Joël Hellier

Education, Intergenerational Mobility and Inequality

We review the economic literature on the impacts of the several dimensions of education upon intergenerational inequality persistency. It is firstly outlined that the critical increase in the population education level in all countries has not come with lower inequality. The basic tools of education and intergenerational mobility modelling are subsequently exposed (OLG, education functions, education decision making etc.). The following two theoretical sections analyse the cases in which education leads (i) to human capital convergence in the long term and (ii) to social stratification with the emerging of under-education traps (situations in which certain dynasties remain continuously under-educated). A simple modelling of both cases is proposed for two types of educational decisions, one based on the family expenditure on education and the other on the time spent for education. The factors that generate social stratification and under education traps are especially underlined. The empirical literature on the determinants of educational attainment and intergenerational mobility is finally reviewed. This reveals the crucial impact of family backgrounds on educational attainment in all countries. It also demonstrates huge and lasting differences across countries in terms of intergenerational mobility.

Inequality in emerging countries

We review the theoretical and empirical economic literature upon income inequality in emerging countries. We firstly describe the main observed developments and show that these are rather diverse across countries and developing regions. We subsequently expose the main theoretical mechanisms. We make a distinction between the traditional approaches (Kuznets, Lewis, Stolper-Samuelson) and the new explanations. In the latter, globalization and globalization-driven technological changes are at the core of the analyses. Both approaches bring out several opposite mechanisms. Finally, the empirical estimates display rather conflicting results. Most cross-country studies find a weak impact of globalization on income inequality. In contrast, several longitudinal studies concerning countries taken separately or small groups of countries reveal a positive correlation between openness and the relative demand for skill and inequality. These apparently conflicting findings reflect the opposite mechanisms linked to globalisation and the differences in countries’ experiences.

Globalization and the Inequality–Unemployment Tradeoff

Over the last 20 years, advanced economies have experienced an “unemployment versus inequality” tradeoff that is critically uneven across countries. To explain this, we propose an extended HOS model in which: the factors are skilled and unskilled labor; there is a continuum of goods; the world comprises two North countries (one egalitarian and one nonegalitarian) and the South; there is no factor price equalization; globalization consists in the South cornering a growing share of world production. In the North, globalization entails an inequality–unemployment tradeoff and the adjustment to globalization is more painful for the country that was initially inequality-oriented.

The North-South HOS Model, inequality and globalization *

The predictions from the traditional North-South HOS approach are at variance with the main characteristics of the Inequality-Globalization nexus. It is shown that by modifying this model and relaxing some of its most restrictive assumptions, it is possible to generate these characteristics. Four series of extensions are analysed: 1) divergent factor endowments between the North and the South and growing size of the South; 2) labour market rigidities resulting from a minimum wage or from the fair wage hypothesis; 3) the introduction of technological differences between countries, of technological transfers, of technological catching up and of technological biases; 4) the inserting of production segmentation and international outsourcing. Further possible extensions are also discussed. The resulting augmented North-South HOS approach provides suitable modelling of the Inequality-Globalization nexus.

Inequality, Growth and Welfare: The Main Links

We review the literature on the links between inequality, growth and welfare. Three questions are addressed: 1) What is the impact of growth and development on inequality? 2) What is the impact of inequality on growth, development and welfare? 3) What is the impact of proequality public policies upon growth and welfare? As regards the first question, the theoretical and empirical literature that analyses Kuznets hypothesis is firstly reviewed. The answer to the question of the impact of inequality on growth is twofold. Firstly, inequality fosters growth when this is based on capital accumulation, but it hinders growth when growth is based on human capital accumulation and when inequality-related social disturbances are considered. Identically, pro-equality public policies may engender very different effects upon growth depending on their influence on factor accumulation. These mixed impacts may explain the ambiguous findings provided by the empirical literature. If most of the estimates carried out in the 1990s seemed to confirm that inequality was damaging for growth, the 2000s empirical literature reconsiders this diagnosis but remains inconclusive.

Globalization and Inequality: Where Do We Stand?

Over the last thirty years, both developed and developing countries have experienced a huge globalization of their economies, which has coincided with an increase in intra-country income inequality, both within and between skill groups. This article surveys the key mechanisms of the globalization-inequality relationship. Four strands of literature are reviewed. First, the extension of the North-South HOS approach by relaxing certain simplifying assumptions makes it possible to generate most of the observed facts on trade and inter-skill group inequality, but also between unequally talented workers. Second, production segmentation and offshoring reveal several factors that increase inequality, particularly in developing countries. Third, accounting for firm heterogeneity generates intra-skill group inequality. Fourth, globalization causes changes in technologies and in institutions that can foster inequality. The mechanisms by which globalization raises inequality are thus numerous. A large part of the reviewed literature combines globalization with technological or/and institutional changes, which reconciles the three major explanations that have been given to the observed rise in inequality.

Skill Premia and Intergenerational Skill Transmission: The French Case *

In the case of France, we analyse the changes (i) in the skill premium linked to each level of education and (ii) in the impact of parents’ skill and income upon the educational attainment of their children. To this end, we build a theoretical model which is subsequently estimated. Our calculations firstly reveal (i) a critical decline in the skill premium of the Baccalaureate in relation to the lowest skill level, and (ii) an increase in the skill premia of higher education in relation to the Baccalaureate, which however is not large enough to avoid the decrease in all the skill premia relative to the lowest skill. Secondly, we find (i) a significant increase in the impact of the family backgrounds upon the individuals’ education from 1993 to 2003 which essentially derives from a higher impact of parental income upon the educational attainment, and (ii) an increase in the impact of public expenditure upon education. Consequently, if inequality has decreased among the employed population, the slowdown in intergenerational mobility could reverse this tendency in the longer term. This may however be offset by higher public educational expenditure.

Globalization, Skill Accumulation and the Skill Premium

We analyze the impact of globalization upon the skill premium (inequality) in advanced countries from a two‐goods North–South model with skill accumulation. Globalization consists of an increase in the size of the South. Its impact on inequality depends on its intensity and on the pre‐globalization proportion of skilled workers. The post‐globalization inequality is a non‐monotonic function of the pre‐globalization proportion of skilled workers and of the globalization intensity. The impact is different for the generation in work and for the following generations. There is a threshold value of the skill endowment under (above) which inequality is lower (higher) after than before globalization.

Combining minimum wage and exchange rate policy to release the external constraint on growth

In this article we analyse the combination of a minimum wage and a devaluation/depreciation so as to release the external constraint on growth. The policy maker aims at achieving both balanced trade and higher growth. These may be reached by devaluating the domestic currency, which however supports traditional industries characterized by high price elasticity and low income elasticity of demand. The release of the external constraint in the short term then yields a stronger constraint in the longer term. If traditional industries are unskilled and labour‐intensive, the setting of a minimum wage distorts the specialization towards sectors with high demand growth. Devaluation/depreciation and minimum wage may thus be combined to release both the short term and longer term external constraint. We determine the condition for such a policy to be efficient. This combined policy must come with an educational policy that supports skill upgrading. It is typically tailored to ‘advanced emerging countries’ which aim at changing their specialization without slowing their growth.

Social policies and R&D subsidies: Impact on inequality, unemployment, growth and the tax burden

Purpose - The paper seeks to analyse the impact of different public policies on inequality, unemployment, growth and the tax burden. Design/methodology/approach - A dynamic general equilibrium model is built, in which growth is driven by endogenous technical progress, to analyse the impacts of several policies (minimum wage, redistribution and R&D subsidies financed by an income tax). Findings - All policies except pure redistribution are better than non-intervention in terms of growth. The authors distinguish three major policy patterns. The Anglo-Saxon model is characterised by high growth, high inequality, low unemployment and a low tax burden. The Nordic model combines high growth, low inequality and low unemployment, and a high tax burden. The Continental European model puts together medium inequality and a medium tax burden, and higher long-term growth is paid for by high unemployment. Research limitations/implications - The model could be extended by the introduction of educational policy. Originality/value - The paper distinguishes three configurations that capture the main features of the developments in Anglo-Saxon countries, Scandinavian countries, and Continental European countries in the 1990s. It thereby provides a general framework to analyse and compare these experiences.