Asian Economic Policy Review最新文献_第10页

Comment on “Siamese Twin Failures: Structural and Regulatory Transformations in Unequal Thailand” 评“暹罗双胞胎的失败：不平等的泰国的结构和监管变革”

IF 3.9 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2022-09-05 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.12406

Pasuk Phongpaichit

Kanchoochat (2022) takes an institutional approach to explaining the persistence of inequality, poverty, and low growth rates in Thailand over recent decades. He focuses on two institutional transformations: a “structural transformation,” meaning a move away from agriculture, and a “regulatory transformation,” meaning efficiency-enhancing reforms in public administration, decentralization, anti-monopoly policies, and taxation. Kanchoochat argues that the high-growth countries of East Asia, especially Taiwan and South Korea, achieved these two transformations, resulting in higher growth and declining inequality, while Thailand has failed. This is a succinct, elegant, and original approach to an important issue.On the structural transformation, Kanchoochat has excellent charts showing the extent of Thailand's failure compared to other Asian countries to move people out of agriculture and to improve productivity. He attributes this failure to two causes: government subsidies of inefficient agriculture, especially since the 1990s, and the continuing role of the farm as a form of social security in the absence of state provision. He suggests that ending subsidies and constructing a comprehensive social security system would overcome the problem. While I would welcome these reforms, I doubt they would achieve a “transformation,” because I think other factors are important in sustaining this inefficient agricultural sector. Most important of all, access to and use of land, the single most important input into agricultural production, is still lumbered with many restrictions. Around 60% of land is still ultimately controlled by government. Large areas are not available for economic use, and others have restrictions on their use (Cripps, 2020). Without a far-reaching reform of the tenure system, the potential of agriculture will not be realized. Another restraining factor is the very low rate of public investment in agriculture over the long term.On the regulatory transformation, Kanchoochat shows how moves toward democratization, decentralization, and progressive polices on tax and competition foundered on the intransigence of the “traditional elite,” meaning the military, and segments of the bureaucracy, professions, and politically connected entrepreneurs. This alliance created a new institutional framework featuring appointed bodies and the judicial system which blocked or reversed reforms. Kanchoochat argues that change requires a larger role for electoral institutions and a “new social contract” under which citizens will agree to pay more tax and entrepreneurs will be happy with less monopoly. But it is not clear what social forces might drive such changes.Kanchoochat, following North, Aoki, and others, argues that institutions are created by human will to form a stable structure for the conduct of everyday life. According to this definition, institutions are susceptible to change but there is a tend

Kanchoochat（2022）采用了一种制度方法来解释泰国近几十年来持续存在的不平等、贫困和低增长率。他重点关注两个制度转型：一个是“结构转型”，意味着远离农业；另一个是《监管转型》，意味着提高公共行政、权力下放、反垄断政策和税收效率的改革。Kanchoochat认为，东亚的高增长国家，尤其是台湾和韩国，实现了这两个转变，导致了更高的增长和不断减少的不平等，而泰国却失败了。这是对一个重要问题的简洁、优雅和新颖的处理方法。关于结构转型，Kanchoochat有很好的图表显示了与其他亚洲国家相比，泰国在将人们从农业中转移出来和提高生产力方面的失败程度。他将这一失败归因于两个原因：政府对低效农业的补贴，特别是自20世纪90年代以来，以及在没有国家规定的情况下，农场作为一种社会保障形式的持续作用。他建议，终止补贴和建立一个全面的社会保障体系将克服这个问题。虽然我欢迎这些改革，但我怀疑它们能否实现“转型”，因为我认为其他因素对维持这个低效的农业部门很重要。最重要的是，作为农业生产最重要的一项投入，土地的获取和使用仍然受到许多限制。大约60%的土地最终仍由政府控制。大片地区不可用于经济用途，其他地区对其使用有限制（Cripps，2020）。如果不对土地保有制度进行意义深远的改革，农业的潜力将无法实现。另一个制约因素是长期来看农业公共投资率非常低。关于监管转型，Kanchoochat展示了民主化、权力下放以及税收和竞争方面的进步政策是如何在“传统精英”（即军队、官僚机构、职业和有政治关系的企业家）的顽固态度下失败的。这个联盟建立了一个新的体制框架，其特点是任命机构和司法系统阻碍或逆转了改革。Kanchoochat认为，变革需要选举机构发挥更大的作用，需要一种“新的社会契约”，根据这种契约，公民将同意缴纳更多的税，企业家将乐于减少垄断。但目前尚不清楚是什么社会力量推动了这种变化。继诺斯、青木和其他人之后，Kanchoochat认为，制度是由人类意志创造的，以形成日常生活的稳定结构。根据这一定义，制度容易发生变化，但“一个自我维持的共同信仰体系”有一种趋势，阻碍了对未能履行职责的制度的改革。我主要担心的是，将机构视为关键参与者的解释引出了一个问题，即是什么社会力量塑造了这些机构，以及什么社会力量可能会改变这种情况。简言之，什么能扰乱“传统精英”的主导地位？他们似乎很乐意生活在效率低下的农业部门、效率低下的国家和高度不平等的环境中？

{"title":"Comment on “Siamese Twin Failures: Structural and Regulatory Transformations in Unequal Thailand”","authors":"Pasuk Phongpaichit","doi":"10.1111/aepr.12406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.12406","url":null,"abstract":"Kanchoochat (2022) takes an institutional approach to explaining the persistence of inequality, poverty, and low growth rates in Thailand over recent decades. He focuses on two institutional transformations: a “structural transformation,” meaning a move away from agriculture, and a “regulatory transformation,” meaning efficiency-enhancing reforms in public administration, decentralization, anti-monopoly policies, and taxation. Kanchoochat argues that the high-growth countries of East Asia, especially Taiwan and South Korea, achieved these two transformations, resulting in higher growth and declining inequality, while Thailand has failed. This is a succinct, elegant, and original approach to an important issue.On the structural transformation, Kanchoochat has excellent charts showing the extent of Thailand's failure compared to other Asian countries to move people out of agriculture and to improve productivity. He attributes this failure to two causes: government subsidies of inefficient agriculture, especially since the 1990s, and the continuing role of the farm as a form of social security in the absence of state provision. He suggests that ending subsidies and constructing a comprehensive social security system would overcome the problem. While I would welcome these reforms, I doubt they would achieve a “transformation,” because I think other factors are important in sustaining this inefficient agricultural sector. Most important of all, access to and use of land, the single most important input into agricultural production, is still lumbered with many restrictions. Around 60% of land is still ultimately controlled by government. Large areas are not available for economic use, and others have restrictions on their use (Cripps, 2020). Without a far-reaching reform of the tenure system, the potential of agriculture will not be realized. Another restraining factor is the very low rate of public investment in agriculture over the long term.On the regulatory transformation, Kanchoochat shows how moves toward democratization, decentralization, and progressive polices on tax and competition foundered on the intransigence of the “traditional elite,” meaning the military, and segments of the bureaucracy, professions, and politically connected entrepreneurs. This alliance created a new institutional framework featuring appointed bodies and the judicial system which blocked or reversed reforms. Kanchoochat argues that change requires a larger role for electoral institutions and a “new social contract” under which citizens will agree to pay more tax and entrepreneurs will be happy with less monopoly. But it is not clear what social forces might drive such changes.Kanchoochat, following North, Aoki, and others, argues that institutions are created by human will to form a stable structure for the conduct of everyday life. According to this definition, institutions are susceptible to change but there is a tend","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"69-70"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2022-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.12406","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50122513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Comment on “How Inequality Affects Trust in Institutions: Evidence from Indonesia” 关于“不平等如何影响对制度的信任：来自印度尼西亚的证据”的评论

IF 3.9 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2022-08-24 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.12405

Hal Hill

Suryahadi et al. (2022) is an ambitious and innovative paper. Highlighting the importance of trust as a key ingredient in the process of economic and political development, the authors examine the impact of inequality on trust, and by extension institutions, at the village and district levels in Indonesia.The paper has several distinctive features. First, the authors carefully disaggregate the concept of institutions, into economic, social, and political (“the state”) dimensions, plausibly conjecturing that each of these may have different behavioral relationships to the key variables of interest. Second, the analysis is also geographically disaggregated. This adds richness to the study given that Indonesia is the world's largest archipelagic state. Third, they introduce an intermediate variable in the analysis, education, finding that more highly educated individuals' trust in the political and state institutions is more sensitive to higher inequality.The authors' main conclusions are reassuring. In general, the levels of trust are high (Suryahadi et al.'s figures 2 and 3), in some cases arguably higher than might have been expected, and mostly rising. Not surprisingly, trust is particularly high for social ties. Evidently, the village respondents are least trusting only toward “strangers.” Financial institutions enjoy high trust; one might surmise that the absence of any major bank crashes in Indonesia this century might contribute to this finding. Trust in governments and the civil service is very high, approaching 80% in 2018. This is perhaps a little unexpected given the endless “coffee shop” discussions of corruption. Nevertheless, in discussing their figure 5 the authors add an important qualifier, that “lower trust does not pertain to political institutions like elections or the parliament, but more on state apparatus.”The exceptions to the conclusion of high trust include that across religious communities, not a major surprise in view of the country's occasional religious tensions, and some decline in the press and media, which is a global phenomenon in this era of proliferating “fake news.”The finding that trust is comparatively high is also of interest given Indonesia's inequality outcomes. Historically expenditure inequality was moderately low, but it has risen significantly for much of this century. Not surprisingly, therefore, the authors conclude that keeping inequality “in check” is important for healthy institutional development.I have several comments on this fine paper, which might be explored in future work on the subject. First, it would be interesting to set out some analytical “priors,” of what one might hypothesize to be the likely relationships. For example, Indonesia has had episodes of quite serious conflict over the past 50 years, including ongoing unrest in the two Papua provinces (which presumably were not in the survey). But they have generally been co

Suryahadi等人（2022）是一篇雄心勃勃的创新论文。作者强调了信任作为经济和政治发展过程中的一个关键因素的重要性，研究了不平等对印度尼西亚乡村和地区信任的影响，以及对信任制度的影响。首先，作者仔细地将制度的概念分解为经济、社会和政治（“国家”）维度，似乎推测每一个维度可能与感兴趣的关键变量有不同的行为关系。第二，分析也是按地域分类的。鉴于印度尼西亚是世界上最大的群岛国家，这为研究增加了丰富性。第三，他们在分析中引入了一个中间变量，即教育，发现受过高等教育的个人对政治和国家机构的信任对更高的不平等更敏感。作者的主要结论令人放心。总的来说，信任水平很高（Suryahadi等人的图2和图3），在某些情况下可以说比预期的要高，而且大多在上升。毫不奇怪，对社会关系的信任度特别高。显然，农村受访者最不信任“陌生人”。金融机构享有高度信任；有人可能会猜测，本世纪印尼没有发生任何重大银行倒闭事件，这可能是这一发现的原因之一。对政府和公务员的信任度非常高，2018年接近80%。考虑到无休止的“咖啡店”腐败讨论，这可能有点出乎意料。尽管如此，在讨论他们的图5时，作者添加了一个重要的限定词，即“较低的信任度与选举或议会等政治机构无关，而更多地与国家机构有关。”高度信任结论的例外情况包括跨宗教社区的信任，鉴于该国偶尔的宗教紧张局势，以及新闻和媒体的衰落，在这个“假新闻”泛滥的时代，这是一种全球现象。鉴于印尼的不平等结果，信任度相对较高的发现也令人感兴趣。从历史上看，支出不平等程度较低，但在本世纪的大部分时间里都在显著上升。因此，毫不奇怪，作者得出结论，“控制”不平等对健康的制度发展很重要。我对这篇优秀的论文有几点意见，可以在今后关于这一主题的工作中加以探讨。首先，列出一些分析性的“先验”会很有趣，人们可能会假设这是可能的关系。例如，印度尼西亚在过去50年中发生了相当严重的冲突几年来，包括巴布亚两个省持续的动乱（可能不在调查中）。但它们总体上得到了控制，此外，报告的犯罪水平相当低。顺便说一句，冲突和犯罪这两个变量都可以作为中间变量引入分析中。此外，据推测，印度尼西亚在民主时代，即从1999年起，成功地举行了五次全国选举，其过程和结果大多是可信的，地方选举也是如此（在大多数情况下），这也为记录在案的高度信任提供了初步的支持。即使人们对各级政府的领导层感到不满，他们也知道他们可以在下次选举中投票淘汰他们（就像他们经常做的那样）。甚至可以推断，高信任水平是印度尼西亚在没有对其政治和社会结构造成重大压力的情况下应对新冠肺炎危机的一个因素。在这种情况下，作者记录说，新冠肺炎疫情加剧了印度尼西亚的不平等，尤其是非正规部门的工人。但总体而言，影响相对温和，重要的是，新冠肺炎约三分之二的负面影响通过政府的社会保护计划得到缓解。联系到论文的中心主题，他们可能想强调，这一重大成就可能是一个增强信任的结果，自20世纪70年代以来，除了亚洲金融危机期间，贫困人口几乎持续减少。第二组问题与世界价值调查（WVS）数据有关，这些数据用于生成论文最原始的实证贡献。印尼WVS数据是从对3200名成年人的采访中获得的，这些成年人在地理上分散，还根据教育、性别、年龄和地点（城市/农村）进行了识别。对于那些没有使用WVS数据的人（比如这位评论家）来说，对其起源和结构进行一些简短的评论会很有帮助。

{"title":"Comment on “How Inequality Affects Trust in Institutions: Evidence from Indonesia”","authors":"Hal Hill","doi":"10.1111/aepr.12405","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.12405","url":null,"abstract":"Suryahadi et al. (2022) is an ambitious and innovative paper. Highlighting the importance of trust as a key ingredient in the process of economic and political development, the authors examine the impact of inequality on trust, and by extension institutions, at the village and district levels in Indonesia.The paper has several distinctive features. First, the authors carefully disaggregate the concept of institutions, into economic, social, and political (“the state”) dimensions, plausibly conjecturing that each of these may have different behavioral relationships to the key variables of interest. Second, the analysis is also geographically disaggregated. This adds richness to the study given that Indonesia is the world's largest archipelagic state. Third, they introduce an intermediate variable in the analysis, education, finding that more highly educated individuals' trust in the political and state institutions is more sensitive to higher inequality.The authors' main conclusions are reassuring. In general, the levels of trust are high (Suryahadi et al.'s figures 2 and 3), in some cases arguably higher than might have been expected, and mostly rising. Not surprisingly, trust is particularly high for social ties. Evidently, the village respondents are least trusting only toward “strangers.” Financial institutions enjoy high trust; one might surmise that the absence of any major bank crashes in Indonesia this century might contribute to this finding. Trust in governments and the civil service is very high, approaching 80% in 2018. This is perhaps a little unexpected given the endless “coffee shop” discussions of corruption. Nevertheless, in discussing their figure 5 the authors add an important qualifier, that “lower trust does not pertain to political institutions like elections or the parliament, but more on state apparatus.”The exceptions to the conclusion of high trust include that across religious communities, not a major surprise in view of the country's occasional religious tensions, and some decline in the press and media, which is a global phenomenon in this era of proliferating “fake news.”The finding that trust is comparatively high is also of interest given Indonesia's inequality outcomes. Historically expenditure inequality was moderately low, but it has risen significantly for much of this century. Not surprisingly, therefore, the authors conclude that keeping inequality “in check” is important for healthy institutional development.I have several comments on this fine paper, which might be explored in future work on the subject. First, it would be interesting to set out some analytical “priors,” of what one might hypothesize to be the likely relationships. For example, Indonesia has had episodes of quite serious conflict over the past 50 years, including ongoing unrest in the two Papua provinces (which presumably were not in the survey). But they have generally been co","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"92-94"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2022-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.12405","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50153864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Social Justice and Affirmative Action in Malaysia: The New Economic Policy after 50 Years 马来西亚的社会正义与平权行动：50年后的新经济政策年

IF 3.9 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2022-08-17 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.12404

Hwok-Aun Lee

Malaysia's New Economic Policy (NEP), promulgated in 1971, established a two-pronged national social justice agenda of poverty reduction, and social restructuring or pro-Bumiputera affirmative action. This distinction of these policy objectives must be appreciated, but various misconceptions, especially regarding affirmative action, have resulted in polarization and stalemate after 50 years of the NEP. Social justice and affirmative action must be conceptualized and evaluated with clarity and rigor, with policy objectives, mechanisms and outcomes aligned. Malaysia needs to systematically formulate a new social justice paradigm, building on the NEP and anchored on the principles of equality and fairness. In the affirmative action sphere, this framework must focus on developing capability and competitiveness, and balance identity, need and merit in the allocation of opportunity.

马来西亚1971年颁布的《新经济政策》确立了一项双管齐下的国家社会正义议程，即减贫和社会重组或支持土著人的平权行动。必须认识到这些政策目标之间的区别，但各种误解，特别是关于平权行动的误解，导致了50年后的两极分化和僵局《国家环境政策》的年份。社会正义和平权行动必须以清晰和严谨的方式进行概念化和评估，政策目标、机制和结果必须保持一致。马来西亚需要系统地制定一种新的社会正义模式，以《国家环境政策》为基础，以平等和公平原则为基础。在平权行动领域，这一框架必须侧重于发展能力和竞争力，并在机会分配中平衡身份、需求和优点。

引用次数: 3

Comment on “Income and Wealth Inequality in Asia and the Pacific: Trends, Causes, and Policy Remedies” 评“亚太地区收入和财富不平等：趋势、原因和政策补救”

IF 3.9 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2022-08-10 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.12403

Bjorn Gustafsson

Zhuang (2023) covers a large amount of ground when it comes to issues, countries, and literature. The latter is indicated by the fact that the list of references includes more than one hundred titles.My first comment is that Zhuang's paper actually does not do what the title originally indicates. On one side, the spatial coverage is broader than suggested by the title. It covers Australia and New Zealand, that usually are not considered parts of Asia. More importantly, the coverage is narrower as it does not treat income and wealth inequality in Asia as a unit. True the paper deals with the development of inequality in Asian countries and its possible causes. However, it does not attempt to address how inequality at the household level in Asia as an entity has developed.For some years a literature studying how household income inequality from a global perspective has evolved. In a recent contribution, Milanovic (2022) reports that the Gini coefficient at the household level for income in Asia as a whole decreased from 59% in 2008 to 55% in 2013, a rather large decrease over a short period.It can be claimed that the evolution of income inequality in Asia during the most recent years does not at most, have to do with how inequality within countries has evolved. Instead the main factor is how the average incomes in various countries have changed. For example average income in China and in India has increased more rapidly than in Asia's high-income countries like Japan. As a consequence the middle classes in China and India have grown. On this see, for example, Sicular et al. (2022) who define the “global middle class” as being neither poor nor rich if the people are living in the developed world. In 2018 China's global middle class constituted not less than 25% of China's population and the middle class in India was estimated to 6% of its population. The absolute size of the Chinese middle class was in 2018 nearly double the size of the global middle class in the USA and similar in size to that in Europe.My second comment relates to if we should care about rising inequality. Zhuang touches on this issue in his concluding section and refers to the literature on the inequality of opportunity (IOp). A point of departure taken in this literature is that public policy better not try to counteract inequality that is due to effort, but it should focus on inequality due conditions individuals cannot affect (circumstances). Most of the empirical literature aiming to quantify IOp concerns high-income countries but by now there are some papers on China. For example, Yang et al. (2021) show that between 2002 and 2013 and especially between 2013 and 2018 IOp in China declined. In 2002 the large contributors to IOp were region and hukou type at birth. However, in 2018 the contributions of those circumstances had decreased, but that of parents' education had increased.

庄（2023）在涉及问题、国家和文学时涵盖了大量的领域。后一种情况是，参考文献清单包括100多个标题。我的第一个评论是，庄的论文实际上并没有像标题所说的那样。一方面，空间覆盖范围比标题所暗示的要广。它涵盖了澳大利亚和新西兰，它们通常不被视为亚洲的一部分。更重要的是，由于没有将亚洲的收入和财富不平等作为一个单位，覆盖范围更窄。诚然，本文论述了亚洲国家不平等的发展及其可能的原因。然而，它并没有试图解决亚洲作为一个实体在家庭层面上的不平等是如何发展的。几年来，从全球角度研究家庭收入不平等是如何演变的文献。在最近的一份报告中，Milanovic（2022）报告称，整个亚洲家庭收入的基尼系数从2008年的59%下降到2013年的55%，在短期内下降幅度相当大。可以说，最近几年亚洲收入不平等的演变与国家内部的不平等如何演变无关。相反，主要因素是各国的平均收入发生了怎样的变化。例如，中国和印度的平均收入增长速度快于日本等亚洲高收入国家。因此，中国和印度的中产阶级都在增长。例如，Siculal等人（2022）将“全球中产阶级”定义为，如果人们生活在发达国家，那么他们既不贫穷也不富裕。2018年，中国的全球中产阶级占中国人口的比例不低于25%，印度的中产阶级估计占其人口的6%。2018年，中国中产阶级的绝对规模几乎是美国全球中产阶级规模的两倍，与欧洲的规模相似。我的第二个评论涉及我们是否应该关心日益加剧的不平等。庄在结论部分谈到了这个问题，并参考了关于机会不平等的文献。这篇文献中的一个出发点是，公共政策最好不要试图抵消由于努力造成的不平等，而是应该关注个人无法影响的不平等条件（环境）。大多数旨在量化IOp的实证文献都涉及高收入国家，但目前也有一些关于中国的论文。例如，杨等人（2021）表明，2002年至2013年间，尤其是2013年至2018年间，中国的IOp有所下降。2002年，IOp的主要贡献者是出生时的地区和户口类型。然而，在2018年，这些情况的贡献有所减少，但父母的教育贡献有所增加。这项研究还发现，年龄较大的出生队列的IOp高于年龄较小的出生队列。我的第三点意见与数据情况有关。一个重要的问题是数据在不同国家和时间之间的可比性。几十年来，卢森堡一直在努力协调卢森堡收入调查中不同国家的收入调查数据。从高收入国家开始，现在越来越多的国家被纳入数据库。如今，LIS拥有来自以下亚洲国家的数据：中国、印度、以色列、日本、老挝、巴勒斯坦、韩国、台湾和越南。因此，LIS数据覆盖了略高于亚洲总人口的70%。人们预计，通过更深入地使用LIS数据，可以在本文件之外取得进展。我最后的评论涉及研究如何代表不平等及其变化。今天，人们普遍意识到，在许多情况下，仅通过一个指数的数值来总结不平等程度是不可取的。也许未来可以通过考虑特定家庭的多个维度来取得更多进展，例如，参见Fischer等人对美国的研究。（2022）。

{"title":"Comment on “Income and Wealth Inequality in Asia and the Pacific: Trends, Causes, and Policy Remedies”","authors":"Bjorn Gustafsson","doi":"10.1111/aepr.12403","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.12403","url":null,"abstract":"Zhuang (2023) covers a large amount of ground when it comes to issues, countries, and literature. The latter is indicated by the fact that the list of references includes more than one hundred titles.My first comment is that Zhuang's paper actually does not do what the title originally indicates. On one side, the spatial coverage is broader than suggested by the title. It covers Australia and New Zealand, that usually are not considered parts of Asia. More importantly, the coverage is narrower as it does not treat income and wealth inequality in Asia as a unit. True the paper deals with the development of inequality in Asian countries and its possible causes. However, it does not attempt to address how inequality at the household level in Asia as an entity has developed.For some years a literature studying how household income inequality from a global perspective has evolved. In a recent contribution, Milanovic (2022) reports that the Gini coefficient at the household level for income in Asia as a whole decreased from 59% in 2008 to 55% in 2013, a rather large decrease over a short period.It can be claimed that the evolution of income inequality in Asia during the most recent years does not at most, have to do with how inequality within countries has evolved. Instead the main factor is how the average incomes in various countries have changed. For example average income in China and in India has increased more rapidly than in Asia's high-income countries like Japan. As a consequence the middle classes in China and India have grown. On this see, for example, Sicular et al. (2022) who define the “global middle class” as being neither poor nor rich if the people are living in the developed world. In 2018 China's global middle class constituted not less than 25% of China's population and the middle class in India was estimated to 6% of its population. The absolute size of the Chinese middle class was in 2018 nearly double the size of the global middle class in the USA and similar in size to that in Europe.My second comment relates to if we should care about rising inequality. Zhuang touches on this issue in his concluding section and refers to the literature on the inequality of opportunity (IOp). A point of departure taken in this literature is that public policy better not try to counteract inequality that is due to effort, but it should focus on inequality due conditions individuals cannot affect (circumstances). Most of the empirical literature aiming to quantify IOp concerns high-income countries but by now there are some papers on China. For example, Yang et al. (2021) show that between 2002 and 2013 and especially between 2013 and 2018 IOp in China declined. In 2002 the large contributors to IOp were region and hukou type at birth. However, in 2018 the contributions of those circumstances had decreased, but that of parents' education had increased.","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"45-46"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.12403","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50145851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Comment on “Siamese Twin Failures: Structural and Regulatory Transformations in Unequal Thailand” 评“暹罗双胞胎的失败：不平等的泰国的结构和监管变革”

IF 3.9 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2022-08-10 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.12402

Richard F. Doner

Kanchoochat (2023) provides a useful, multi-level approach to accounting for Thailand's inequality problem, a problem that has persisted despite overall economic growth. Kanchoochat not only rightly links the problem to the country's weak structural transformation, that is, its persistently high agricultural employment and low agricultural productivity, but also highlights the supply-side of the picture by outlining the negative impact of Thai governmental institutions, especially the nonelected oversight bodies, agencies whose theoretical function is to monitor and discipline elected politicians and parties, but actually undermine political accountability and reinforce the weakness of the party system. Equally important, it recognizes the demand-side by describing the impact of precarious, unstable nature of off-farm work and the marginality of on-farm work. Further, it does an excellent job of linking all of these, including informality, to phenomena such as Thailand's weak tax collection.I also think the article suggests the utility of three additional, complementary avenues of analysis.First, given Kanchoochat's emphasis on the “stickiness” of on-farm employment, it would be useful to devote more attention to what Rigg et al. (2018) label the “classically precarious” nature of nonfarm occupations. Most critically, why has the manufacturing sector not absorbed surplus agricultural labor? Why has Thailand not experienced a “Lewis Turning Point”? This requires some attention to the role of multinational corporations who dominate the more export-oriented sectors of Thai industry. Addressing this issue would not only link the paper to Rodrik's (2016) argument about “premature de-industrialization,” but also suggest the relationship of that phenomenon to socio-economic inequality.In addition, it would suggest the need to explore the policy impacts of multinationals who, although they dominate the “commanding heights” of Thai industry and whose interests are clearly part of the policy equation, have little impact on party politics. Indeed, one might argue that their absence from the political realm, along with the weakness of smaller, Thai-owned firms, impedes the development of a more cohesive, programmatic party system that might promote productivity-enhancing policies. All of this could link Kanchoochat's analysis to Thailand's inability to move out of the “middle-income trap” (Doner & Schneider, 2017).Second, Kanchoochat's analysis could be further deepened by more attention to the ways in which relatively easily accessible revenues have enabled the weak institutions so thoughtfully described in this article. Thailand has, over the decades, benefited from an extensive land frontier, US military spending, robust and diversified agricultural exports, migrant labor, and various forms of foreign direct investment. These revenues have, as suggested by Carrol

Kanchoochat（2023）为解决泰国的不平等问题提供了一种有用的、多层次的方法，尽管总体经济增长，但这个问题仍然存在。Kanchoochat不仅正确地将这个问题与该国薄弱的结构转型联系起来，即其持续的高农业就业率和低农业生产率，而且还通过概述泰国政府机构，特别是非民选监督机构的负面影响，突出了供应方面的情况，这些机构的理论职能是监督和约束民选政治家和政党，但实际上破坏了政治问责制，强化了政党制度的弱点。同样重要的是，它通过描述非农业工作的不稳定和不稳定性质以及农业工作的边缘性的影响，认识到了需求方面。此外，它很好地将所有这些，包括非正式性，与泰国税收疲软等现象联系起来。我还认为，这篇文章提出了三种额外的、互补的分析途径的效用。首先，鉴于Kanchoochat强调农场就业的“粘性”，更多地关注Rigg等人（2018）所称的非农职业的“典型的不稳定”性质将是有益的。最关键的是，为什么制造业没有吸收剩余的农业劳动力？为什么泰国没有经历“刘易斯转折点”？这就需要对跨国公司的作用给予一定的关注，这些公司在泰国工业中以出口为导向的部门占主导地位。解决这个问题不仅将论文与Rodrik（2016）关于“过早去工业化”的论点联系起来，而且还表明了这种现象与社会经济不平等的关系。此外，这将表明有必要探索跨国公司的政策影响，尽管跨国公司占据着泰国工业的“制高点”，其利益显然是政策等式的一部分，但对政党政治几乎没有影响。事实上，有人可能会说，他们不在政治领域，加上泰国拥有的较小公司的弱点，阻碍了一个更具凝聚力、更具纲领性的政党体系的发展，该体系可能会促进提高生产力的政策。所有这些都可能将Kanchoochat的分析与泰国无法摆脱“中等收入陷阱”联系起来（Doner&；Schneider，2017）。其次，Kanchoochot的分析可能会进一步深化，因为更多地关注相对容易获得的收入如何使本文中深思熟虑地描述的弱势机构得以实现。几十年来，泰国受益于广阔的陆地边界、美国的军费开支、强劲而多样化的农产品出口、移民劳动力和各种形式的外国直接投资。正如Carroll（2020）所建议的那样，这些收入使泰国等国能够将非自由的寡头利益与更开放的经济和出口促进政策结合起来，所有这些都导致了与农业发展相关的政策和机构薄弱。最后，Kanchoochat为更明确的因果解释奠定了基础，说明这些制度病理及其潜在的结构性因素实际上是如何转化为薄弱的农业政策的。例如，占据非选举产生的监督机构的“寻求统治者”实际上是如何阻碍措施和机构（如更具纲领性的政党）的，这些措施和机构可能会促进促进经济调整的政策，从而改善文章的核心焦点：不平等。

{"title":"Comment on “Siamese Twin Failures: Structural and Regulatory Transformations in Unequal Thailand”","authors":"Richard F. Doner","doi":"10.1111/aepr.12402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.12402","url":null,"abstract":"Kanchoochat (2023) provides a useful, multi-level approach to accounting for Thailand's inequality problem, a problem that has persisted despite overall economic growth. Kanchoochat not only rightly links the problem to the country's weak structural transformation, that is, its persistently high agricultural employment and low agricultural productivity, but also highlights the supply-side of the picture by outlining the negative impact of Thai governmental institutions, especially the nonelected oversight bodies, agencies whose theoretical function is to monitor and discipline elected politicians and parties, but actually undermine political accountability and reinforce the weakness of the party system. Equally important, it recognizes the demand-side by describing the impact of precarious, unstable nature of off-farm work and the marginality of on-farm work. Further, it does an excellent job of linking all of these, including informality, to phenomena such as Thailand's weak tax collection.I also think the article suggests the utility of three additional, complementary avenues of analysis.First, given Kanchoochat's emphasis on the “stickiness” of on-farm employment, it would be useful to devote more attention to what Rigg et al. (2018) label the “classically precarious” nature of nonfarm occupations. Most critically, why has the manufacturing sector not absorbed surplus agricultural labor? Why has Thailand not experienced a “Lewis Turning Point”? This requires some attention to the role of multinational corporations who dominate the more export-oriented sectors of Thai industry. Addressing this issue would not only link the paper to Rodrik's (2016) argument about “premature de-industrialization,” but also suggest the relationship of that phenomenon to socio-economic inequality.In addition, it would suggest the need to explore the policy impacts of multinationals who, although they dominate the “commanding heights” of Thai industry and whose interests are clearly part of the policy equation, have little impact on party politics. Indeed, one might argue that their absence from the political realm, along with the weakness of smaller, Thai-owned firms, impedes the development of a more cohesive, programmatic party system that might promote productivity-enhancing policies. All of this could link Kanchoochat's analysis to Thailand's inability to move out of the “middle-income trap” (Doner & Schneider, 2017).Second, Kanchoochat's analysis could be further deepened by more attention to the ways in which relatively easily accessible revenues have enabled the weak institutions so thoughtfully described in this article. Thailand has, over the decades, benefited from an extensive land frontier, US military spending, robust and diversified agricultural exports, migrant labor, and various forms of foreign direct investment. These revenues have, as suggested by Carrol","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"71-72"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.12402","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50145850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Siamese Twin Troubles: Structural and Regulatory Transformations in Unequal Thailand 暹罗双胞胎问题：不平等的泰国的结构和监管变革

IF 3.9 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2022-07-27 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.12400

Veerayooth Kanchoochat

This paper takes an institutional approach to inequality in Thailand by exploring the country's structural and regulatory transformations. It discusses how Thailand's transition from agriculture to industry and services has been impeded by both the demand and supply sides of government subsidies since the 1950s. The relative failure of structural transformation has slowed down economic catch-up and widened the well-being gap between those inside and outside the agricultural sector. Furthermore, while regulatory transformation has mitigated state-led malaise in certain Asian economies, post-1997 reform in Thailand has incentivized unconventional political actors, such as academics, medical doctors and civil society leaders, to make collective efforts in toppling elected governments in exchange for gaining selection into oversight agencies. The case of Thailand indicates how regulatory reform may create perverse incentives that adversely affect democratization, decentralization, competition, and taxation. Dealing with inequality therefore requires a big push toward progressive structural and regulatory transformations altogether.

本文通过探讨泰国的结构和监管转型，对泰国的不平等现象采取了一种制度方法。它讨论了自20世纪50年代以来，泰国从农业向工业和服务业的过渡是如何受到政府补贴需求和供给双方的阻碍的。结构转型的相对失败减缓了经济追赶，并扩大了农业部门内外的福祉差距。此外，尽管监管改革缓解了某些亚洲经济体由国家主导的不适，但1997年后泰国的改革激励了非传统政治行为者，如学者、医生和民间社会领导人，共同努力推翻民选政府，以换取进入监督机构。泰国的案例表明，监管改革可能会产生不正当的激励措施，对民主化、权力下放、竞争和税收产生不利影响。因此，解决不平等问题需要大力推动渐进的结构和监管变革。

引用次数: 3

How Inequality Affects Trust in Institutions: Evidence from Indonesia 不平等如何影响对制度的信任：来自印度尼西亚的证据

IF 3.9 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2022-07-27 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.12401

Asep Suryahadi, Ridho Al Izzati, Daniel Suryadarma, Teguh Dartanto

Trust is an important ingredient to improve economic performance and people's welfare by alleviating market failures caused by imperfect information, costly enforcement, or coordination failures. Using the World Values Survey 2018, we estimate the impact of village and district levels inequality on trust in institutions in Indonesia. We find that higher village level inequality has a negative effect only on trust in strangers, while higher district level inequality reduces trust in television, the press, the central government, the courts, and the police. The implication points to the importance of keeping inequality at the aggregate level in check to maintain people's trust in social, political and state institutions.

信任是改善经济绩效和人民福利的重要因素，可以缓解信息不完善、执法成本高昂或协调失败导致的市场失灵。利用2018年世界价值观调查，我们估计了印度尼西亚村庄和地区层面的不平等对机构信任的影响。我们发现，更高的村级不平等只会对陌生人的信任产生负面影响，而更高的区级不平等会降低对电视、媒体、中央政府、法院和警察的信任。这意味着必须控制总水平上的不平等，以保持人们对社会、政治和国家机构的信任。

引用次数: 5

Income and Wealth Inequality in Asia and the Pacific: Trends, Causes, and Policy Remedies 亚洲及太平洋地区收入和财富不平等：趋势、原因和政策补救措施

IF 3.9 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2022-07-13 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.12399

Juzhong Zhuang

The Asia–Pacific region's rapid growth and poverty reduction in recent decades have been accompanied by rising income and wealth inequality. Technological progress, globalization, deregulation and market-oriented reform, and financialization have generated many new opportunities, but rewarded capital more than labor, benefited skilled workers more than the unskilled, widened spatial inequality, and produced a growing number of the superrich. For some countries, population aging has also contributed to rising inequality. The present paper provides an update on recent trends of income and wealth inequality in the Asia–Pacific region, examines causes behind rising inequality, and discusses policy actions needed to tackle inequality. It also assesses how the COVID-19 has likely worsened inequality in the region.

近几十年来，亚太地区的快速增长和减贫伴随着收入和财富不平等的加剧。技术进步、全球化、放松管制和市场化改革以及金融化创造了许多新的机会，但资本回报大于劳动力，技术工人受益大于非技术工人，扩大了空间不平等，并产生了越来越多的超级富豪。对一些国家来说，人口老龄化也加剧了不平等现象。本文介绍了亚太地区收入和财富不平等的最新趋势，探讨了不平等加剧背后的原因，并讨论了解决不平等问题所需的政策行动。它还评估了新冠肺炎可能如何加剧该地区的不平等。

引用次数: 7

Digital Finance in Asia: Editors' Overview 亚洲数字金融:编辑综述

IF 3.9 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2022-07-03 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.12397

Yiping Huang, Takatoshi Ito, Kazumasa Iwata, Colin McKenzie, Shujiro Urata

引用次数: 1

Comment on “Big Data in Asian Central Banks” 评“亚洲央行的大数据”

IF 3.9 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2022-07-03 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.12395

Feng Zhu

引用次数: 1