Free market capitalism and societal inequities: Assessing the effects of economic freedom on income inequality and the equity of access to opportunity, 1990–2017

IF 2.3 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE International Political Science Review Pub Date : 2021-11-15 DOI:10.1177/01925121211039985
Indra de Soysa, K. Vadlamannati
{"title":"Free market capitalism and societal inequities: Assessing the effects of economic freedom on income inequality and the equity of access to opportunity, 1990–2017","authors":"Indra de Soysa, K. Vadlamannati","doi":"10.1177/01925121211039985","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Some blame free-market capitalism for increasing income inequality, arguing that richer classes could block access to others for maintaining their privileges. By manipulating the degree of political rights and resources available to others, the rich could reduce opportunities for others. Others argue that growth-promoting free markets raise all incomes, increasing aggregate welfare. We argue that governments more dependent on free markets are likely to focus on increasing access to human capital, thereby narrowing the gap between the rich and poor by increasing opportunities, even if income inequality rises with high growth. We assess the issue by examining the effects of an Index of Economic Freedom on income inequality measured by the standardized GINI and measures of the equity of access to quality schooling, health, and justice covering 128 developing countries during the 1990–2017 period. Our results show that, even if economic freedom is associated with higher income inequality, it also associates robustly with access to opportunity. Our results are robust to alternative models, sample size, and testing methods, including instrumental variables analyzes addressing potential endogeneity bias. Our results, taken together, do not suggest that growth-promoting economic freedoms hamper future progress by raising inequalities—on the contrary, economic freedoms promote equity of access to opportunities—findings inconsistent with the view that governments under free-market conditions are easily captured by the wealthy, who then block equitable access to public goods.","PeriodicalId":47785,"journal":{"name":"International Political Science Review","volume":"44 1","pages":"471 - 491"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Political Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121211039985","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Some blame free-market capitalism for increasing income inequality, arguing that richer classes could block access to others for maintaining their privileges. By manipulating the degree of political rights and resources available to others, the rich could reduce opportunities for others. Others argue that growth-promoting free markets raise all incomes, increasing aggregate welfare. We argue that governments more dependent on free markets are likely to focus on increasing access to human capital, thereby narrowing the gap between the rich and poor by increasing opportunities, even if income inequality rises with high growth. We assess the issue by examining the effects of an Index of Economic Freedom on income inequality measured by the standardized GINI and measures of the equity of access to quality schooling, health, and justice covering 128 developing countries during the 1990–2017 period. Our results show that, even if economic freedom is associated with higher income inequality, it also associates robustly with access to opportunity. Our results are robust to alternative models, sample size, and testing methods, including instrumental variables analyzes addressing potential endogeneity bias. Our results, taken together, do not suggest that growth-promoting economic freedoms hamper future progress by raising inequalities—on the contrary, economic freedoms promote equity of access to opportunities—findings inconsistent with the view that governments under free-market conditions are easily captured by the wealthy, who then block equitable access to public goods.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自由市场资本主义和社会不平等:评估经济自由对收入不平等和机会公平的影响,1990-2017
一些人指责自由市场资本主义加剧了收入不平等,认为富裕阶层为了维护自己的特权,可能会阻止其他人接触到他们。通过操纵他人享有的政治权利和资源的程度,富人可以减少他人的机会。其他人则认为促进增长的自由市场提高了所有人的收入,增加了总福利。我们认为,更依赖自由市场的政府可能会专注于增加获得人力资本的机会,从而通过增加机会来缩小贫富差距,即使收入不平等随着高增长而加剧。我们通过检查经济自由指数对收入不平等的影响来评估这一问题,该指数由标准化的GINI衡量,并衡量了1990年至2017年期间128个发展中国家获得优质教育、健康和司法的公平性。我们的研究结果表明,即使经济自由与更高的收入不平等有关,它也与获得机会密切相关。我们的结果对于替代模型、样本量和测试方法都是稳健的,包括解决潜在内生性偏差的工具变量分析。综合来看,我们的研究结果并不表明促进增长的经济自由会增加不平等,从而阻碍未来的进步——相反,经济自由会促进获得机会的公平——这一发现与自由市场条件下的政府容易被富人控制的观点不一致,而富人又会阻碍对公共产品的公平获取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: IPSR is committed to publishing material that makes a significant contribution to international political science. It seeks to meet the needs of political scientists throughout the world who are interested in studying political phenomena in the contemporary context of increasing international interdependence and global change. IPSR reflects the aims and intellectual tradition of its parent body, the International Political Science Association: to foster the creation and dissemination of rigorous political inquiry free of subdisciplinary or other orthodoxy.
期刊最新文献
Does municipal amalgamation affect trust in local politicians? The case of Norway The revenge of ‘democratic peace’ Behind the technocratic challenge: Old and new alternatives to party government in Italy The deepest foundation of our democratic crisis Don’t put a ring on it: Gender stereotypes in citizens’ preferences for executive positions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1