Obviously this destructive inequality undermines economic growth and efficiency, by reducing the incentives for individuals to work, to save, to innovate and to invest. But of course it can also be true that inequality is destructive, when for example it reflects deep and persistent differences across individuals or groups in access to the assets that generate income – including not only land (which is extremely unequally distributed in Latin America) but, most important in today’s global information age, the asset of education. Increases in this constructive inequality may simply reflect faster growth in income for the rich than the poor – but with all sharing in some growth.
Some would say constructive inequality is the hallmark of the equal opportunity society the U.S. This constructive inequality provides incentives for mobility and rewards high productivity.
Second, not all inequality is a bad thing Some inequality represents the healthy outcome of differences across individuals in ambition, motivation and willingness to work. The challenge is to realize the potential benefits without undertaking huge offsetting costs. First, globalization – that is the trend of increasing integration of economies in terms not only of goods and services, but of ideas, information and technology – has tremendous potential benefits for developing countries. In the past, for example, high inequality combined with the politics of redistribution led to periodic bouts of populism in Latin America – ineffective and counterproductive efforts to manage the conflicts provoked by the dangerous combination of high inequality and hard times. Inequality that is already high complicates the task of effective conflict management, which Dani Rodrik has just reminded us is a critical input to managing open economies. Latin America has a special disadvantage: its historical legacy of already high inequality. For developing countries, any risk of increasing inequality associated with active participation in the global economy is even greater, if only because of the greater inherent institutional weaknesses associated with being poor. The increase in inequality in the United States over the last 25 years (during which the income of the poorest 20 percent of households has fallen in real terms by about 15 percent) has been blamed, rightly or wrongly, on changes in trade, technology and migration patterns associated with increasing economic integration with other countries. I have a simple point to make: globalization puts developing countries at risk of increasing income inequality. My task is to talk about globalization and inequality in developing countries, with emphasis on Latin America. Overseas Development Council Conference, "Making Globalization Work," International Trade Center, Washington, DC, March 18, 1999