a day went down to 12% in 2009, from more than 60% in early 1990s. - Country examples (extreme poverty $1.25/day): - Vietnam: from 64 percent in 1993 to 17 percent in 2008. - Indonesia: from 54 percent to 16 percent. - Cambodia: from 45 percent to 19 percent. - Philippines: started from 31 percent in the early 1990s; drop less marked. - Thailand and Malaysia: extreme poverty virtually reduced to zero. - Lao PDR: exception with extreme poverty rate above 20 percent among countries shown. - Despite declines, as of 2010, 251 million people were living in extreme poverty in East Asia and Pacific, accounting for about 20 percent of the world’s extreme poor. - Asian Development Bank (2014) adjusted view: - Considering Asia-specific consumption costs, faster-rising food costs, and vulnerability to shocks, Asia’s estimated extreme poverty rate would be as high as 41 percent in 2015 and fall only to about 17 percent by 2030, assuming current growth trends continue. ### B. Equality — findings and statistics - Inequality has increased in Asia despite poverty reduction and rapid growth. - Population-weighted average of the Gini Index for developing countries in East Asia and the Pacific increased on average by about 9 percentage points since the early 1990s. - China alone accounted for 7.8 percentage points change in population weighted Gini for East Asia and the Pacific Region. - In contrast, Gini for developing countries in most other regions (except South Asia) has decreased. - Result: aggregate Gini Index for developing East Asia and Pacific is closer to Sub-Saharan Africa and higher than most other developing regions (except Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean). - Balakrishnan et al. (2013): increase in Gini in Asia over last two decades was more pronounced than in most other emerging markets; rise in income inequality has dampened the impact of growth on poverty reduction. - United Nations (2013): Asia has seen widespread increases in income inequality at national, urban, and rural levels. - Country-level trends since early 1990s: - Income inequality increased in China, Indonesia, and Lao PDR. - Inequality was stable or marginally decreasing in Malaysia, Philippines, Cambodia, and Vietnam. - Latest available Gini indexes (most recent data available for Malaysia, Philippines, and China (2009)): - Malaysia: 46 - Philippines: 43 - China: 42 - Thailand (2010): 39 - Income concentration at the top: income share held by the highest 10 percent ranges from 28 percent in Vietnam to 35 percent in Fiji; all are higher than the OECD average of 25 percent. ### C. Growth Inclusiveness — method and empirical observations - Rationale: inclusive growth emphasizes both the pace and distribution of economic growth because inequality can be harmful for growth and more equitable growth could have yielded stronger poverty reduction. - Indifference curve method: - Horizontal axis: population in ascending income order (leftmost bottom 20 percent, rightmost top 20 percent). - Vertical axis: mean income of each income group. - A higher curve implies higher average income; growth is inclusive if the curve moves upward at all points. - Degree of inclusive growth depends on (i) how much the curve moves up (growth) and (ii) how the steepness changes (distribution/equity). - Empirical observations from indifference curves for selected Asian countries: - In most cases, growth was inclusive by the upward shift criterion (except possibly Fiji, limited data). - Many countries experienced growth that widened inequality (indifference curves became steeper). - China: rapid growth shifted the curve upward but also made it much steeper over time—growth drove poverty reduction more than improved equality. - Thailand and the Philippines: growth appears to have been shared more equally across income groups, with less marked increases in steepness. ### Indifference-curve visual findings (conclusion) - In most countries (with the exception of Fiji and, to a lesser extent, the Philippines), incomes at the very top increased much more than at other levels. - Uneven growth is common among Asian countries; there is room to improve growth inclusiveness by achieving a more equal distribution of income. - Inclusive growth has two components: how much growth increases, and how much equality increases. ### Literature review — policy channels affecting inclusive growth - Fiscal policy: - Evidence: fiscal redistribution is on average “pro-growth” (Ostry et al. 2014); well-designed tax-and-transfer policies need not harm growth (OECD 2014). - Redistributive policies can have direct disincentive effects but also indirect pro-growth effects via higher health and education spending (Benabou 2000; Saint-Paul and Verdier 1993). - Monetary policy: - Monetary policy targeted at macroeconomic stability (low inflation, minimized output fluctuations) can reduce poverty and inequality over time (Romer et al. 1999; Coeuré 2012). - Cross-country evidence links inflation to worsened income distribution (Albanesi (2007); Li and Zou (2002)). - Some studies (Coibion et al. 2012) argue contractionary monetary policy can increase inequality; literature is not unanimous. - Structural policies: - Technological progress, globalization and market-oriented reforms have increased inequality in developing Asia by favoring skilled labor, capital, and urban/coastal areas (Zhuang et al. 2014). - Labor market and industrial competitiveness policies to create productive jobs are recommended (Zhuang et al. 2014). - Targeting of social programs (e.g., in-kind benefits, conditionality) and stronger active labor market programs are promising (Bastagli et al. 2012). - Sequencing of globalization policies: trade openness may reduce inequality while financial globalization may increase it (IMF 2007), suggesting careful sequencing. ### Empirical framework and data - Dependent variable: proxy of inclusive growth developed by Anand et al. (2013) — integrates pace of growth and an income equity index bounded between zero and one. - Regressors include: - (i) share of employment in agriculture, - (ii) unemployment rate, - (iii) difference between Gini coefficients for market and net inequality (redistribution, 5-year moving average), - (iv) CPI inflation, - (v) GDP volatility (standard deviation of GDP growth over previous five years), - (vi) productivity (GDP per person employed, constant 1990 PPP $), - (vii) trade openness (sum of exports and imports divided by GDP), - (viii) lagged GDP per capita. - Controls: country fixed effects and lagged dependent variable included. - Panel: 31 countries, annual observations for 1992-2011 (or less, depending on availability). Due to data limitation, only two Asian countries, Cambodia and Thailand, are included in the sample. ### Key empirical results (selected coefficients and significance) - Fixed Effects estimates (T-statistics in brackets): - Redistribution (5-year moving average): 0.647 [1.94]* (positive and statistically significant) - CPI Inflation: -0.103 [-1.41] (negative; somewhat significant at 17% in alternative specification) - GDP Volatility (SD over 5 years): -0.654 [-1.81]* (negative and significant in some specifications) - Share of Employment in Agriculture: 0.185 [3.18]** (positive and statistically significant) - Unemployment Rate: -0.717 [-3.05]** (negative and statistically significant) - Productivity: 0.001 [3.25]** (positive and statistically significant) - Trade Openness: 0.157 [4.45]*** (positive and statistically significant) - Lagged GDP per capita (t-1): -0.002 [-4.34]*** (negative and statistically significant) - Lagged Dependent Variable (t-1): -0.159 [-2.80]* (negative and statistically significant) - R-squared: 0.424 - Illustrative elasticities/readings: - A one percentage point reduction in the unemployment rate would increase the measure of inclusive growth by 0.72 percentage points. - A USD 1,000 (at constant 1990 PPP exchange rates) increase in GDP per person employed increases inclusiveness by 1 percentage point. - Robustness checks (Table 2) broadly confirm the baseline findings; alternative specifications show: - Redistribution coefficients in alternative specifications: 0.586 [1.73]*, 0.585 [1.67]*, 0.655 [1.79]* - Productivity growth: 0.517 [4.80]*** when used as alternative to productivity level. - Export (% GDP) as alternative to trade openness: 0.193 [3.01]***. - R-squared in alternative specifications: 0.551, 0.424, 0.339. ### Interpretation and caveats - Empirical interpretation: - Fiscal redistribution and monetary policy aimed at macro stability are effective in fostering inclusive growth in the panel. - Structural reforms that increase trade openness, reduce unemployment, and raise productivity are effective policies to foster inclusive growth. - Specific interpretation of the agriculture result: - Positive coefficient on the share of employment in agriculture suggests that a decline in agriculture’s share (industrialization/urbanization) tends to reduce growth inclusiveness, likely via rising inequality — highlighting the need for offsetting macro and structural policies. - Lagged GDP per capita: - Negative and significant impact on inclusive growth, consistent with convergence theory. - Limitations: - The inclusive growth proxy implicitly assumes a social welfare function (implicit weighting of growth vs inequality-reduction). - The measure may be driven more by growth than inequality (e.g., China ranks high on inclusive growth), which could bias results against finding redistribution effects; authors argue their finding that fiscal redistribution matters is robust even given this bias. ### Policy implications for Asia (empirical and simulated insights) - Asia’s redistributive fiscal effort (difference between market and disposable income Gini) remains well below the world average and below G7 levels. - Simulation results described in text: - Increasing fiscal redistribution from the Asian average index value of 0.62 to the world average of 5.40 and to the G7 average of 12.79 could increase the inclusive growth proxy by amounts that vary by estimation method. - The estimated improvement in the inclusive growth proxy from expanding fiscal redistribution ranges from about 1 to about 8 percentage points, compared to the panel’s mean of inclusive growth of 3.7 percentage points. - Recommended fiscal policy design (menu of options from IMF (2014) mentioned in text): - Use mean-tested and conditioned cash transfer programs. - Condition eligibility for benefits on participation in active labor market policies; strengthen in-work benefits. - Make income (including pension) taxation and benefit cuts progressive. - Expand health coverage and reduce or eliminate user charges for low-income households. - Strengthen revenue bases, rationalize subsidies, and target social and infrastructure spending to be growth-friendly and pro-poor. Prioritize education and health where public spending is relatively low. - Monetary policy guidance: - Aim for longer-term macro stability (price stability, low GDP volatility) rather than temporary booms. Low inflation and stable aggregate demand are favorable for inclusive growth. - Structural policy guidance: - Labor market reforms to reduce unemployment and raise productivity are important. - Increasing trade openness (sum of exports and imports as % of GDP ranges from about 50 percent in Indonesia and China to about 150 percent in Thailand and Malaysia) would be beneficial for inclusive growth. - Completing trade negotiations (e.g., RCEP, TPP as listed) could be beneficial for inclusive growth. ### Conclusions — synthesis of findings - Despite rapid growth and reduced poverty, Asia’s inequality has been rising. - Policymakers are shifting from a sole focus on growth pace to considering both pace and distribution. - Empirical evidence in the panel supports that: - Redistributive fiscal policy, monetary policy aimed at macro stability, and structural reforms (trade openness, lower unemployment, higher productivity) help improve growth inclusiveness. - Simulations suggest expanding fiscal redistribution could have sizeable effects on inclusive growth in Asia. - Policy priorities for Asia include improving monetary policy to contain inflation and growth volatility, pursuing structural reforms to stimulate trade, reducing unemployment, and increasing productivity to further improve growth inclusiveness. *Source — IMF Staff Calculations and analysis in the provided content unit.* ### Section V discusses effort and progress made towards inclusive growth in some Asian ### _wp1542 - Section V discusses effort and progress made towards inclusive growth in some Asian ### II. INCLUSIVE GROWTH IN ASIA: TRENDS AND STYLIZED FACTS - Inclusive growth is multidimensional and lacks consensus on definition and measurement. - One operational approach: growth is inclusive if people in lower income brackets benefit equally or more than the population as a whole. - Beegle et. al. (2014) shift: World Bank’s mission adds promotion of shared prosperity to ending extreme poverty (measured as the number of people living with less than USD 1.25 a day). - Beegle et. al. (2014) target: boost incomes of the poorest 40 percent of the population in every country; operationally would add 1.3 billion people to the World Bank’s target population. - Alternative approach (Klasen (2010)): inclusive growth = “disadvantage-reducing” growth that reduces regional, ethnic, and gender disparities. - The paper’s working definition: inclusive growth captures both pace and distribution of economic growth; compares country-specific income distribution indifference curves over time. - Empirical proxy used (next section): Anand et al. (2013) measure that accounts for both changes in growth and in income distribution. ### A. Poverty - Asia has seen substantial poverty declines in recent decades; East Asia and Pacific experienced the most dramatic reductions. - Absolute poverty measured at $1.25-$2.50 a day (2005 prices): East Asia and the Pacific had the fastest decline, followed by South Asia. - Moderate poverty ($4.00-$5.00): significant reduction in East Asia and the Pacific since the early 1990s, at a pace comparable with Latin America and Europe and Central Asia. - China’s contribution (1990–2010): about 530 million people moved out of extreme poverty; the rest of the developing world saw a reduction of 170 million. - China: share of population living on less than $1.25 a day went down to 12% in 2009, from more than 60% in early 1990s. - Country examples (extreme poverty $1.25/day): - Vietnam: from 64 percent in 1993 to 17 percent in 2008. - Indonesia: from 54 percent to 16 percent. - Cambodia: from 45 percent to 19 percent. - Philippines: started from 31 percent in the early 1990s; drop less marked. - Thailand and Malaysia: extreme poverty virtually reduced to zero. - Lao PDR: exception with extreme poverty rate above 20 percent among countries shown. - Despite declines, as of 2010, 251 million people were living in extreme poverty in East Asia and Pacific, accounting for about 20 percent of the world’s extreme poor. - Asian Development Bank (2014) adjusted view: considering Asia-specific consumption costs, faster-rising food costs, and vulnerability to shocks, Asia’s estimated extreme poverty rate would be as high as 41 percent in 2015 and fall only to about 17 percent by 2030, assuming current growth trends continue. ### B. Equality - Inequality has increased in Asia despite poverty reduction and rapid growth. - Population-weighted average of the Gini Index for developing countries in East Asia and the Pacific increased on average by about 9 percentage points since the early 1990s. - China alone accounted for 7.8 percentage points change in population weighted Gini for East Asia and the Pacific Region. - In contrast, Gini for developing countries in most other regions (except South Asia) has decreased. - Result: aggregate Gini Index for developing East Asia and Pacific is closer to Sub-Saharan Africa and higher than most other developing regions (except Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean). - Balakrishnan et al. (2013): increase in Gini in Asia over last two decades was more pronounced than in most other emerging markets; rise in income inequality has dampened the impact of growth on poverty reduction. - United Nations (2013): Asia has seen widespread increases in income inequality at national, urban, and rural levels. - Country-level trends since early 1990s: - Income inequality increased in China, Indonesia, and Lao PDR. - Inequality was stable or marginally decreasing in Malaysia, Philippines, Cambodia, and Vietnam. - Latest available Gini indexes (most recent data available for Malaysia, Philippines, and China (2009)): - Malaysia: 46 - Philippines: 43 - China: 42 - Thailand (2010): 39 - Income concentration at the top: income share held by the highest 10 percent ranges from 28 percent in Vietnam to 35 percent in Fiji; all are higher than the OECD average of 25 percent. ### C. Growth Inclusiveness - Inclusive growth concept emphasizes both the pace and distribution of economic growth because: - Inequality can be harmful for growth. - More equitable growth could have yielded stronger poverty reduction. - Indifference curve method to assess inclusiveness: - Horizontal axis: population in ascending income order (leftmost bottom 20 percent, rightmost top 20 percent). - Vertical axis: mean income of each income group. - A higher curve implies higher average income; growth is inclusive if the curve moves upward at all points. - Degree of inclusive growth depends on (i) how much the curve moves up (growth) and (ii) how the steepness changes (distribution/equity). - Empirical observations from indifference curves for selected Asian countries: - In most cases, growth was inclusive by the upward shift criterion (except possibly Fiji, limited data). - Many countries experienced growth that widened inequality (indifference curves became steeper). - China: rapid growth shifted the curve upward but also made it much steeper over time—growth drove poverty reduction more than improved equality. - Thailand and the Philippines: growth appears to have been shared more equally across income groups, with less marked increases in steepness. *Source: _wp1542 - Section V discusses effort and progress made towards inclusive growth in some Asian* ### conclusion which can be drawn from looking at the charts is that in most countries (with the ### _wp1542 - conclusion which can be drawn from looking at the charts is that in most countries (with the ### Indifference-curve visual findings - In most countries (with the exception of Fiji and, to a lesser extent, the Philippines), incomes at the very top increased much more than at other levels. - Uneven growth is common among Asian countries; there is room to improve growth inclusiveness by achieving a more equal distribution of income. - Inclusive growth has two components: how much growth increases, and how much equality increases. ### Literature review — policy channels affecting inclusive growth - Fiscal policy - Recent evidence points to fiscal redistribution being on average “pro-growth” (Ostry et al. 2014) and that well-designed tax-and-transfer policies need not harm growth (OECD 2014). - Redistributive policies can have direct disincentive effects but also indirect pro-growth effects via higher health and education spending (Benabou 2000; Saint-Paul and Verdier 1993). - Monetary policy - Monetary policy targeted at macroeconomic stability (low inflation, minimized output fluctuations) can reduce poverty and inequality over time (Romer et al. 1999; Coeuré 2012). - Cross-country evidence links inflation to worsened income distribution (Albanesi (2007); Li and Zou (2002)). - Some studies (Coibion et al. 2012) argue contractionary monetary policy can increase inequality; literature is not unanimous. - Structural policies - Technological progress, globalization and market-oriented reforms have increased inequality in developing Asia by favoring skilled labor, capital, and urban/coastal areas (Zhuang et al. 2014). - Labor market and industrial competitiveness policies to create productive jobs are recommended (Zhuang et al. 2014). - Targeting of social programs (e.g., in-kind benefits, conditionality) and stronger active labor market programs are promising (Bastagli et al. 2012). - Sequencing of globalization policies: trade openness may reduce inequality while financial globalization may increase it (IMF 2007), suggesting careful sequencing. ### Empirical framework and data - Dependent variable: proxy of inclusive growth developed by Anand et al. (2013) — integrates pace of growth and an income equity index bounded between zero and one. - Regressors include: (i) share of employment in agriculture, (ii) unemployment rate, (iii) difference between Gini coefficients for market and net inequality (redistribution, 5-year moving average), (iv) CPI inflation, (v) GDP volatility (standard deviation of GDP growth over previous five years), (vi) productivity (GDP per person employed, constant 1990 PPP $), (vii) trade openness (sum of exports and imports divided by GDP), (viii) lagged GDP per capita. Country fixed effects and lagged dependent variable included. - Panel: 31 countries, annual observations for 1992-2011 (or less, depending on availability). Due to data limitation, only two Asian countries, Cambodia and Thailand, are included in the sample. ### Key empirical results (selected coefficients and significance) - From Table 1 (Fixed Effects; T-statistics in brackets): - Redistribution (5-year moving average): 0.647 [1.94]* (positive and statistically significant) - CPI Inflation: -0.103 [-1.41] (negative; somewhat significant at 17% in alternative specification) - GDP Volatility (SD over 5 years): -0.654 [-1.81]* (negative and significant in some specifications) - Share of Employment in Agriculture: 0.185 [3.18]** (positive and statistically significant) - Unemployment Rate: -0.717 [-3.05]** (negative and statistically significant) - Productivity: 0.001 [3.25]** (positive and statistically significant) - Trade Openness: 0.157 [4.45]*** (positive and statistically significant) - Lagged GDP per capita (t-1): -0.002 [-4.34]*** (negative and statistically significant) - Lagged Dependent Variable (t-1): -0.159 [-2.80]* (negative and statistically significant) - R-squared: 0.424 - Illustrative elasticities/readings in the text: - A one percentage point reduction in the unemployment rate would increase the measure of inclusive growth by 0.72 percentage points. - A USD 1,000 (at constant 1990 PPP exchange rates) increase in GDP per person employed increases inclusiveness by 1 percentage point. - Robustness checks (Table 2) broadly confirm the baseline findings; alternative specifications show: - Redistribution coefficients in alternative specifications: 0.586 [1.73]*, 0.585 [1.67]*, 0.655 [1.79]* - Productivity growth: 0.517 [4.80]*** when used as alternative to productivity level. - Export (% GDP) as alternative to trade openness: 0.193 [3.01]***. - R-squared in alternative specifications: 0.551, 0.424, 0.339. ### Interpretation and caveats - Fiscal redistribution and monetary policy aimed at macro stability are effective in fostering inclusive growth in the panel. - Structural reforms that increase trade openness, reduce unemployment, and raise productivity are effective policies to foster inclusive growth. - The positive coefficient on the share of employment in agriculture suggests that a decline in agriculture’s share (industrialization/urbanization) tends to reduce growth inclusiveness, likely via rising inequality — highlighting the need for offsetting macro and structural policies. - Lagged GDP per capita has a negative and significant impact on inclusive growth, consistent with convergence theory. - Limitations noted: - The inclusive growth proxy implicitly assumes a social welfare function (implicit weighting of growth vs inequality-reduction). - The measure may be driven more by growth than inequality (e.g., China ranks high on inclusive growth), which could bias results against finding redistribution effects; the authors argue their finding that fiscal redistribution matters is robust even given this bias. ### Policy implications for Asia (empirical and simulated insights) - Asia’s redistributive fiscal effort (difference between market and disposable income Gini) remains well below the world average and below G7 levels. - Simulation results (described in text): - Increasing fiscal redistribution from the Asian average index value of 0.62 to the world average of 5.40 and to the G7 average of 12.79 could increase the inclusive growth proxy by amounts that vary by estimation method. - The estimated improvement in the inclusive growth proxy from expanding fiscal redistribution ranges from about 1 to about 8 percentage points, compared to the panel’s mean of inclusive growth of 3.7 percentage points. - Recommended fiscal policy design (menu of options from IMF (2014) mentioned in text): - Use mean-tested and conditioned cash transfer programs. - Condition eligibility for benefits on participation in active labor market policies; strengthen in-work benefits. - Make income (including pension) taxation and benefit cuts progressive. - Expand health coverage and reduce or eliminate user charges for low-income households. - Strengthen revenue bases, rationalize subsidies, and target social and infrastructure spending to be growth-friendly and pro-poor. Prioritize education and health where public spending is relatively low. - Monetary policy guidance: - Aim for longer-term macro stability (price stability, low GDP volatility) rather than temporary booms. Low inflation and stable aggregate demand are favorable for inclusive growth. - Structural policy guidance: - Labor market reforms to reduce unemployment and raise productivity are important. - Increasing trade openness (sum of exports and imports as % of GDP ranges from about 50 percent in Indonesia and China to about 150 percent in Thailand and Malaysia) would be beneficial for inclusive growth. - Completing trade negotiations (e.g., RCEP, TPP as listed) could be beneficial for inclusive growth. ### Conclusions (summary) - Despite rapid growth and reduced poverty, Asia’s inequality has been rising. - Policymakers are shifting from a sole focus on growth pace to considering both pace and distribution. - Empirical evidence in the panel supports that: - Redistributive fiscal policy, monetary policy aimed at macro stability, and structural reforms (trade openness, lower unemployment, higher productivity) help improve growth inclusiveness. - Simulations suggest expanding fiscal redistribution could have sizeable effects on inclusive growth in Asia. - Asia has room to improve monetary policy to contain inflation and growth volatility, and to pursue structural reforms to stimulate trade, reduce unemployment and increase productivity to further improve growth inclusiveness. *Italic: Source — IMF Staff Calculations and analysis in the provided content unit.* ### REFERENCES ### REFERENCES ### Citations - ADB,2012, “Confronting Rising Inequality in Asia”, Asian Development Outlook 2012 Part2 - Ali, I., and Son, H. H. (2007). Measuring Inclusive Growth. Asian Development Review , 24 (1), 11-31. - Ali,l. and J. Zhuang, 2007, Inclusive Growth Toward a Prosperous Asia: Policy Implications. ERD Working Paper Series, No.97.Asia Development Bank - Asian Development Bank, 2014, “Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2014” - Albanesi, Stefania (2007), “Inflation and inequality”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, Vol. 54(4), pages 1088-1114, May, for evidence from 47 advanced and developing countries. - Anand, Rahul, Saurabh Mishra and Shanaka J. Peiris, 2013, “Inclusive Growth: Measurement and Determinants,” IMF Working Paper 13/135 (Washington: International Monetary Fund). - Balakrishman, Ravi; Steinberg, Chad and Syed, Murtaza, 2013, “ The Elusive Quest for Inclusive Growth: Growth, Poverty, and Inequality in Asia” IMF Working Paper 13/152 (Washington: International Monetary Fund) - Barro, R, 2000, “Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries”, Journal of Economic Growth, 5, 5-32 - Bastagli, Francesca; Coady, David; and Gupta, Sanjeev (2012), “Income Inequality and Fiscal Policy”, IMF Staff Discussion Note 12/08 - Beegle, Kathleen; Olinto, Pedro; Sobrado, Carlos; Uematsu, Hiroki; and Kim, Yeon Soo with Ashwill, Maximillian, 2014, “Ending Extreme poverty and Promoting Shared Prosperity: Could There Be Trade-Offs between These Two Goals?” Inequality in Focus Volume3, Number1: May 2014 (Washington: World Bank Group) - Benabou,R.,2000, “Unequal Societies: Income Distribution and the Social Contract,” American Economic Review, Vol.90(1), pp.96-129 - Andrew Berg ; Jonathan David Ostry ; Charalambos G. Tsangarides , 2014, “Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth,” IMF Staff Discussion Notes No. 14/2 - Coeuré, Benoît (2012). What can monetary policy do about inequality? Speech at the European Parliament held in October 2012 in Brussels, European Central Bank, Franfurt am Main, Germany. - Fosu, Augustin Kwasi (2011). Growth, Inequality, and Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries: Recent Global Evidence. Wider Working Paper, No. 2011/01. Helsinki: United Nations University, World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER). - Grammy, Abbas, and Djeto Assane (2006). The poverty-growth-inequality triangle hypothesis: An empirical examination. Journal of Policy Modeling. - International Monetary Fund, 2007, World Economic Outlook: Globalization and Inequality - IMF, 2011, Regional Economic Outlook: Asia and Pacific, “Navigating an Uncertain Global Environment While Building Inclusive Growth” October 2011, Chapter III: Asia’s Quest for Inclusive Growth - IMF 2014,”Fiscal Policy and Income Inequality”, Board Paper - Christine Lagarde, 2013, “A New Global Economy for a New Generation”, Speech at Davos, Switzerland, January 23, available online at: https://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2013/012313.htm - OECD (2014), "Focus on Inequality and Growth - December 2014” - Klasen, Stephan, 2010, “Measuring and Monitoring Inclusive Growth: Multiple Definitions, Open Questions, and Some Constructive Proposals”, ADB Sustainable Development Working Paper Series No.12, June 2010 - Li, Hongyi; Zou, Heng-fu, 2002, “ Inflation, Growth, and Income Distribution: A Cross-Country Study”, Annals of Economics and Finance3, 85-101 - Lindert, P.H., 2004, Growing Public: Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteenth Century (Cambrideg, U.K.: University Press). - Lunderg M., and L. Squire, 2003, “ The Simultaneous Evolution of Growth and Inequality”, The Economic Journal, 113, 326-344. - OECD, 2014, presentation at 3rd OECD-AMRO-ADB Asian Regional Roundtable held in Manila on July29, 2014. - Okun, A.M., 1975, Equality and Efficiency: the Big Trade-Off (Washington: Brookings Institution Press). - Christina D. Romer, David H. Romer, 1999, “Monetary policy and the well-being of the poor”, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review Q1 1999 - 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. - Son, H. and N Kakwani. 2003. “Poverty Reduction: Do Initial Conditions Matter?” Mimeo. The World Bank. - United Nations, 2013, “ Inequality Matters; Report on the World Social Situation 2013” - Zhuang, Juzhong; Kanbur, Ravi; Rhee, Changyong, 2014, “ Rising Inequality in Asia and Policy Implications” *Source: _wp1542 - REFERENCES (PDF).* --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/_wp1542.pdf_