Les alcanzo uno de los últimos posts del Profesor Paúl Walker. Pueden leer al Profesor Walker en su blog ANTIDISMAL. El tema es relevante para nuestra actual situación político-electoral. Después de una década de crecimiento alto y sostenido, los candidatos que pasaron el balotaje no son precisamente los que han prometido la continuidad del crecimiento, sino más bien una política de distribución de ese crecimiento. Entre hacer crecer la torta y repartir la torta hay una gran diferencia. Para unos, lo primero es distribuir, para otros lo primero es crecer y luego distribuir. Pero para los que con torta en crecimiento o con torta sin crecimiento, no les toca nada de la torta, el tema es fundamental. Y éstos son los votos dirimentes. Los de los sectores D y E (y parte del C).
De acuerdo con la información que presenta el Profesor Walker, el crecimiento económico no ha reducido la pobreza, es decir, no se registra una relación sólida entre el crecimiento de la riqueza y la reducción de la pobreza. Dos casos singulares: Irlanda con un rápido crecimiento y una gran pobreza. Y en el otro extremo, Bélgica, con estancamiento económico y una importante reducción de la pobreza.
¿Es el momento del reparto? ¿Es el momento del crecimiento con reparto? En este punto resulta interesante recordar la frase periodística de John Roamer: "El mercado puede hacernos llegar más rápidamente al ideal socialista". El tema es el que hemos venido exponiendo, luego del Primer Teorema del Bienestar.
Not according to the OECD. Sam Bowman at the Adam Smith Institute blog writes,
The OECD’s annual Society at a Glance report was released this week. The TUC’s Touchstone blog had a post up earlier, highlighting the OECD’s claim that economic growth has not reduced poverty:
However, economic growth and poverty have not been strongly related within the OECD in the past generation. There is little evidence of a relationship between poverty and household income growth in either a positive or negative direction. For example, Ireland has had very rapid income growth over the period and a large rise in poverty, while income growth has stagnated in Belgium in combination with a considerable reduction in poverty.
Bowman then highlights one odd feature of the OECD study,
A bigger problem is the definition of poverty, which is relative and considered within single countries. It’s quite misleading to claim that Irish economic growth didn’t reduce poverty. The OECD uses a relative definition of poverty – the "percentage of persons living with less than 50% of median equivalised household income". Poor people in Ireland (and Belgium) are a lot less poor than they were thirty years ago with regard to the options they have available to them. The gap between them and the rich might be wider, but this matters less to most people than their life expectancies, economic security levels, and other absolute values. Saying that economic growth made poor people a lot richer but rich people even more rich is quite different to saying that “economic growth and poverty have not been strongly related within the OECD in the past generation”.
With a relative measure of poverty the poor will always be with us, no matter how rich we all are.
Bowman ends by pointing out,
The standard measure of inequality, the Gini coefficient, gives Tanzania and Malawi a more “equal” score than New Zealand and Japan. I know where I’d rather be, rich or poor. The measure of inequality itself is not worthless, but defining poverty as inequality within one country certainly is. By any measure of actual outcomes, economic growth is good for the poor. And if a measure of poverty doesn’t reflect that, it’s a bad measure.