 Thank you very much Tony. It is always a great pleasure for me to be back in Finland and To be in wider both in Finland and wider and I think that I'm particularly pleased because I'm Presenting the results of research which has been supported by wider and Which has been carried out during the last two or three years my presentation. I will present them Those data those results as well as some of the more recent Numbers which have appeared during the last two or three years Now I think that the key point is that this presentation tells a good story like the one that Anceleroneri presented this morning normally in the field of development You always hear about child money nutrition and negative growth rate balance of payment There's equilibrium and all that now this time we have a few good things to say both in terms of what has happened and in terms of policies Now this comes out from this book. There are all these people that participated I think there are some nor is here Dante Contreras is somewhere in the room and Tony participated actively to the project and we have many institutions the central bank of a Salvador Sampal flux or Many universities mainly from Europe and Latin America and the United States Now this is what we want to explain This is a quite a striking chart, which I I've been longing to see for many years but in America has had for Long time a very high income inequality and this is the inheritance of the La Colonia the colonial system so at the fundia and then System of education which was segregated then and so on and so forth now You see that the data start from the early 1980s this is the distribution of net household income per capita and It starts from 1980 and in 1980 was already 49 And then you see that during what we called the lost decade and the period of the Washington consensus basically went up to 51 And then during the subsequent 12 years what the people called the adjusted the augment to Washington consensus It went up again and the peak was 2002 So it went up the old this is the average for the old region excluding Central America is including the Caribbean countries So these are 18 countries. So that that Big rise basically from already high level from almost 49 So more than five points in the case and then we see that with what we call what I call the new policy approach inequality in about 10 years in this case eight years force below the level of the early 80s so One could say what this is a statistical illusion, but we heard this morning from a serenity With very detailed data is not true Nora has produced another volume which came out for it three or four years ago Which confirms that and another is pretty much a consensus on this that now there is a lot of variation And not everybody has improved in the caragua had an increase in inequality in Argentina up to 2010 was that the leader with minus nine genie points from 2002 to 2010 and Now there are some differences South American particularly the connoisseur and so the southern part of Latin America is being doing better than the Central Americans and So there is some variation, but I mean all together in out of 18 countries 15 sure very marked the planning equality Now I want to say well, okay, you know 2002-200 late were good years was growth high international prices and so The decline is due to Favourable world environment Well, first of all, it's quite clear that this is not true because China India many other countries that growth but inequality rose during this Period of bonanza global bonanza, but if I take data for 11 countries because we don't have data for all These countries we say but anyhow, these are the main countries in Tina, but in Brazil Mexico and so on and so forth So basically we see that this decline continues up to 2012 and this morning we heard that in Brazil up to March of this year in a part is continue falling even in 2014 so the debate is is this decline a sort of a Ciclica due to good condition or is it structural and our reply is it is structural Now if you do a statistical test, then if you look at the upper table, you see GDP growth during the 2002-2008 was five percent on average five point four percent for the region and the average yearly decline of Jenny was 0.4 points now during the bad years relatively bad years 2008-2015 the growth rate went down to three point one But the inequality fell even faster and if you take 2009 which is the year in which the American Experienced a contraction basically inequality goes down So if you test it statistically you see that there is basically no relation So that the inequality and growth are orthogonal. So it is not growth. It's something else What is it now this morning? There have been Francois mentioned that I mean there is there is all this debate about the top income and that the need of having Of completing the distribution of income using tax data for Latin America, we have only three countries which have Data for that and so we have three corrected genius. So genius which do take into account information provided by tax returns data and these are Argentina Covering for 2001 2004. So you see that the one corrected is the dotted one and is above and the difference is about six Which is not small but you see that the trend is about the same in Colombia the same desire less and in Uruguay you see that the The distance is less and you see also that the distance starts growing a little bit. So the distance between the uncorrected genius which is this the The straight line and the dotted line is two points in 2009 and almost three in the last year. So and of course, we were very worried because say well, there might be Bias in the data. So we know very well that the house of budget surveys Do not capture the top 1% or the top 10% and so now using Using this type of data Tax returns for these three countries. We see that the trends are in parallel So what am I going to say the conclusions the whole argument is likely to be valid at least on the base for these three countries? Now somebody asked me I think Andrew Berg asked if This is what happens everywhere and you know now there is this book by picket the out which is inequalities rising So there is this general pessimism that inequality is a sort of an unstoppable Phenomenon this is not true for everywhere. This is true in Italy is true in Europe is from the US is true in China and through in India But it's not true in Latin America now here what we did we divided the main regions and we took two periods at nineties and nineties Which are the years of adjustment and Washington consensus and you see for instance, Latin America during this period 14 rises One no change in three three drops So they the 20 years between 80s and 90s where he has characterized in Latin America by an increase in inequality Now you see that during the subsequent ten years more or less the date vary a little bit from region to region As you'll be see that we are 15 falls One no change in two rises We also see that in in the Southeast Asia out of seven countries for for show a falling in equality. This is our South Korea Thailand Malaysia and the other one which I don't remember if you look at Africa Africa There are data for 21 countries now Africa is about 50 countries. So we have data only for 21 countries and we see that more or less We have Off a little more than half which apparently show some decline in equality although the data are not as good as in Latin America And this is a point which certainly requires investigation Now there is a lot of relevance for what for poverty what we did Nora in one of our many papers produced with other with colleagues shows That about 40 percent of the poverty decline which has occurred during the last ten years or so It's not been due to growth, but it's been due to an improvement in distribution So here comes a debate with a UN and then MDG is then MDG number one is reduced poverty enough But they don't say anything about inequality and I think there is a strongest case for the post 2015 goals and part of the CDP so the body which Discusses all that is to include inequality among one of the goals that the country should try to reach So if you are like if you take the case, of course, they are more most important are the countries like they say Bolivia Where poverty fell by 25 25 points, you know And almost 60% of that decline is due to a better distribution So to live in a more equal society is good per se, but it's also important to reach lower poverty now The the last decade is also important because this Reduction in equality basically brings in more more more consensus. This is the Latino barometer. There is also the African barometer barometer and as you see that There is quite a change of the public the public perception of the performance in terms of economy country progress and fairness of the distribution actually deteriorate is between the mid-1990s and 2002 and improves the Iran So in a way there is a recognition by the people and then the political system or that now the question is what explains that and In doing that, I think that there are in the debate that are people saying well is luck Well, you know good global conditions or growth or policies now What I want to say is that basically depends on Public policy decisions some are good some are less good But what we get now to this entangle that we basically is it's quite a complicated problem Because if you use a budget service decomposition, then you miss many other information like exchange rates a public expenditure You miss all the information on public spending, for instance Now if you use macro payments, then you capture some Some information on the one side, but then you lose all the individual characteristics and that so we try to do both There so we started with the composition for six countries in the region Using the standard decomposition, which is that Milanovic or the Lerman and it's a key and I mean I for reason of time I cannot explain you what they are, but basically you take the distribution at two points in time at the beginning at the end and then you see whether the changes are due to changes in the Concentration coefficients of different sources of income or in their own share in total income now Here I reproduce two results for two countries and I reproduce them for Chile and Ecuador and In and we also indicate which is the political regime because man You cannot talk about policies if you don't talk about poly ticks No, and actually you see that in in the yellow part both for Ecuador in Chile These are years of rising inequality. Well, you see that the absolute changes in genie was your plus The absolute changes in genie labor was plus 2.4. The skill premium rose by 34% the skill premium is the ratio of the wages of skilled workers divided by the by the wages of their unskilled workers then for some countries we Look at whether there is a change in the urban rural wage gap And then we have capital incomes public transfers and remittances now So you see that during the last the last decade of the last century basically is all yellow so and then you see that By through this is the composition. You see that the overall genie for instance in Chile falls by minus 4.2 points and In the labor income explains the largest part because it falls by 2.2 points and then we see that the skill premium which explained to a large extent that the change in genie labor is Falling almost by the same amount that in the prior period now the rural urban income is not very important in Chile because Much of the population is urban now and then we look at the other aspect There is very little information on capital income normally in service They account for 2% of total income because the top income basically escaped They're not covered by the service now the public transfers with they are quite quite Equalizing and then the remittances now remittances in Chile are not relevant But in Ecuador they are quite relevant Ecuador at some point after the crisis of 2002-2003 don't remember there was a massive wave of migrants. They went to Spain Europe Italy and so on so forth So if I look at the decomposition I can conclude that genie fell during the last 10 years labor income You see explains even more than the total genie fall the The rural urban gap is Variable in doing that public transfers have been equalizing and remittances have been equalizing now here There are another types of the decomposition Which is part of our volume so now these are based on service So you have labor income pension transfers and other non-labor incomes, which means remittances and capital income and you see that The decline in inequality in labor income explains 60 70% for this six countries of The total decline in income and then you see that pensions there is a huge variability so it depends how the pension systems are designed and you see that broadly they've explained about 20% and Public cash transfers or like both as caller again that captures some 20% and other non-labor incomes A small amount with exception of Paraguay now These are the growth incidence curve of labor and this is why the main explanations of why genie falls because as we saw for the case of Brazil This Argentine and Chile the variation of really our early wages in between say during the first decade of this century and you see that the wages of the bottom People I mean the poor people rise much faster than the richer people Now what explains that and I think here we try to list all the factors I think that there are many factors and I think as far as I know it's very very difficult to provide the conclusive Answer I mean the decline in returns for education The skilled premium basically could be two many factors one is the rising in red is the rising supply of skilled labor Do you do to hire public spending on education? now perhaps the demand for Skill labor stagnates during the last decade I mean so the modernization of the economy like computers the machine tools and so on so forth That might have occurred earlier on Now all there is the argument worsening Quality of higher education now there is a high demand for unskilled labor because they mean some countries like Argentina at some point Basically what the regimes adopted the competitive exchange rate which shifted labor from the services sector to agriculture Okay, so agriculture is much more unskilled labor intensive So the macroeconomic policy can affect the demand for unskilled labor then one another point which was again mentioned this morning by Marcelo Neri which now with an increase in schooling migration and the amount of and demographic decline basically The supply of unskilled labor rises less less quickly So the finding of the composition for the six six six six case studies basically Decline in the skill premium most likely due to rising supply of skilled labor Although we know not the entire story Then we find out a fact that is not mentioned so far a decline in the rural urban wage gap Now why this occurs mean we have only two or three cases. Well Honduras There are two or three countries to show that one is that if you have a competitive exchange rate Basically you shift the labor towards the tradable sector and agriculture is one of them is in many countries is still an important sector Now the second one is that world agricultural prices have risen And so the returns to agriculture have risen and therefore wages in agriculture has increased then of course We have the social an increase in social assistance transfers Which was permitted because these were financing or in a non-inflationary way Basically due to higher ink to a higher taxation and better spending and better targeting then we have remittances now remittances You know in the literature they are considered to be Inequalizing I mean until recently remittances so there is the hump theory of migration So the people who migrate are the middle class because migration is private So you have to pay ten thousand dollar to the coyotes who take it to the United States and Now we do see for the case of El Salvador, which is a country where 35 percent of GDP is migrant remittances GNP sorry, so you see that remittances The blue line is is including remittances and the pink line is excluding them So you see that remittances in 2000 reducing community quality but genie by three points and in the last year by six points So one could argue that perhaps migration should be one of the future development policy Now, okay here We know something about the what we call the immediate causes of inequality decline But then the question is it what are the underlying factors and this inequality decline and to look at that We discuss it first in theory then we do a regression analysis and we say luck luck is Fair role external condition more trade remittances finance and all that second growth Thirdly exogenous changes in dependence in participation rate, which we don't discuss because they are not significant basically Then we look at the new policy model which touches upon macro labor tax after education social transfer Now I think that as far as the luck is concerned in terms of trade roles Therefore there was an income effect and the balance of payment effect The magnet remittances rose for certain countries and there was a financial bonanza for a number of years Now what are the distributive effect of for instance an improvement in terms of trade? Well, I think there will be a general effect due to the income effect But the distributive effect is negative because if the copper price rise, I mean the copper production is very capital intensive It's not they were intensive So all the mining countries of the endless basically they should have seen their own income distribution Primary income distribution wasn't now of course if the government tax the rents and then then of course they can be used Effectively now in the financial sector the increase in financial flows as it benefited the small and medium enterprises No, because there is not been financial innovation or very little of that So basically more finance went to the to the big guys which received finance before so what? the direct effect we think is unequalizing Now the interactive fact is that okay? You have an income effect and you may really you may lessen the balance of payment constraint to growth and therefore So altogether exempt that we say well, they shouldn't be a major force in equal equalization Growth we already saw that before growth that if you just do a simple bivariate relation growth is The coefficient of the growth effect is basically a non-significant and in You don't need to rely too much on numbers. I mean I think that Try to think China is the fastest growing country is also the country with the fastest growing inequality India is growing very much and you know what is all very much So it's not the rate of growth which matters, but the pattern of growth which matters now So do we have deliberate policy changes? Well, I think that is important to look at the history of Latin American during the last 20 years I lived in Chile with general Pinochet and the general Pinochet and so I experienced personally the Life under this type of regimes and fortunately region returns to democracy since the 80s and 90s then there is a democratic consolidation there is a Growing the satisfaction with the Washington consensus policies, you know This Latino barometer is a very useful tool and then there is gradually a shift towards the center like regimes which and the Can can Roberts who wrote the Political chapters in our volume basically said it is not that everybody's become a socialist But basically is it's not an ideological realignment, but basically people vote it with their own pockets and of course if you have regimes which are more inclined to listen to The voices coming from the poor perhaps that they will introduce policies which are consistent with that and then there are policies Belovis perhaps even Colombia even Mexico, which are beginning and center-right governments now I Think with us keep this one now look this is the most striking thing since 1998 the red one are the center-left regime the Center-rights are the blue line and The black line of the center government you see that there is a total shift in political regimes and Without that I I'm not sure that things would have changed much in Latin America And I think this is a debate which is very important in Europe in this moment because the Certain different political forces they favor different policies for instance in Germany you talk to Schultz you say is very different things and Merkel Now if we look at how much inequality has fallen by type of regimes and Per year first we do it per period by the period could be three years or seven years So you have to standardize by the number of years turns out that the radical left like Venezuela Bolivia Basically ever declined by half a point of during their own regime not when they run now They the more efficient one seems to be the social democracy in Brazil or why Argentina Peru perhaps The centrists also have a cinema and then the interesting thing is that even the center-right regimes or never to have a small decline in Equality more a small one Now what is this new model the new model is I think that this morning? I even from Marcelo in here much about macro economics And I think that when we talk about inequality we should talk about Distribution first and then redistribution later and I think that the main topics I mean the main effect of the good macro economic policies is to change the market distribution of income So what are the the policies which have been introduced? What is this new macro model? Well, first of all is a hybrid model. So it's and I think that the Bresa Pereira in Brazil has been arguing for this structuralist macroeconomics He in which the macro economy is development oriented. It's not only to balance the books So we have prudent budgets. I mean if we if we European are looking at the budgetary numbers in Latin America We are we have dreamy eyes, you know in 2006-2007 the region basically had the total surplus not the primary surplus the total surplus And then we have a progressive tax an active and progressive tax policy which raised the taxation by three to nine points of GDP And we have an increase in public expenditure We are counter cyclical monitoring fiscal policies and there is an attempt to have a competitive real exchange rate Now a real exchange rate basically shifts resources to the trader sector and away from the unpaid the sector so if the Trader sector is unskilled labor intensive then just by that you are improving the distribution of income Now then the other thing which is very important in this world affected by this crazy finance is basically that much better prevention regulations of domestic banks and There is an author Liliana Riojas as well as worse in CGD was written many papers on that and many people have argued for They missing financial crisis in Latin America There's America so many financial crisis, but now no more Now the trade regime has been a change and then there have been changes in the international financing you can see Just what that really happened. I won't perhaps I canceled them Now labor market policies also important for affecting the primary distribution of income not not the redistribution Well, there is it first of all there is a Again what Marcelo mentioned this morning. There is an increase in the job formalization You know during the 80s and 90s I mean there has been a massive increase in the number of people working the informal sector now This is not particularly good for the for income distribution and here during the last decade. You have the opposite movement Then you have more work inspection and for against informal employment. You have recent realization wage bargaining Which tends to flatten the distribution of wages then you have a rise in minimum wages which I mean just look at Brazil I mean real wages have these are real so you see that If two thousand is equal to 100 the main Brazil now is doubled by 2010 and probably by now triple the real minimum wage and so all the yellow one that very very large increases and the countries that they did not increase minimum wages but Not I told me that they're about to do that now is Mexico So minimum wages and our minimum wage is the fact the primary distribution of income So it's not a form of redistribution is the point you operate on market incomes now tax policy here, too Basically, I remember one night. I did a paper not 20 or 30 years ago I remember that in Argentina the income tax represents something like 1% to 1.5% of GDP and Something unbelievable now during the If you take the neoliberal revolution basically the tax GDP ratio basically has fallen by 1.5 points And if you look at the the tax effort and during the 2000 there's been a very large increase On average the region has increased tax GDP ratio by about 3-4 points You should have a picture here. You see so this is Latin America talks about 15 16 percent before then of course there is Falling taxation because of the crisis of 91 So you go back to steady state in a way to 1998 but then since then there is an increase in about three points and And Now why is taxation particularly useful? Well taxation first of all permits you to Follow a budgetary policy with no inflation Now if you have inflation this then then you will have a crisis. We live in macro instability now a second taxation allows you to have a counter cyclical macroeconomic policy and Allows you to raise the bolster scholar the opportunity that is which are very important Now I think that is also important First I'll show you this one to look at tax incidents. So there has been a very large I mean a substantial increase is still not sufficient, but an increase in income tax Particularly corporate income tax, but also a little bit in personal income tax Uruguay for instance during the 80s and 90s had completely abolished personal income tax now they're introduced it So this is the Reynolds-Molensky index which basically tells you what is the difference of the distribution of incomes Before taxation and after taxation. So when it's negative, it means that taxation is regressive and when it's positive that is progressive So here is these are detailed studies done in the region and you see that in the 90s The sign is almost everywhere minus which means taxation was done through excises value added tax and so on support Now during the 2000 you see that with exception of a Salvador and Nura's The taxation is either progressive or mildly progressive And if you take the difference between the two you see that the changes in tax incidents basically is going in the right direction So taxation is it the former distribution? Well, perhaps, but Is an important point now people could say well, okay now the reason why government the race tax GDP ratio is because Commodity prices went up and so that there was a bigger taxation. First of all out of 18 countries There are six which basically receive a substantial revenue from the commodity sector now if you take this one Is a sort of a correlation between international terms of trade? So if they go up it means your government receive rents And for all the 18 18 countries and tax revenue So these are terms of trade and tax revenue If you do it for 1990 2007 the correlation coefficient is 0.18. So nothing now If you do it only for the major commodity exporters which are here We include that even those were semi a semi big exporters now medium exporters So you see that it goes up a little bit and only for non tax revenue, which means royalties Okay, so basically there has been an effect of royalties, but there's been a much broader effort on taxation Now public social expenditure. This is gone up now Just look at the percentage of public expenses average from the region public expenditure on education on GDP 2.8 Then 95 3.3 2004 0 2010 for 4.4. So there's been a steady increase Even before the new regime came in in the public expenditure on education, which means that for every child 014 you see the public spending in constant in constant prices is 320 511 756 1.4. So a multiplication by four times 10 minutes. Okay. Now, this is if you do a decomposition because you can say well, okay Now in Latin America, there is a decline in birth rates So fewer children smaller courts than the the schooling system and then there has been growth So so of course if you have more growth even if you apply the same expenditure get more money So the sparrion and cruises basically they decompose it and it appears that 50% is a growth effect 16% is a court effect, but 33% is public policy effect So at least in part this is due to public policy now This is allowed large increase in second education where there has been a lot of improvements So the blue bars for every country for the various period analyzed and then the red bar Basically they indicate to the Q5 Q1 gap so to see whether the children of the top 20% divided by the The ratio of the the children of the top 20% So basically you see that almost everywhere this falls Which means that in the end also the children of the of the poor go to second education and this is a factor explaining the Explaining the decline in the Wage gap why well because the supply of people with at least second education skills has increased Now here there is the association between public expenditure and fall in the education in the gene education Which is the distribution of years of education in the labor force and you see there is again a major decline Now social assistance I can say very few things because it is quite accepted the conditional cash transfers or other transfers Basically they cost about 0.5 to 1% of GDP and then we also have quite large pure transfers and non-contributory pensions so now the question is we I think that they still to be debated is Are the minimum wages and are the non-contributory pensions Equally important or more important the CCT that it will vary the answer will vary from country to country now here is how much the pal calculates the the The the genie points the client due to the welfare transfers now and this is a nice chart by Last senior alustig that basically if you go from market income is he takes Brazil and so market income. This is for Latter part of the 2000s for the genius point 79 then after taxation goes down by one point point point four Then you have transfers and then of course if you impute what the government gives to people in terms of subsidized education subsidized health and so on and so forth basically see the genie goes down by 14 points So so the net effect of fiscal operation can be quite large Now what did this policy model not to because now we have saying being saying a lot of good things So now we have to say something bad also to the Brazilian politicians now first of all land I mean now Lula promised to give land to the same taha four million families was not given. I went to Paraguay Same what the mala same so so no broader asset redistribution accept education Then in that's your policy no industrial policy and I think that there are many people fearing reprimarization of export now Brazil exports exported the airplane the Embraer airplane I flew from Frankfurt to here, but I'm told that now Soja is the main item in the balance of payment So perhaps the region should reconsider that now a broader power sharing Well, that isn't now and then reduce dependence on foreign finance and now there is this This general idea that if you want to increase investment rate actually must be some Mutual fund or some equity fund and that now so in in the end what people argue is that there has been a sort of a Social democratization of Latin America Latin America follows Europe at least the richer part of Latin America And I think there is I since I'm pretty much convinced with all the doubts that Bourguignon express I think that the European way to this to distribution distribution is okay But there is no a radical Paradigm shift and the question is if you go to what the Marla if you go to Bolivia the issue of the land and other countries in the region remains crucial Now we did regression analysis all that I don't have time to explain to you But basically the regression analysis confirms that that the first block are there Sorry Okay, these are the global the global factors first three basically they're not particularly relevant So the gains in terms of trade. They're not been equalizing Mining remittances. They're not equalizing except where remittances exceed 10% of GDP The FDF the foreign direct investment the reason I extremely Disequalizing because they are being basically in the mining sector So and if you think that Chile Peru this kind of they throw out 10% of GDP in terms of the profit remittances now GDP growth is In modestly equalizing the increase in human capital formation, which means education as a huge egalitarian impact the real exchange rate the changes in a real exchange rate from fixed peg in the past to a more competitive exchange rate on the road with many problem basically as Produces effect when the governments are able to control it Minimum wages cut sizably genie tax rises were affected the distribution favorably public expenditure on social security and democracy now Those who are now a few challenges for what remains in the past first of all, I think that Structure reforms this remains on the agenda. We want we want Latin America to continue the client because after A five or six point the client for the average the client for the region They are still among the highest in the world So one there is a still an issue of asset access to assets in several countries then dependence on foreign finance I mean, I wouldn't want to bet my the future of my own government on the decision taken in New York Then I would avoid the reprimarization of Exports that I mean, I think that country should continue evolving towards manufacturing the normal evolution Then now can we deepen these reforms? Yes. I mean, I think that in the second education There's been a lot of success But there is a problem of the quality of second education the poor go to public schools and they have children of the family They go to private schools. So they have easy access to university education And I think that if we look at the situation of Chile where Bachelet was elected on an agenda We're saying I will broaden the access to education to tertiary education by the children of the poor is quite important Now if one wants to finance all this basically one needs to Continue raising taxation but not everywhere not in Argentina not in Brazil because the tax burden is very high Is higher than in Spain in the UK and in similar to the US So if you look if you take a norm so this log of GDP per capita You see that the red dots are about the norm. They are Brazil Argentina and Nicaragua All the others are below So I think that we calculated it with that basically there is the region should raise taxi depuration by about three points Now finally this and this is the last chart Tony I think that it is important that to raise taxation is very important for various reasons because if you use income tax or Progressive indirect taxes you can improve the distribution But for all regions for the advanced countries for the Eastern European countries for the emerging economies and from Latin America 80 percent about 80 percent of their distribution comes through expenditure So taxation explains about 20 percent of the improvement in the final Distribution income now of course if you want to spend more money then you need to raise taxes. So Thank you very much