2003年-世界发展银行全球_Brazil___Inequality_and_Economic_Development_Volume_1_Policy_Report_94页_8mb

报告摘要

Summary of Brazil Inequality and Economic Development Report

Core Content

This report, published by the World Bank in October 2003, analyzes the nature, causes, and implications of income inequality in Brazil, and evaluates the role of public policy in addressing it. It is a joint effort between the Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA) and the World Bank, focusing on the interplay between inequality and economic development, particularly in the context of Brazil's social and economic landscape.

Main Views and Key Information

Inequality Matters for Brazil

Unfair and Inefficient: High income inequality is seen as both ethically problematic and economically inefficient, as it results in more poor people at a given average income level and less benefit from economic growth for the poor.
Impact on Growth and Health: High inequality is associated with adverse effects on economic growth, health outcomes, and social cohesion, while increasing crime rates.
Social Mobility and Initial Conditions: Weak social mobility and unequal initial conditions can lead to the persistence or even worsening of inequality, especially in countries with large fertility differentials between educated and uneducated parents.

Brazil's Inequality: High and Persistent

Historic and Regional Roots: Brazil has long-standing and persistent income inequality, with the richest 20% of the population holding 33 times the income of the poorest 20%.
Gini Coefficient: The Gini coefficient for household income per capita is 0.59, indicating a highly unequal distribution.
Overestimation of Inequality: New analysis suggests that income inequality may have been overestimated due to limitations in survey data, but even with better data, inequality would still be high.
Improvements in Poverty: Despite high inequality, there have been important income improvements for the poorest, especially since 1993, and some recent gains.

Causes of Inequality

Regressive Public Transfers: Retirement pensions, especially for public sector employees, are heavily regressive, contributing to 40% of Brazil's excess inequality.
Unequally Distributed Education: Education is not equitably distributed, with significant gaps in educational attainment between racial groups and genders, contributing to 29% of excess inequality.
High Skill Wage Differentials: Higher wage premiums for skilled workers contribute to 32% of Brazil's excess inequality, reflecting both technological change and a shortage of skilled labor.

Public Policy and Equity

Progressive Social Expenditure: While public social expenditure (PSE) is generally progressive, access to education remains regressive and deficient.
PSE Contributions to Inequality Reduction: PSE subsidies significantly contribute to income equalization, with the Gini coefficient being reduced by 5.6 percentage points.
Taxation Impact: Indirect taxation has a moderate but regressive impact on income distribution, whereas direct taxation and non-pension PSE have progressive and substantial effects.
Regressive Indirect Taxation: Indirect taxes contribute to inequality, with 16% of total indirect tax paid by the poorest 40% of the population, despite their small share of income.

Policy Recommendations

Education Expansion

Key Area for Action: Education is highlighted as the most important area for reducing inequality.
Progress Over Time: Each age cohort has achieved higher educational attainment with less inequality within the cohort, especially in the last decade.
Demographic Window of Opportunity: Brazil is in the middle of the demographic transition, and the opportunity to expand education to reduce inequality is fading.
Long-Term Perspective: Educational policies take time to yield benefits, and the stock-to-cohort time lag is significant. It takes more than two decades for educational improvements to affect the whole working age population.
Simulated Benefits: If education expansion had occurred a decade earlier, it would have reduced the stock-to-cohort time lag and long-term inequalities.

Other Policy Areas

Direct Taxation: Direct taxation is progressive and can significantly reduce inequality.
Pension Reforms: Reforming public sector pensions is necessary to ensure vertical and horizontal equity.
Indirect Tax Reform: There are clear opportunities for improving welfare through indirect tax reforms.

Conclusion

Complex Interplay: Brazil's inequality is influenced by both market and non-market forces, which operate in opposite directions and partially compensate each other.
No Trade-Offs: The report argues that policies aimed at reducing inequality can also be beneficial for economic efficiency and growth, with no trade-offs between equity and efficiency.
Need for Patience: Policymakers should be patient and have a long-term perspective when implementing educational policies, as the benefits are not immediate.

Tables and Figures

Table 1: Effect of regional differences on poverty in Brazil.
Table 2: Gini coefficient for land distribution in selected countries.
Table 3: Labor market and schooling contribution to income inequality in Brazil.
Table 4: Microsimulations accounting for Brazil's excess inequality relative to the United States.
Table 5: Summary of the distributional incidence of public social expenditure in Brazil.
Table 6: School attendance and household characteristics (10-15 years old).
Table 7: Redistributive impact of direct and indirect taxation in Brazil.
Table 8: Equity and efficiency of indirect taxation.
Table 9: Tax rates change and welfare effects for alternative indirect tax reforms in Brazil.
Figure 1: Extreme poverty rate and development cross-country.
Figure 2: Brazil's inequality in the international context, 1999.
Figure 3: Brazil's inequality among upper-middle income economies.
Figure 4: Time series of inequality in Brazil.
Figure 5: Income growth by decile, Brazil 1981-99.
Figure 6: Mean household per capita income by region and area (rural-urban) in Brazil, 1999.
Figure 7: Labor earnings by gender in Brazil.
Figure 8: School attainment by gender in Brazil.
Figure 9: Headcount poverty measures by region for different data series.
Figure 10: Headcount poverty measures in the Northeast and Southeast of Brazil.
Figure 11: School attainment of the working-age population in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and the United States.
Figure 12: Inequality of land distribution by region in Brazil, 1950-95.
Figure 13: Labor earnings by skill level in Brazil compared with the United States, Mexico, and Colombia.
Figure 14: Incidence of retirement pensions in Brazil versus the United States.
Figure 15: Poverty along the life cycle before and after pension transfers.
Figure 16: Concentration curves of income per capita and public social expenditure in Brazil, 1997.
Figure 17: Distribution of public social expenditure in progressive sectors in Brazil, 1997.
Figure 18: Distribution of public social expenditure in regressive sectors in Brazil, 1997.
Figure 19: Average schooling and inequality of educational attainment by cohort in Brazil, 1908-92.
Figure 20: Average educational attainment across Latin America, by cohort older than 25 years.
Figure 21: Years of schooling for white and nonwhite individuals by age in South Africa and Brazil, 1995.
Figure 22: Aggressive expansion of education should happen before demographic opportunities expire.
Figure 23: Schooling by cohort and for the whole labor force, observed and simulated in Brazil, 1940-2015.
Figure 24: Observed and simulated paths of educational attainment for the whole labor force in Brazil, 1969-2013.
Figure 25: Skill-wage differentials, labor income inequality, and educational expansion in Brazil.
Figure 26: Relative wages and relative net supply of tertiary to high school graduates.
Figure 27: Composition of public social expenditure biased toward social security.
Figure 28: Composition of federal education biased toward tertiary education.
Figure 29: Deficient targeting in educational expenditure, secondary education.
Figure 30: Deficient targeting in educational expenditure, tertiary education.
Figure 31: Tax burden of indirect taxation: equity and efficiency in Brazil, 1996.

Authors and Collaborators

Volume I: Carlos Eduardo Vélez, Francisco H. G. Ferreira, and Ricardo Paes de Barros.
Volume II: Background papers authored by various researchers from IPEA, World Bank, and academic institutions.

Acknowledgments

The report was developed through collaboration between the World Bank and IPEA.
Key contributors include Joachim von Amsberg, François Bourguignon, Gobind Nankani, Vinod Thomas, and others.
The report was influenced by discussions and feedback from various experts and participants at seminars and forums.

展开完整摘要

试读结束，高清完整版pdf/doc/ppt,请点下载