income disparity research paper topics

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Literature review on income inequality and economic growth

This paper provides a comprehensive literature review of the relationship between income inequality and economic growth. In the theoretical literature, we identified various models in which income inequality is linked to economic growth. They include (i) The level of economic development, (ii) The level of technological development, (iii) Social-political unrest, (iv) The savings rate, (v) The imperfection of credit markets, (vi) The political economy, (vii) Institutions and (viii) The fertility rate. Based on the transmission mechanisms of these models, we found that the relationship between income inequality and growth can be negative, positive or inconclusive. The first three models demonstrate that the relationship is inconclusive, the fourth shows that it is positive, while the remainder indicate that the relationship should be negative. In the face of theoretical ambiguity, we also noted that the empirical findings on the relationship between income inequality and growth are highly debatable. These findings can be broadly classified into four categories, namely negative, positive, inconclusive and no relationship. Based on these findings, we provide a critical survey on methodology issues employed in the prior studies and propose a better methodology to researchers for future studies.

• • Theoretical and empirical literature is reviewed and synthesis is done to understand the income inequality-growth nexus

Graphical Abstract

Specification table

Across countries, the unequal distribution of income and resources among the population is the defining challenge of our time. In both developed and developing economies, the income inequality gap (as measured by the decile ratios and the Gini coefficient based on the Lorenz curve) between rich and poor is at high levels, and continues to rise [24] . When income inequality becomes extremely high, it fuels social dissatisfaction and raises the threat of social and political unrest [13] . In similar vein, Alesina and Perotti [8] :1 argue that high income inequality, “ by increasing the probability of coups, revolutions, mass violence or, more generally, by increasing policy uncertainty and threatening property rights, has a negative effect on investment and, as a consequence, reduces growth ”.

Given the already high level of income inequality and rising trends in many countries, along with the potentially negative consequences for economies, we found that a significant body of literature examines the causes of income inequality and its consequences for economic development. Among them were theoretical analyses of the inequality–growth nexus, which identified various transmission mechanisms linking income inequality to economic growth. These include (i) The level of economic development, (ii) The level of technological development, (iii) Social-political unrest, (iv) The savings rate, (v) The imperfection of credit markets, (vi) The political economy, (vii) Institutions and (viii) The fertility rate. Based on these models, we found that the relationship between income inequality and growth can be negative, positive or inconclusive. Theories on the level of economic development (see [7 , 31 , 38 , 54] ) and technological development (see [6 , 29 , 33] ) demonstrate that the relationship between inequality and growth changes from positive to negative as the level of development increases. Inconclusive results are also echoed by the social-political unrest model, which argues that the socio-political unrest stemming from high income inequality can either inhibit or benefit growth (see [13 , 14 , 56 , 62] ). In addition, theories on the political economy (see [9 , 11 , 13 , 46 , 48 , 50] ), the imperfection of credit markets (see [5 , 12 , 30 , 51] ; Panniza, [46] ), institutions (see [22 , 34 , 61] ) and the fertility rate (see [26] ) demonstrate that income inequality is negatively related to growth. The only theory which supports the positive relationship between income inequality and growth is the theory on the savings rate (see [3 , 17 , 42 , 53] ).

Given such theoretical ambiguity, it is little wonder that the empirical findings on the relationship between income inequality and growth are strongly debated. Early empirical studies by Alesina and Rodrik [9] , Persson and Tabellini [50] and Perotti [49] reported that inequality exerted a negative impact on growth. That negative relationship has been confirmed by numerous subsequent studies (see, for example, Panniza, [18 , 19 , 46 , 55 , 64] ). Evidence of a negative relationship has, however, been challenged by studies which reported positive results on the inequality–growth nexus (see, for example, [28 , 39 , 57 , 58] ). In addition, several studies have yielded inconclusive findings, with most reporting that the relationship is positive in high-income and negative in low-income countries (see, for example, [13 , 20 , 25 , 27] ). A few studies found no relationship between inequality and growth (see [15 , 44] ).

Given the above background, the aim here is to provide a comprehensive literature review of the relationship between income inequality and economic growth, both in theory and empirically. While Section 2 critically analyses the theoretical framework of the income inequality–growth nexus, Section 3 reviews empirical studies on this relationship. Section 4 provides a critical survey on methodology issues employed in the prior studies and proposes a better methodology that can help reconcile the literature. Section 5 concludes the study.

Income inequality and economic growth: Theoretical framework

A theoretical analysis of the inequality–growth nexus has identified various transmission mechanisms in which income inequality is linked to economic growth. These mechanisms are discussed in detail in this section.

The level of economic development

Early researchers explored the link between income inequality and growth through the lens of the developmental stage of the economy. Kuznets [38] documented that the relationship between the two variables relies on the level of economic development of a country, meaning there is a differential relationship between income inequality and growth, with a positive relationship during the early stage of economic development and a negative relationship during the mature stage. This may be attributed to shifts of labor, from one sector to other, developed sectors. For example, when labor moves from the agricultural sector to other sectors of the economy, the per capita income of those individuals increases, as their skills are in demand in those sectors. Individuals who remain in the agricultural sector keep earning a low income, thus income inequality increases during this stage. As the economy develops, with labour continuing to move from agriculture to other sectors, individuals who remain in the agricultural sector will earn higher incomes due to the low supply of labour in that sector. Income inequality thus declines during this stage. Kuznets [38] describes the relationship as an inverted U-hypothesis, which advocates that inequality tends to increase during early stages of economic development and decrease during later stages. This argument is supported by Ahluwalia [7] , Robinson [54] and Gupta and Singh [31] .

The level of technological development

In addition to sectoral change, Galor and Tsiddon [29] , Helpman [33] and Aghion et al. [6] explored the link by connecting income inequality to the developmental stage of technology. During the early stages of technological development, innovative ideas in the economic sector result in increases in income inequality. This is due to the fact that new technology requires highly skilled labor and training, which raises wages in these sectors compared to those sectors which use old technology. As a result, employees in the new sector earn high per-capita incomes, while those working in the sector with old machines continue earning lower incomes. Therefore, income inequality increases during the early stages of technological improvements. However, as the economy moves to the more mature stage of technological development, income inequality decreases, the reason being that as more labour shifts to the sector using new technology, the incomes of those who remained in the sector with old technology also increase due to the low supply in labor in that sector. Therefore, the wage differential gap between them declines, leading to a decrease in income inequality.

The role of technology was probed further by researchers who focused on the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). By implementing modern technologies, 4IR will lead to the continuing automation of traditional manufacturing and industrial processes. As Krueger [37] documented, improvements in technology widen the income inequality gap in the labor market between skilled and lowly skilled labour, because the income of highly skilled labor increases (as those individuals are in demand), while lowly skilled laborers continue earning low incomes. In similar vein, 4IR is skills-biased, which leads to a widening of the income inequality gap [1] . Based on this argument, technological improvements can be harmful to growth, due to concerns about growing inequality and unemployment.

Social-political unrest

Some studies argue that the rise of socio-political unrest, stemming from high income inequality, may dampen growth (see [13 , 14 , 62] ). In countries with extreme wealth and income inequality, there are high levels of social unrest that cause people to engage in strikes, criminality and other unproductive activities. This often results in wastage of government resources and disruptions that threaten the political stability of the country. It causes uncertainty in government and slows down productivity in the economy, while discouraging investment.

By contrast, high income inequality due to the rise of socio-political unrest can promote growth. To reduce the number of strikes, criminal activity, uncertainty and political unrest, politicians and leaders favor redistribution – from the rich to the poor – in the form of a transfer of payments. In turn, this creates a safety net for the population and government to restore society's trust in government. As a result, levels of uncertainty decline and investment increases, prompting an increase in the growth rate in the long run [13 , 14 , 62] . Similarly, Saint-Paul and Verdier [56] demonstrate that, in the presence of high income inequality, the median voter favors a transfer of payments by means of public expenditure, such as financing education. This, in turn, increases human capital for the poor to access education, thereby promoting growth.

The political economy

Political economy models demonstrate that high income inequality may hinder growth (see [9 , 13 , 48] ). The law and government play crucial roles in the economy, with government in charge of the redistribution of income and resources among the population. These models reveal that when the mean income is greater than that of the median voter, people support the redistribution of income and resources (from the rich to the poor). Redistribution takes place through a transfer of payments and public expenditure, such as the establishment of health facilities and the building of schools, among others. This kind of redistribution reduces growth in the long run, however, by discouraging innovation and investment, and causing low productivity [9 , 13 , 48] . In addition, when there is high income inequality, the population demands equal distribution. That sometimes results in riots and other unproductive activities which retard economic growth. Furthermore, factors such as lobbying and rent-seeking, which often occur during the political process, also discourage growth. This happens when those in the upper decile of income distribution prevent the redistribution of income and resources to the poor, resulting in a wastage of government funds and corruption, both of which hamper economic growth in the long run [11 , 46 , 48 , 50] .

The imperfection of credit markets

The imperfect credit markets model demonstrates that income inequality is negatively associated with growth through credit markets (see [4 , 12 , 30 , 51] ; Panniza, [46] ). In an imperfect credit market, a high degree of income inequality limits the poor from accessing credit. Asymmetric information – where the lender and borrower have limited information about each other – inhibits the ability to make well-informed decisions. This limits the ability to borrow and returns on investment. In addition, imperfect laws make it difficult for creditors to collect defaulted loans, because the law might protect the assets of the borrower from being repossessed as collateral. Such laws constrain the collection of debt, leading to the hard terms and conditions faced by potential creditors. This prohibits access to credit for some individuals, in particular the poor. Given that investment depends on how much income and how many assets an individual has, the poor (who only have income for basic necessities) are unable to afford investment opportunities with high returns (for instance, to invest in human capital or property, among others). For this reason, extremely high income inequality reduces investment opportunities, leading to declining growth in the long run.

Existing studies report that income inequality exerts a positive impact on economic growth through savings rates (see [3 , 13 , 17] ). According to these studies, savings are a function of income. As income earned increases, so the savings rate rises, and vice versa. In the presence of high income inequality, rich people earn high incomes which help them to save more, because their marginal propensity to save is relatively high. This increases the aggregate savings, leading to a rise in capital accumulation, thereby enhancing economic growth in the long run (see [3] , [17] , [42] , [53] , [66] ). Following on this argument, Shin [59] demonstrates that the redistribution of income and resources from rich to poor is harmful to growth. Such action reduces the income, wealth and other resources of the rich, leading to a decline in the marginal propensity to save. As a result, aggregate savings and investments decline.

Institutions

Several studies illustrate that income inequality inhibits growth through institutions (see [22 , 34 , 61] ). Institutions play a vital role in the wellbeing of a country, because they are the key drivers of economic growth and development in the long run [2 , 60 , 65] . The quality of institutions is important for distribution and growth outcomes. High income inequality creates fertile ground for bad institutions, and exacerbates inequality and inefficiency, which leads to low growth rates in the long run. In the case of high income inequality, political decisions tend to be biased towards enriching the already rich minority, at the expense of the poor. This results in poor policies, leading to a high level of inefficiency, wastage of state resources, social dissatisfaction and political instability. It further perpetuates inequality and inhibits growth in the long run [34 , 61] . Based on this argument, bad institutions tend to associate with extreme records of inequality, inefficiency and sluggish growth. By contrast, good institutions tend to associate with low inequality, productivity and economic growth.

The fertility rate

Income inequality has been found to negatively affect growth through differences in fertility (see [26] ). This study documented that a widening income inequality gap raises differences in fertility between the rich and the poor in a population. The low-income group usually have many children, and tend to invest less in their children's education due to a lack of financial resources. By contrast, those in the high-income group usually have fewer children and invest more in their education. Therefore, in the case of extreme income inequality, the high fertility differential has a negative impact on human capital, leading to a decline in economic growth.

Income inequality and economic growth: Empirical evidence

Given such theoretical ambiguity, the empirical findings on the relationship between income inequality and growth are also highly debatable. These findings can broadly be classified into four categories, namely negative, positive, inconclusive and no relationship.

Studies with negative results on the relationship between income inequality and economic growth

The earliest empirical studies examining the inequality–growth nexus were conducted in the 1990s, and employed the ordinary least squares (OLS) and two-stage least squares (2SLS) estimation techniques (see [9 , 49 , 50] ). Alesina and Rodrik [9] examined the relationship between distributive politics and economic growth in 46 countries, for the period 1960–1985. They found that higher income inequality was accompanied by low growth. Similarly, Persson and Tabellini [50] examined the impact of inequality on growth in 56 countries, for the period 1960–1985, and found that inequality exerted a negative impact on growth. Using similar estimating techniques, Perotti [49] analysed the relationship between income distribution, democratic institutions and growth in 67 countries, and found that countries with a low level of inequality tended to have high investments in human capital, which then led to economic growth.

Studies in the 2000s developed different estimation techniques to solve the problem at hand. For example, Panizza [46] employed the standard fixed effect (FE) and generalised method of moments (GMM) to reassess the relationship between income inequality and economic growth in the United States for the period 1940–1980. The results of that study documented that income inequality negatively affected economic growth. Another single-country study was conducted on China, where Wan et al. [64] investigated the short- and long-run relationship between inequality and economic growth during the period 1987–2001. By using three-stage least squares, they found that the relationship was nonlinear and negative for China. Recently, Iyke and Ho [35] studied income inequality and growth in Italy, from 1967–2012, using the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) estimation technique. Their study found that income inequality affected growth both in the short and long run. That is, income inequality slowed down growth in the country.

In multiple-country studies, Knowles [36] re-examined the relationship between inequality and growth in 40 countries using comparable data and OLS from 1960–1990. That investigation found a negative relationship between inequality and economic growth for the full sample. When the countries were divided according to the income level, he found a significant negative relationship in the low-income countries but an insignificant relationship in high- and middle-income countries. Malinen [41] investigated a sample comprising 60 countries (developed and developing economies) using the Gini index as a measure of income inequality. Panel cointegration methods were used, employing panel dynamic OLS and panel dynamic seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) to analyze the steady state correlation between income inequality and economic development. During the period under study, the findings revealed a negative steady-state correlation between income distribution and economic development. In addition, in developed countries, income inequality was associated with low economic growth in the long run. Another study focused on developed countries: Cingano [23] , for instance, examined the impact of income inequality and economic growth in OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries between 1980 and 2012. Employed GMM, the researcher found that in those countries income inequality negatively affected economic growth. Furthermore, the study confirmed human capital as the transmission channel through which income inequality affects growth. Research by Braun et al. [18] , tested the main prediction of their model with respect to the impact of income inequality on growth at different levels of financial development. By using pooled OLS, dynamic panel and instrumental variables (IV) estimations on 150 countries during the period between 1978 and 2012, they found that greater income inequality is associated with lower economic growth. In addition, they also found that such an effect is significantly attenuated when the level of financial development increases in economies. Another study by Royuela et al. [55] tested the income inequality-growth nexus for over 200 comparable regions in 15 OECD countries during 2003–2013. By using the similar estimation techniques of Bruan et al. [18] , they showed a general negative association between inequality and growth in OECD regions. Recently, Breunig and Majeed [19] re-investigated the impact of inequality and economic growth in 152 countries. The study used GMM for the period 1956 to 2011 and found that inequality had a negative effect on growth. They further found that when both poverty and inequality were considered, the negative impact of inequality on growth was concentrated on countries with high rates of poverty.

Studies with positive results on the relationship between income inequality and economic growth

A study which found a positive relationship is that of Partridge [47] , who investigated whether inequality benefited or hindered growth in the United States between 1960 and 1990. That study, which employed OLS, yielded the following results: first, during the period of the study, a positive relationship was found between inequality and economic growth. That is, American states with high inequality grew faster. Second, the study reported that the wellbeing of the median voter had a positive impact on growth. This implies that the unequal distribution of income and resources among the population encouraged economic activity and, in turn, grew the economy. In another single-country study, Rangel et al. [52] focused on growth and income inequality by investigating the linear correlation and inverted-U shape hypothesis in Brazil, from 1991–2000. They found that, in the long run, income inequality and growth tended to move together. The results also confirmed the existence of the inverted-U hypothesis between income inequality and economic growth.

Bhorat and Van der Westhuizen [16] investigated the relationship between economic growth, poverty and inequality in South Africa, for the period 1995–2005. The study employed a distribution-neutral measure, poverty inequality elasticity estimates, and the marginal proportional rate of substitution. During the period under study, the researchers found a shift in the distribution of income and resources during periods of growth, and hence income inequality tended to increase with increases in economic growth. Later, Shahbaz [58] and Majeed [40] both employed the ARDL technique to study the income inequality–growth nexus in Pakistan, with the first investigation spanning the years 1971–2005, and the second, 1975–2013. Both studies identified a positive correlation between income inequality and economic growth in Pakistan during the period under investigation. Majeed [40] further argued that because the poor population did not participate in the growth process, growth became unsustainable.

Studies on multiple countries also reported positive results. For example, Li and Zou [39] re-examined the relation between inequality and growth from 1947–1994 for a group of developed and developing countries. Using FE and RE methods and expanded data, they found that high income inequality resulted in an increase in economic growth. Later, Forbes [28] also re-assessed the inequality–growth relationship in 45 countries, from 1966–1995. With the use of FE and RE, Chamberlain's ᴫ matrix procedure and Arrelano and Bond's GMM, the findings showed that as income increased in the short to medium term, economic growth tended to increase. A recent study by Scholl and Klasen [57] revisited the inequality-growth relationship, paying special attention to the role of transition (post-Soviet) countries. The study was based on the specification used by Forbes [28] on a sample of 122 countries over the period of 1961–2012. By using FE, GMM and IV estimation techniques, they found a positive association between inequality and growth in the overall sample which was driven by transition countries.

Studies with inconclusive results on the relationship between income inequality and economic growth

A number of studies yielded inconclusive findings on the inequality–growth nexus. In particular, most reported that the relationship was positive in high-income countries and negative in the low-income countries. For example, Deininger and Squire [25] employed cross-country samples from 1960–1992 to analyse the influence of inequality (income and distribution of assets) on economic growth, and also studied the effect it exerts on reducing poverty. Using OLS and panel data, that study found that income inequality had a negative effect on future growth. In addition, Deininger and Squire [25] reported that high income inequality reduced the income of the poor and boosted the income of the rich. Barro [13] used 2SLS to study the inequality–growth relationship in a panel of countries for the period 1965–1995. The results showed that, in rich countries, inequality positively affected economic growth, while in poor countries it negatively affected growth during the period under study. This means that, for rich countries, as inequality increased, the economy (as measured by Gross Domestic Product [GDP] per capita) tended to increase as well, while in poor countries, the economy tended to decline as inequality increased.

Studies using GMM methods reached similar results. For example, Voitchovsky [63] analysed the link between income distribution and economic growth in 21 developing countries, from 1975–2000. The findings showed that income inequality had a positive effect on growth at the upper decile of income distribution, while inequality negatively affected growth at the lower decile. Similarly, Castelló-Climent [21] confirmed that the relationship between income and growth was positive in high-income countries and negative in low- and middle-income countries. That study examined the correlation between income and human capital and economic growth across countries during the period 1992–2000. The results further indicated that both income and human capital inequality constrained economic growth for low- and middle-income countries. However, in high-income countries, income and human capital inequality encouraged economic growth during the period under study. In yet another investigation, Fawaz et al. [27] studied the income inequality–growth nexus, focusing on its link to credit constraints in high- and low-income developing countries from 1960–2010. The study found similar results, namely that in low-income developing countries, income inequality is negatively related to economic growth. For high-income developing countries, income inequality was positively related to economic growth.

Halter et al. [32] reported that this relationship changed over time, having studied the relationship across countries from 1965–2005, using GMM. The findings showed that, in the short run, high inequality encouraged economic growth, but over the long run, high inequality slowed down the economy and impeded growth. Likewise, Ostry et al. [45] investigated the link between redistribution, inequality and growth in various countries, and found that net inequality was positively correlated to economic performance during the early stage of economic development, but turned negative during the mature stage. Research by Brueckner and Lederman [20] studied the relationship between inequality and GDP per capita growth. Using panel data from 1970 to 2010, the findings documented that in low income countries transitional growth was positively affected by higher income inequality while such effect turned negative in high income countries.

Studies with evidence of no relationship between income inequality and economic growth

Some studies reported no relationship between income inequality and economic growth. For example, research by Niyimbanira [44] focused on how economic growth affected income inequality from 1996–2014. That study employed the FE method and the pooled regression model, using data from 18 municipalities across the provinces of South Africa. The findings confirmed that economic growth reduced poverty, but had no effect on income inequality, which implies that there was no relationship between income inequality and economic growth. Benos and Karagiannis [15] examined the relationship between top income inequality and growth under the influence of physical and human capital accumulation in the U.S. By using 2SLS and GMM on the annual panel of U.S. state-level data during 1929 to 2013, they concluded that changes in inequality do not have an impact on growth. Table 1 shows the summary of empirical studies discussed in this section.

Summary of empirical studies on the association between income inequality and economic growth

Note: - denotes negative; + denotes positive; 0 denotes no relationship

Methodology

As we have discussed in the previous section, the empirical findings on income inequality and growth are highly inconclusive. In this section, by providing a critical survey on methodology issues employed in the prior studies, we offer possible explanations on the disparity found in the empirical findings, particularly on multiple-countries studies. The early multiple-countries studies [9 , 49 , 50] in general reached a consensus on the negative impact of inequality on growth. Although they used different measures of inequality and samples, they all employed the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and Two-Stage Least Squares (2SLS) estimation techniques on cross-section data to estimate the coefficient on the inequality variable.

By the late 1990s, however, the general consensus on the negative relationship between income inequality and growth was challenged by concerns over data quality and the methodological procedures used (see Neves and |Silva, [43] ). With regard to the data quality, some studies argued that the dataset used in the previous studies, which lacked comparability due to the use of different income definitions (gross income versus expenditures) can lead to different results (see [10 , 36] ). According to Knowles [36] , European countries, the U.S. and most of the Latin American countries use gross income data whereas most of the African and Asian countries use expenditure data. Since expenditure is more equally distributed than gross income, such difference in income distribution may lead to a difference in the final results.

Concerning the methodological procedures, there has been a shift on the usage of panel data instead of cross-sectional data in the later studies. Forbes [28] argues that the use of panel data is desirable as it can specifically estimate how a change in a country's level of inequality within a given country will affect growth in that country. In addition, panel data can remove bias from the correlation between time-variant, observable country characteristics and the explanatory variables by controlling for differences in these characteristics. Due to these considerations, many studies started to use panel data (see [13 , 28 , 39] ; among others). However, the use of panel data in the studies may lead to more diverse results. One of the possible explanations is the diversity of estimators employed in the panel studies. While most of the cross-section studies use OLS, panel studies use a wide variety of estimators such as fixed effects, random effects, GMM, etc. Given that these estimators have different underlying assumptions, they are likely to produce different results among the panel studies [43] . Another possible explanation is that, unlike the cross-section data, panel data controls for time-variant, observable country characteristics. Given that the impact of inequality on growth tends to differ across countries and regions, the inter-continental variation contribute a substantial part of the effect. Therefore, the usage of panel data analysis may lead to different results when different samples are used in the studies. With the wider usage of various panel data estimation techniques in the later studies, it is not surprising that we found more diverse results in the inequality-growth literature.

Based on the above considerations, researchers should be more cautious when identifying a general global pattern regarding the inequality-growth relationship. Instead, we propose that more emphasis should be placed on identifying the inequality-growth relationship on a national or regional level. Such an approach will provide a better understanding of the inequality-growth process on the study area by overcoming data comparability constraints and possible methodological challenges.

This paper presented a comprehensive literature review of the relationship between income inequality and economic growth. In the theoretical literature, various transmission mechanisms were identified in which income inequality is linked to economic growth, namely the level of economic development, the level of technological development, social-political unrest, the political economy, the imperfection of credit markets, the savings rate, institutions, and the fertility rate. Based on these models, we found that the relationship between income inequality and growth can be negative, positive or inconclusive. For example, based on the level of economic and technological development, the relationship between inequality and growth is positive and becomes negative as the level of development progresses. Inconclusive results were reported by the social-political unrest model, showing that the rise in socio-political unrest stemming from high-income inequality could either dampen or promote growth. In addition, theories on the political economy, the imperfection of credit markets, institutions and the fertility rate, reported that income inequality was negatively related to growth. The only theory which supported the positive relationship between income inequality and growth was the theory of savings rates.

On the empirical front, we found that numerous studies joined the debate by testing the relationship between income inequality and economic growth. Some found a positive relationship, while others identified a negative impact. Some studies yielded inconclusive findings. In particular, most found that the relationship was positive in high-income countries and negative in low-income countries. Several studies documented no relationship between income inequality and economic growth. In the methodology section, we provided a critical survey on methodology issues employed in the prior studies. We argued that the varying results obtained by these studies can be attributed to empirical aspects such as the data comparability and methodological procedures used. We, therefore, suggest that future studies should place more emphasis on identifying the inequality-growth relationship on a national or regional level to better understand the inequality-growth process on the study area. In addition, we conjecture that as the study countries and time span differed in the empirical studies, the impacts of the various theoretical channels we identified previously could also play a uniquely important role in affecting the relationship of the inequality–growth nexus in those studies. It would be prudent for future studies to apply the theoretical models to provide an in-depth analysis of the existing empirical findings. Such findings, with reference to the social, political and economic structure, would provide more relevant policy recommendations to the countries under study.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors of this paper certify that there is no financial or personal interest that influenced the presentation of the paper.

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality – An Overview

Rising income inequality is one of the greatest challenges facing advanced economies today. Income inequality is multifaceted and is not the inevitable outcome of irresistible structural forces such as globalisation or technological development. Instead, this review shows that inequality has largely been driven by a multitude of political choices. The embrace of neoliberalism since the 1980s has provided the key catalyst for political and policy changes in the realms of union regulation, executive pay, the welfare state and tax progressivity, which have been the key drivers of inequality. These preventable causes have led to demonstrable harmful outcomes that are not explicable solely by material deprivation. This review also shows that inequality has been linked on the economic front with reduced growth, investment and innovation, and on the social front with reduced health and social mobility, and greater violent crime.

1 Introduction

Income inequality has recently come to be viewed as one of the greatest challenges facing the world today. In recent years, the topic has dominated the agenda of the World Economic Forum (WEF), where the world’s top political and business leaders attend. Their global risks report, drawn from over 700 experts in attendance, pronounced inequality to be the greatest threat to the world economy in 2017 ( Elliott 2017 ). Likewise, the past decade has seen leading global figures such as former American President Barack Obama, Pope Francis, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and the former head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Christine Lagarde, all undertake speeches on the gravity of income inequality and the need to address its rise. This is because, as this research note shows, income inequality engenders harmful consequences that are not explicable solely by material deprivation.

The general dynamics of income inequality include a tendency to rise slowly and fluctuate over time. For instance, Japan had one of the highest rates in the world prior to the Second World War and the United States (US) one of the lowest, which has since completely reversed for both. The United Kingdom (UK) was also the second most equitable large European country in the 1970s but is now the most inequitable ( Dorling 2018 : 27–28).

High rates of inequality are rarely sustained for long periods because they tend to lead to or become punctuated by man-made disasters that lead to a levelling out. Scheidel (2017) posits that there in fact exists a violent ‘Four Horseman of Leveling’ (mass mobilisation warfare, transformation revolutions, state collapse, and lethal pandemics) for inequality, which have at times dramatically reduced inequalities because they can lead to the alteration of existing power structures or wipe out the wealth of elites and redistribute their resources. For instance, the pronounced shocks of the two world wars led to the ‘Great Compression’ of income throughout the West in the post-war years. There is already some evidence that the current global pandemic caused by the novel Coronavirus, has led to greater aversion to income inequality ( Asaria, Costa-Font, and Cowell 2021 ; Wiwad et al. 2021 ).

Thus, greater aversion to inequality has been able to reduce inequality in the past, this is because, as this review also shows, income inequality does not result exclusively from efficient market forces but arises out of a set of rules that is shaped by those with political power. Inequality’s rise is not inevitable, nor beyond the control of governments and policymakers, as they can affect distributional outcomes and inequality through public policy.

It is the purpose of this review to outline the causes and consequences of income inequality. The paper begins with an analysis of the key structural and institutional determinants of inequality, followed by an examination into the harmful outcomes of inequality. It then concludes with a discussion of what policymakers can do to arrest the rise of inequality.

2 Causes of Income Inequality

Broadly speaking, explanations for the increase in income inequality have largely been classified as either structural or institutional. Historically, economists emphasised structural causes of increasing income inequality, with globalisation and technological change at the forefront. However, in recent years opinion has shifted to emphasise more institutional political factors to do with the adoption of neoliberal reforms such as privatisation, deregulation and tax and welfare reductions since the early 1980s. They were first embraced and most heavily championed by the UK and US, spreading globally later, and which provide the crucial catalysts of rising income inequality ( Atkinson 2015 ; Brown 2017 ; Piketty 2020 ; Stiglitz 2013 ). I discuss each of these key factors in turn.

2.1 Globalisation

One of the earliest, and most prominent explanations for the rise of income inequality emphasised the role of globalisation ( Borjas, Freeman, and Katz 1992 ; Revenga 1992 ). Globalisation has led to the offshoring of many goods and services that used to be produced or completed domestically in the West, which has created downward pressures on the wages of lower skilled workers. According to the ‘market forces hypothesis,’ increasing inequality is a response to the rising demand for skills at the top, in which the spread of globalisation and technological progress have been facilitated through reduced barriers to trade and movement.

Proponents of globalisation as the leading cause of inequality have argued that globalisation has constrained domestic state choices and left governments collectively powerless to address inequality. Detractors admit that globalisation has indeed had deep structural effects on Western economies but its impact on the degree of agency available to domestic governments has been mediated by individual policy choices ( Thomas 2016 : 346). A key problem with attributing the cause of inequality to globalisation, is that the extent of the inequality increase has varied considerably across countries, even though they have all been exposed to the same effects of globalisation. The US also has the highest inequality amongst rich countries, but it is less reliant on international trade than most other developed countries ( Brown 2017 : 56). Moreover, a recent meta-analysis by Heimberger (2020) found that globalisation has a “small-to-moderate” inequality-increasing effect, with financial globalisation displaying the largest impact.

2.2 Technology

A related explanation for inequality draws attention to the impact of technology specifically. The advent of the digital age has placed a higher premium on the skills needed for non-routine work and reduced the value placed on lower skilled routine work, as it has enabled machines to replace jobs that could be routinised. This skill-biased technological change (SBTC) has led to major changes in the organisation of work, as many full-time permanent jobs with benefits have given way to part-time flexible work without benefits, that are often centred around the completion of short ‘gigs’ such as a car journey or food delivery. For instance, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimated in 2015 that since the 1990s, roughly 60% of all job creation has been in the form of non-standard work due to technological changes and that those employed in such jobs are more likely to be poor ( Brown 2017 : 60).

Relatedly, a prevailing doctrine in economics is ‘marginal productivity theory,’ which holds that people with greater productivity levels will earn higher incomes. This is due to the belief that a person’s productivity is equated to their societal contribution ( Stiglitz 2013 : 37). Since technology is a leading determinant in the productivity of different skills and SBTC has led to increased productivity, it has also become a justification for inequality. However, it is very difficult to separate any one person’s contribution to society from that of others, as even the most successful businessperson owes their success to the rule of law, good infrastructure, and a state educated workforce ( Stiglitz 2013 : 97–98).

Further criticisms of the SBTC explanation, are that there was still substantial SBTC when inequality first fell dramatically and then stabilised in the period from 1930 to 1980, and it has failed to explain the perpetuation of both the gender and racial wage gap, “or the dramatic rise in education-related wage gaps for younger versus older workers” ( Brown 2017 : 67). Although it is difficult to decouple globalisation and technology, as they each have compounding tendencies, it is most likely that globalisation and technology are important explanatory factors for inequality, but predominantly facilitate and underlie the following more determinant institutional factors that happen to be already present, such as reduced tax progressivity, rising executive pay, and union decline. It is to these factors that I now turn.

2.3 Tax Policy

Taxes overwhelmingly comprise the primary source of revenue that governments can use for redistribution, which is fundamental to alleviating income inequality. Redistribution is defended on economic grounds because the marginal utility of money declines as income rises, meaning that the benefit derived from extra income is much higher for the poor than the rich. However, since the late 1970s, a major rethinking surrounding redistributive policy occurred. This precipitated ‘trickle-down economics’ theory achieving prominence amongst American and British policymakers, whereby the benefits from tax cuts on the wealthy would trickle-down to everyone. Subsequently, expert opinion has determined that tax cuts do not actually spur economic growth ( CBPP 2017 ).

Personal income tax progressivity has declined sharply in the West, as the average top income tax rate for OECD members fell from 62% in 1981 to 35% in 2015 ( IMF 2017 : 11). However, the decline has been most pronounced in the UK and the US, which had top rates of around 90% in the 1960s and 1970s. Corporate tax rates have also plummeted by roughly one half across the OECD since 1980 ( Shaxson 2015 : 4). Recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) research found that between 1985 and 1995, redistribution through the tax system had offset 60% of the increase in market inequality but has since failed to respond to the continuing increase in inequality ( IMF 2017 ). Moreover, in a sample of 18 OECD countries encompassing 50 years, Hope and Limberg (2020) found that tax reforms even significantly increased pre-tax income inequality, while having no significant effect on economic growth.

This decline in tax progressivity has been a leading cause of rising income inequality, which has been compounded by the growing problem of tax avoidance. A complex global web of shell corporations has been constructed by international brokers in offshore tax havens that is able to keep wealth hidden from tax collectors. The total hidden amount in tax havens is estimated to be $7.6 trillion US dollars and rising, or roughly 8% of total global household wealth ( Zucman 2015 : 36). Recent research has revealed that tax havens are overwhelmingly used by the immensely rich ( Alstadsæter, Johannesen, and Zucman 2019 ), thus taxing this wealth would substantially reduce income inequality and increase revenue available for redistribution. The massive reduction in income tax progressivity in the Anglo world, after it had been amongst its leaders in the post-war years, also “probably explains much of the increase in the very highest earned incomes” since 1980 ( Piketty 2014 : 495–496).

2.4 Executive Pay

The enormous rising pay of executives since the 1980s, has also fuelled income inequality and more specifically the gap between executives and their employees. For example, the gap between Chief Executive Officers (CEO) and their workers at the 500 leading US companies in 2016, was 335 times, which is nearly 10 times larger than in 1980. It is a similar story in the UK, with a pay ratio of 131 for large British firms, which has also risen markedly since 1980 ( Dorling 2017 ).

Piketty (2014 : 335) posits that the dramatic reduction in top income tax has had an amplifying effect on top executives pay since it provides them with much greater incentive to seek larger remuneration, as far less is then taken in tax. It is difficult to objectively measure an individual’s contribution to a company and with the onset of trickle-down economics and accompanying business-friendly climate since the 1980s, top executives have found it relatively easy to convince boards of their monetary worth ( Gabaix and Landier 2008 ).

The rise in executive pay in both the UK and US, is far larger than the rest of the OECD. This may partially be explained by the English-speaking ‘superstar’ theory, whereby the global market demand for top CEOs is much higher for native English speakers due to English being the prime language of the global economy ( Deaton 2013 : 210). Saez and Veall (2005) provide support for the theory in a study of the top 1% of earners from the Canadian province of Quebec, which showed that English speakers were able to increase their income share over twice as much as their French-speaking counterparts from 1980 to 2000. This upsurge of income at the top of the labour market has been accompanied by stagnation or diminishing returns for the middle and lower parts of the labour market, which has been affected by the dramatic decline of union influence throughout the West.

2.5 Union Decline

Trade unions have typically been viewed as an important force for moderating income inequality. They “contribute to wage compression by restricting wage decline among low-wage earners” and restrain wage surges among high-wage earners ( Checchi and Visser 2009 : 249). The mere presence of unions can also drive up the wages of non-union employees in similar industries, as employers tend to give in to wage demands to keep unions out. Union density has also been proven to be strongly associated with higher redistribution both directly and indirectly, through its influence on left party governments ( Haddow 2013 : 403).

There had broadly existed a ‘social contract’ between labour and business, whereby collective bargaining establishes a wage structure in many industries. However, this contract was abandoned by corporate America in the mid-1970s when large-scale corporate donations influenced policymakers to oppose pro-union reform of labour law, leading to political defeats for unions ( Hacker and Pierson 2010 : 58–59). The crackdown of strikes culminating in the momentous Air Traffic Controllers’ strike (1981) in the US and coal miner’s strike (1984–85) in the UK, caused labour to become de-politicised, which was self-reinforcing, because as their political power dispersed, policymakers had fewer incentives to protect or strengthen union regulations ( Rosenfeld and Western 2011 ). Consequently, US union density has plummeted from around a third of the workforce in 1960, down to 11.9% last decade, with the steepest decline occurring in the 1980s ( Stiglitz 2013 : 81).

Although the decline in union density is not as steep cross-nationally, the pattern is still similar. Baccaro and Howell (2011 : 529) found that on average the unionisation rate decreased by 0.39% a year since 1974 for the 15 OECD members they surveyed. Increasingly, the decline in the fortunes of labour is being linked with the increase in inequality and the sharpest increases in income inequality have occurred in the two countries with the largest falls in union density – the UK and US. Recent studies have found that the weakening of organised unions accounts for between a third and a fifth of the total rise in income inequality in the US ( Rosenfeld and Western 2011 ), and nearly one half of the increase in both the Gini rate and the top 10%’s income share amongst OECD members ( Jaumotte and Buitron 2015 ).

To illustrate the changing relationship between inequality and unionisation, Figure 1 displays a local polynomial smoother scatter plot of union density by income inequality, for 23 OECD countries, 1980–2018. They are negatively correlated, as countries with higher union density have much lower levels of income inequality. Figure 2 further plots the time trends of both. Income inequality (as measured via the Gini coefficient) has climbed over 0.02 percentage points on average in these countries since 1980, which is roughly a one-tenth rise. Whereas union density has fallen on average from 44 to 35 percentage points, which is over one-fifth.

Gini coefficient by union density, OECD 1980–2018. Data on Gini coefficients from SWIID ( Solt 2020 ); data on union density from ICTWSS Database ( Visser 2019 ).

Gini coefficient by union density, 1980–2018. Data on Gini coefficients from SWIID ( Solt 2020 ); data on union density from ICTWSS Database ( Visser 2019 ).

In sum, income inequality is multifaceted and is not the inevitable outcome of irresistible structural forces such as globalisation or technological development. Instead, it has largely been driven by a multitude of political choices. Tridico (2018) finds that the increases in inequality from 1990 to 2013 in 26 OECD countries, was largely owing to increased financialisation, deepening labour flexibility, the weakening of trade unions and welfare state retrenchment. While Huber, Huo, and Stephens (2019) recently reveals that top income shares are unrelated to economic growth and knowledge-intensive production but is closely related to political and policy changes surrounding union density, government partisanship, top income tax rates, and educational investment. Lastly, Hager’s (2020) recent meta-analysis concludes that the “empirical record consistently shows that government policy plays a pivotal role” in shaping income inequality.

These preventable causes that have given rise to inequality have created socio-economic challenges, due to the demonstrably negative outcomes that inequality engenders. What follows is a detailed analysis of the significant mechanisms that income inequality induces, which lead to harmful outcomes.

3 Consequences of Income Inequality

Escalating income inequality has been linked with numerous negative outcomes. On the economic front, negative results transpire beyond the obvious poverty and material deprivation that is often associated with low incomes. Income inequality has also been shown to reduce growth, innovation, and investment. On the social front, Wilkinson and Pickett’s ground-breaking The Spirit Level ( 2009 ), found that societies that are more unequal have worse social outcomes on average than more egalitarian societies. They summarised an extensive body of research from the previous 30 years to create an Index of Health and Social Problems, which revealed a host of different health and social problems (measuring life expectancy, infant mortality, obesity, trust, imprisonment, homicide, drug abuse, mental health, social mobility, childhood education, and teenage pregnancy) as being positively correlated with the level of income inequality across rich nations and across states within the US. Figure 3 displays the cross-national findings via a sample of 21 OECD countries.

Index of health and social problems by Gini coefficient. Data on health and social problems index from The Equality Trust (2018) ; data on Gini coefficients from OECD (2020) .

3.1 Economic

Income inequality is predominantly an economic subject. Therefore, it is understandable that it can engender pervasive economic outcomes. Foremost economically speaking, it has been linked with reduced growth, investment and innovation. Leading international organisations such as the IMF, World Bank and OECD, pushed for neoliberal reforms beginning in the 1980s, although they have recently started to substantially temper their views due to their own research into inequality. A 2016 study by IMF economists, noted that neoliberal policies have delivered benefits through the expansion of global trade and transfers of technology, but the resulting increases in inequality “itself undercut growth, the very thing that the neo-liberal agenda is intent on boosting” ( Ostry, Loungani, and Furceri 2016 : 41). Cingano’s (2014) OECD cross-national study, found that once a country’s income inequality reaches a certain level it reduces growth. The growth rate in these countries would have been one-fifth higher had income inequality not increased, while the greater equality of the other countries included in the study helped to increase their growth rates.

Consumer spending is good for economic growth but rising income inequality shifts more money to the top of the income distribution, where higher income individuals have a much smaller propensity to consume than lower-income individuals. The wealthy save roughly 15–25% of their income, whereas low income individuals spend their entire income on consumer goods and services ( Stiglitz 2013 : 106). Therefore, greater inequality reduces demand in an economy and is a major contributor to the ‘secular stagnation’ (persistent insufficient demand relative to aggregate private savings) that the largest Western economies have been experiencing since the financial crisis. Inequality also increases the level of debt, as lower-income individuals borrow more to maintain their standard of living, especially in a climate of low interest rates. Combined with deregulation, greater debt increases instability and “was a major contributor to, if not the underlying cause of, the 2008 financial crash” ( Brown 2017 : 35–36).

Another key economic effect of income inequality is that it leads to reduced welfare spending and public investment. Since a greater share of the income distribution is earned by the very wealthy, governments have less income available to fund education, public amenities, and other services that the poor rely heavily on. This creates social separation, whereby the wealthy opt out in publicly funding services because their private equivalents are of better quality. This causes a cycle of increasing income inequality that is likely to eventually lead to a situation of “private affluence and public squalor” ( Marmot 2015 : 39).

Lastly, it has been proven that economic instability is a by-product of increasing inequality, which harms innovation. Both countries and American states with the highest inequality have been found to be the least innovative in terms of the amount of Intellectual Property (IP) patents they produce ( Dorling 2018 : 129–130). Although income inequality is predominantly an economic subject, its effects are so pervasive that it has also been linked to a host of negative health and societal outcomes.

Wilkinson and Pickett found key associations between income inequality for both physical and mental health. For example, they discovered that on average the life expectancy gap is more than four years between the least and most equitable richest nations (Japan and the US). Since their revelations, overall life expectancy has been reported to be declining in the US ( Case and Deaton 2020 ). It has held or declined every year since 2014, which has led to a cumulative drop of 1.13 years ( Andrasfay and Goldman 2021 ). Marmot (2015) has provided evidence that there exists a social gradient whereby differences in affluence translate into increasing health inequalities, which can be shown even down to the neighbourhood level, as more affluent areas have higher life expectancy on average than deprived areas, and a clear gradient appears where life expectancy increases in line with affluence.

Moreover, Marmot’s famous Whitehall studies, which are large-scale longitudinal studies of Whitehall employees of UK central government, found an inverse-relationship between salary grade and ill-health, whereby low-grade workers were four times as likely as high-grade workers to suffer from ill-health ( 2015 : 11). Health steadily improves with rank and the correlation is little affected by lifestyle controls such as tobacco and alcohol usage. However, the leading factor that seems to make the most difference in ill-health is job stress and a person’s sense of control over their work, including the variety of work and the use and development of skills ( Schrecker and Bambra 2015 : 54–55).

‘Psychosocial stresses,’ like those appearing in the Whitehall studies, have been found to be more common and frequent amongst low-income individuals, beyond just the workplace ( Jensen and van Kersbergen 2017 : 24). Wilkinson and Pickett (2019) posit that greater income inequality engenders low self-esteem, chronic stress and depression, stemming from status anxiety. This occurs because more importance is placed on where people fit in a hierarchy with greater inequality. For evidence, they outline a clear relationship of a much higher percentage of the population suffering from mental illness in more unequal countries. Meticulous research has shown that huge inequalities in income result in the poor having feelings of shame across a range of environments. Furthermore, Dickerson and Kemeny’s (2004) meta-analysis of 208 studies found that stress-hormone (cortisol) levels were raised particularly “when people felt that others were making negative judgements about them” ( Rowlingson 2011 : 24).

These effects on both mental and physical health can be best illustrated via the ‘absolute income’ and ‘relative income’ hypotheses ( Daly, Boyce, and Wood 2015 ). The relative income hypothesis posits that when an individual’s income is held constant, the relative income of others can affect a person’s health depending on how they view themselves in comparison to those above them ( Wilkinson 1996 ). This pattern also holds when income inequality increases at the societal level, because if such changes lead to increases in chronic stress, it can increase ill-health nationally. Whereas the absolute income hypothesis predicts that health gains from an extra unit of income diminish as an individual’s income rises ( Kawachi, Adler, and Dow 2010 ). A mean preserving transfer from a richer to poorer individual raises the health of the poorer individual more than it lowers the health of the richer person. This occurs because there is an optimum threshold of income required to maintain good health. Thus, when holding total income constant, a more equal distribution of income should improve overall population health. This pattern also applies at the country-wide level, as the “effect of income on health appears substantial as countries move from about $15,000 to 25,000 US dollars per capita,” but appears non-existent beyond that point ( Leigh, Jencks, and Smeeding 2009 : 386–387).

Income inequality also impacts happiness and wellbeing, as the happiest nations are routinely the ones with low inequality, such as Denmark and Norway. Happiness has been proven to be affected by the law of diminishing returns in economics. It states that higher income incrementally improves happiness but only up to a certain point, as any individual income earned beyond roughly $70,000 US dollars, does not bring about greater happiness ( Deaton 2013 : 53). The negative physical and mental health outcomes that income inequality provoke, also impact key societal areas such as crime, social mobility and education.

Rates of violent crime are lower in more equal countries ( Hsieh and Pugh 1993 ; Whitworth 2012 ). This is largely because more equal countries have less poverty, which leads to less people being desperate about their situation, as lower-income individuals have been shown to commit more crime. Relatedly, according to strain theory, more unequal societies place higher social value in achieving economic success, while providing lower means to achieve it ( Merton 1938 ). This generates strain, which may lead more individuals to pursue crime as a means of attaining financial success. At the opposite end of the income spectrum, the wealthy in more equal countries are also less likely to exploit others and commit fraud or exhibit other anti-social behaviour, partly because they feel less of a need to cut corners to get ahead, or to make money ( Dorling 2017 : 152–153). Homicides also tend to rise with inequality. Daly (2016) reveals that inequality predicts homicide rates better than any other variable and accounts for around half of the variance in murder rates between countries and American states. Roughly 90% of American homicides are committed by men, and since the majority of homicides occur over status, inequality raises the stakes of disputes over status amongst men.

Studies have also shown that there is a marked negative relationship between income inequality and social mobility. Utilising Intergenerational Earnings Elasticity data from Blanden, Gregg, and Machin (2005) , Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) first outline this relationship cross-nationally for eight OECD countries. Corak (2013) famously expanded on this with his ‘Great Gatsby Curve’ for 22 countries using the same measure. I update and expand on these studies in Figure 4 to include all 36 OECD members, utilising the WEF’s inaugural 2020 Social Mobility Index. It clearly shows that social mobility is much lower on average in more unequal countries across the entire OECD.

Index of social mobility by Gini coefficient. Data on social mobility index from World Economic Forum (2020) ; data on Gini coefficients from SWIID ( Solt 2020 ).

A primary driver for the negative relationship between inequality and social mobility, derives from the availability of resources during early childhood. Life chances have been shown to be determined in early childhood to a disproportionately large extent ( Jensen and van Kersbergen 2017 : 29). Children in more equitable regions such as Scandinavia, have better access to resources, as they go to similar schools, receive similar educational opportunities, and have access to a wider range of career options. Whereas in the UK and US, a greater number of jobs at the top are closed off to those at the bottom and affluent parents are far more likely to send their children to private schools and fund other ‘child enrichment’ goods and services ( Dorling 2017 : 26). Therefore, as income inequality rises, there is a greater disparity in the resources that rich and poor parents can invest in their children’s education, which has been shown to substantially affect “cognitive development and school achievement” ( Brown 2017 : 33–34).

4 Conclusions

The causes and consequences of income inequality are multifaceted. Income inequality is not the inevitable outcome of irresistible structural forces such as globalisation or technological development. Instead, it has largely been driven by a multitude of institutional political choices. These preventable causes that have given rise to inequality have created socio-economic challenges, due to the demonstrably negative outcomes that inequality engenders.

The neoliberal political consensus poses challenges for policymakers to arrest the rise of income inequality. However, there are many proven solutions that policymakers can enact if the appropriate will can be summoned. Restoring higher levels of labour protections would aid in reversing the declining trend of labour wage share. Similarly, government promotion and support for new corporate governance models that give trade unions and workers a seat at the table in ownership decisions through board memberships, would somewhat redress the increasing power imbalance between capital and labour that is generating more inequality. Greater regulation aimed at limiting the now dominant shareholder principle of maximising value through share buy-backs and instead offering greater incentives to pursue maximisation of stakeholder value, long-term financial stability and investment, can reduce inequality. Most importantly, tax policy can be harnessed to redress income inequality. Such policies include restoring higher marginal income and corporate tax rates, setting higher corporate tax rates for firms with higher ratios of CEO-to-worker pay, and establishing luxury taxes on spiralling compensation packages. Finally, a move away from austerity, which has gripped the West since the financial crisis, and a move towards much greater government investment and welfare state spending, would also lift growth and low-wages.

Alstadsæter, A., N. Johannesen, and G. Zucman. 2019. “Tax Evasion and Inequality.” American Economic Review 109 (6): 2073–103. 10.3386/w23772 Search in Google Scholar

Andrasfay, T., and N. Goldman. 2021. “Reductions in 2020 US Life Expectancy Due to COVID-19 and the Disproportionate Impact on the Black and Latino Populations.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (5), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014746118 . Search in Google Scholar

Asaria, M., J. Costa-Font, and F. A. Cowell. 2021. “How Does Exposure to Covid-19 Influence Health and Income Inequality Aversion.” IZA Discussion Paper. no. 14103. Also available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3785067 . 10.2139/ssrn.3907733 Search in Google Scholar

Atkinson, A. B. 2015. Inequality: What Can Be Done? London: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674287013 Search in Google Scholar

Baccaro, L., and C. Howell. 2011. “A Common Neoliberal Trajectory: The Transformation of Industrial Relations in Advanced Capitalism.” Politics & Society 39 (4): 521–63, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329211420082 . Search in Google Scholar

Blanden, J., P. Gregg, and S. Machin. 2005. Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America . London: Centre for Economic Performance. 10.1017/CBO9780511492549.007 Search in Google Scholar

Borjas, G. J., R. B. Freeman, and L. F. Katz. 1992. “On the Labor Market Effects of Immigration and Trade.” In Immigration and the Workforce , edited by G. J. Borjas, and R. B. Freeman, 213–44. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.3386/w3761 Search in Google Scholar

Brown, R. 2017. The Inequality Crisis: The Facts and What We Can Do About It . Bristol: Polity Press. 10.2307/j.ctt22p7kb5 Search in Google Scholar

Case, A., and A. Deaton. 2020. Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism . Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9780691217062 Search in Google Scholar

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) . 2017. Tax Cuts for the Rich Aren’t an Economic Panacea – and Could Hurt Growth. Also available at https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/tax-cuts-for-the-rich-arent-an-economic-panacea-and-could-hurt-growth . Search in Google Scholar

Checchi, D., and J. Visser. 2009. “Inequality and the Labor Market: Unions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality , edited by B. Nolan, W. Salverda, and T. M. Smeeding, 230–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Cingano, F. 2014. Trends in Income Inequality and its Impact on Economic Growth . OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 163. Paris: OECD Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

Corak, M. 2013. “Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (3): 79–102, https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.3.79 . Search in Google Scholar

Daly, M. 2016. Killing the Competition: Economic Inequality and Homicide . Oxford: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203787748 Search in Google Scholar

Daly, M., C. Boyce, and A. Wood. 2015. “A Social Rank Explanation of How Money Influences Health.” Health Psychology 34 (3): 222–30, https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000098 . Search in Google Scholar

Deaton, A. 2013. The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality . Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400847969 Search in Google Scholar

Dickerson, S. S., and M. Kemeny. 2004. “Acute Stressors and Cortisol Responses: A Theoretical Integration and Synthesis of Laboratory Research.” Psychological Bulletin 130 (3): 355–91, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355 . Search in Google Scholar

Dorling, D. 2017. The Equality Effect: Improving Life for Everyone . Oxford: New Internationalist Publications Ltd. Search in Google Scholar

Dorling, D. 2018. Do We Need Economic Inequality? Cambridge: Polity Press. Search in Google Scholar

Elliott, L. 2017. “Rising Inequality Threatens World Economy, Says WEF.” The Guardian. Also available at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/11/inequality-world-economy-wef-brexit-donald-trump-world-economic-forum-risk-report . Search in Google Scholar

Gabaix, X., and A. Landier. 2008. “Why Has CEO Pay Increased So Much?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 123 (1): 49–100, https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.1.49 . Search in Google Scholar

Hacker, J. S., and P. Pierson. 2010. Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer – And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class . New York: Simon & Schuster. Search in Google Scholar

Haddow, R. 2013. “Labour Market Income Transfers and Redistribution.” In Inequality and the Fading of Redistributive Politics , edited by K. Banting, and J. Myles, 381–412. Vancouver: UBC Press. Search in Google Scholar

Hager, S. 2020. “Varieties of Top Incomes?” Socio-Economic Review 18 (4): 1175–98. 10.1093/ser/mwy036 Search in Google Scholar

Heimberger, P. 2020. “Does Economic Globalisation Affect Income Inequality? A Meta‐analysis.” The World Economy 43 (11): 2960–82, https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13007 . Search in Google Scholar

Hope, D., and J. Limberg. 2020. The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich . London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Also available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/ . Search in Google Scholar

Hsieh, C.-C., and M. D. Pugh. 1993. “Poverty, Inequality and Violent Crime: a Meta-Analysis of Recent Aggregate Data Studies.” Criminal Justice Review 18 (2): 182–202, https://doi.org/10.1177/073401689301800203 . Search in Google Scholar

Huber, E., J. Huo, and J. D. Stephens. 2019. “Power, Policy, and Top Income Shares.” Socio-Economic Review 17 (2): 231–53, https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwx027 . Search in Google Scholar

International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2017. Fiscal Monitor: Tackling Inequality . Washington: IMF. Search in Google Scholar

Jaumotte, F., and C. O. Buitron. 2015. “Power from the People.” Finance & Development 52 (1): 29–31. Search in Google Scholar

Jensen, C., and K. Van Kersbergen. 2017. The Politics of Inequality . London: Palgrave. 10.1057/978-1-137-42702-1 Search in Google Scholar

Kawachi, I., N. E. Adler, and W. H. Dow. 2010. “Money, Schooling, and Health: Mechanisms and Causal Evidence.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1186 (1): 56–68, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05340.x . Search in Google Scholar

Leigh, A., C. Jencks, and T. Smeeding. 2009. “Health and Economic Inequality.” In The Oxford Book of Economic Equality , edited by W. Salverda, B. Nolan, and T. Smeeding, 384–405. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199606061.013.0016 Search in Google Scholar

Marmot, M. 2015. The Health Gap: The Challenge of an Unequal World . London: Bloomsbury. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00150-6 Search in Google Scholar

Merton, R. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review 3 (5): 672–82, https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686 . Search in Google Scholar

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) . 2020. “Income Inequality” (Indicator) . Paris: OECD Publishing. Also available at https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm . Search in Google Scholar

Ostry, J. D., P. Loungani, and D. Furceri. 2016. “ Neoliberalism: Oversold? ” Finance and Development 532: 38–41. Also available at https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm . Search in Google Scholar

Piketty, T. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674369542 Search in Google Scholar

Piketty, T. 2020. Capital and Ideology . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674245075 Search in Google Scholar

Revenga, A. 1992. “Exporting Jobs? The Impact of Import Competition on Employment and Wages in U.S. Manufacturing.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (1): 255–84, https://doi.org/10.2307/2118329 . Search in Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, J., and B. Western. 2011. “Unions, Norms, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality.” American Sociological Review 78 (4): 513–37. 10.1177/0003122411414817 Search in Google Scholar

Rowlingson, K. 2011. Does Income Inequality Cause Health and Social Problems? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Search in Google Scholar

Saez, E., and M. Veall. 2005. “The Evolution of High Incomes in Northern America: Lessons from Canadian Evidence.” American Economic Review 95 (3): 831–49, https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828054201404 . Search in Google Scholar

Scheidel, W. 2017. The Great Leveller: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century . Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400884605 Search in Google Scholar

Schrecker, T., and C. Bambra. 2015. How Politics Makes Us Sick: Neoliberal Epidemics . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137463074 Search in Google Scholar

Shaxson, N. 2015. Ten Reasons to Defend the Corporation Tax . London: Tax Justice Network. Also available at http://www.taxjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ten_Reasons_Full_Report.pdf . Search in Google Scholar

Solt, F. 2020. “Measuring Income Inequality across Countries and over Time: The Standardized World Income Inequality Database.” Social Science Quarterly 101 (3): 1183–99. Version 9.0, https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12795 . Search in Google Scholar

Stiglitz, J. 2013. The Price of Inequality . London: Penguin Books. 10.1111/npqu.11358 Search in Google Scholar

The Equality Trust . 2018. “The Spirit Level Data.” London. Also available at https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=5 . Search in Google Scholar

Thomas, A. 2016. Republic of Equals: Predistribution and Property-Owning Democracy . Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190602116.001.0001 Search in Google Scholar

Tridico, P. 2018. “The Determinants of Income Inequality in OECD Countries.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 42 (4): 1009–42, https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bex069 . Search in Google Scholar

Visser, J. 2019. ICTWSS Database . Version 6.1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies (AIAS), University of Amsterdam. Search in Google Scholar

Whitworth, A. 2012. “Inequality and Crime across England: A Multilevel Modelling Approach.” Social Policy and Society 11 (1): 27–40, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474746411000388 . Search in Google Scholar

Wilkinson, R. 1996. Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality . London: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Wilkinson, R., and K. Pickett. 2009. The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone . London: Penguin Books. Search in Google Scholar

Wilkinson, R., and K. Pickett. 2019. The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Well-Being . London: Penguin Books. Search in Google Scholar

Wiwad, D., B. Mercier, P. K. Piff, A. Shariff, and L. B. Aknin. 2021. “Recognizing the Impact of COVID-19 on the Poor Alters Attitudes towards Poverty and Inequality.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104083 . Search in Google Scholar

World Economic Forum. 2020. The Global Social Mobility Report 2020 . Geneva: World Economic Forum. Also available at https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report.pdf . Search in Google Scholar

Zucman, G. 2015. The Hidden Wealth of Nations: The Scourge of Tax Havens . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226245560.001.0001 Search in Google Scholar

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

Measuring income inequality: A primer on the debate

Subscribe to the economic studies bulletin, william g. gale , william g. gale the arjay and frances fearing miller chair in federal economic policy, senior fellow - economic studies , co-director - urban-brookings tax policy center @williamgale2 john sabelhaus , and john sabelhaus visiting fellow - economic studies , urban-brookings tax policy center samuel i. thorpe samuel i. thorpe senior research assistant - urban-brookings tax policy center @samthorpe__.

December 21, 2023

There is substantial evidence that income inequality in America rose throughout the late 20 th and early 21 st centuries. Influential research by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman (PSZ) finds that inequality has risen markedly, with the top 1% of taxpayers’ share of after-tax-and-transfer income rising from 9% in 1960 to 15% in 2019.

Recently published work by Gerald Auten and David Splinter (AS) paints a different picture. The authors find that inequality has barely budged, with the top 1% receiving 9% of after-tax income in 2019, up only slightly from 8% in 1960.

Remarkably, the two author teams use the same income concept (national income) and the same data (based on tax returns) to generate these contrasting results. How can such different conclusions arise given the similarity in approach? And what is the right way to characterize income inequality?

What are the trends?

The figure below reports the basic results. From 1960 to 2019, the after-tax-and-transfer share of national income going to the top 1% rose by 6 percentage points according to PSZ but only 1 percentage point according to AS.

Part of the difference between the two is related to their measurement of pre-tax income shares. PSZ find the top 1% share of pre-tax income rose by 6 percentage points (from 13% to 19%) and AS estimate the increase to be 4 percentage points (from 10% to 14%). But different estimates of pre-tax income shares only explain 2 of the 5 percentage point discrepancy.

The remaining 3-point gap results from different estimates of the effects of tax and transfer policies. For both the pre- and post-tax measures, the PSZ and AS estimates were very similar in the 1960s but diverged after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 with the growth in passthrough businesses.

What drives the differences?

Although the two author teams start with the same tax return data and aim to measure inequalities in the same concept—national income—their results differ substantially because a substantial share of national income is not reported on tax returns. This may occur for two reasons: Either the income is not subject to tax (e.g., employer-provided health insurance) or because taxpayers take steps to avoid taxes when they report their income to the IRS.

How this missing income is imputed and allocated across individuals drives much of the difference between PSZ and AS, and there is no consensus on the right set of choices. Angus Deaton (2020) sums up the issue in this way:

Allocating from tax returns is hard enough, because tax units are neither individuals nor households, but allocating the other half of national income is an immensely more difficult task, requiring assumptions that are rarely well supported by evidence and often seem arbitrary. Because distribution is such a controversial topic, these assumptions leave plenty of scope for politically-biased challenges, in which each commentator can choose their own alternatives and get almost any result they choose.

Many of the choices made in earlier research by Piketty and Saez (2003), and later by PSZ, tended to push measured inequality higher. In contrast, almost all the choices AS have made tend to push top income share estimates down, relative to PSZ. Still, these decisions are not “just” political. There are key substantive issues at stake.

Tax evasion and avoidance

Some income is not reported on tax forms because individuals (illegally) evade taxes and (legally) take steps to avoid taxes by recharacterizing income. This is a consequential issue: For example, more than 50% of all pass-through business income goes untaxed according to national accounts data.

PSZ assume that unreported income should be assigned proportional to reported income. AS, on the other hand, impute the income based on the results of IRS tax audit studies, which suggest more of the missing income accrues to middle-income households. AS show this choice accounts for 2 percentage points of the 6-point 2014 gap in top 1% income, when evaluated independently of other methodological differences.

In principle, audit studies are a useful source of information on nonpayment. In practice, however, they miss any tax evasion sufficiently sophisticated to escape the notice of auditors. Because such sophisticated evasion tends to be concentrated among the wealthiest taxpayers, assigning misreported income based on audit studies—as AS do—will tend to understate the share of pre-tax income going to the top 1% of earners.

In a recently released response to Auten and Splinter (2023) , PSZ point out that the AS imputations implicitly assume that more than 70% of business income earned by the bottom 99% goes untaxed, compared to just 20% of top 1% business income. Our own work with the Survey of Consumer Finances finds results closer to the assumptions used in PSZ: A proportional adjustment brings our estimated taxable incomes into better alignment with incomes published by the IRS.

Retirement accounts

Pension contributions and the interest and dividends earned on retirement balances count as part of national income. Pension withdrawals do not. Both PSZ and AS diverge from this treatment. They exclude pension contributions and include retirement benefits and withdrawals, bringing the income concept more in line with popular views about what the income distribution should be capturing.

But they differ from one another in assumptions about non-taxable retirement income, which can reflect distributions from Roth IRAs (which are considered income) or rollovers from one retirement account to another (which are not). In earlier versions of their work, PSZ mistakenly assumed too large a share of non-taxable rollovers were income. This meant that PSZ were overstating top income shares, especially among the very wealthy. In recent updates, PSZ have taken steps to be more in line with AS on this issue.

However, AS claim that the revised PSZ series still slightly overstates what proportion of non-taxable distributions should be characterized as income. Unlike some of the other issues being debated, this is fundamentally an empirical question; better evidence is needed to identify the correct answer. The different assumptions about distributing retirement flows contribute about 1 percentage point to the 6-point gap between AS and PSZ in 2014.

Consumption by governments

The treatment of consumption spending on goods and services by governments also contributes significantly to the after-tax discrepancy between AS and PSZ top income shares. Government consumption includes expenditures (valued at cost) for defense, infrastructure, education, and other similar programs; it does not include transfer payments. While PSZ allocate this consumption proportionally to after-tax income, AS allocate half of it proportionally to after-tax income and half on a per capita basis, contributing 1.3 percentage points to the gap between AS and PSZ in 2014.

Allocating expenditures entirely by income, as done by PSZ, is likely too extreme. Education expenditures in particular are distributed closer to a per capita basis. But it is genuinely unclear how to measure the value of defense and infrastructure spending to households across the income distribution. This issue is one where, a la Deaton, there is no single “correct” answer. The reasonable range of estimates may fall somewhere in between the two positions.

Non-Social Security government deficits

Both PSZ and AS assign Social Security benefits to the recipients and payroll taxes (both employer and employee portions) to the worker. The allocation of the rest of the federal deficit, however, will depend on future decisions by policymakers. AS assign non-Social Security deficits in proportion to federal income taxes, while PSZ assign deficits equally between government transfers received and federal income taxes. In essence, AS assume that deficits will be entirely funded by tax increases proportional to existing federal income tax payments, while PSZ assume they will be funded half by tax increases and half by benefit cuts. This differing treatment explains 0.4 percentage points of the gap in 2014.

Other Issues

Several other issues make smaller contributions to the measurement of inequality. Some of these (e.g., how to group tax returns to deal with differential changes in marriage rates between the top 1% and others) are relatively uncontroversial, while others (e.g., how to treat the distribution of government transfers) are subject to fierce debates but ultimately are not quantitatively important for differences between the authors. The treatment of corporate retained earnings was a key point of contention in earlier versions of the papers , but the differences appear to be mostly ironed out after PSZ made changes to their series.

So, what really happened to inequality?

Even taking into account the changes suggested by AS, the preponderance of evidence suggests that income inequality has increased, both in the U.S. and in other countries . Evidence also shows U.S. inequality increasing in other measures, such as health , mortality , and wealth . It is hard to see why inequality on other dimensions would have increased, in some cases substantially, if the distribution of income had not changed. Still, the research by AS raises important questions about the magnitude and timing of that increase and the assumptions researchers must make to help inform the public.

Related Content

William G. Gale, Swati Joshi, Christopher Pulliam, John Sabelhaus

April 20, 2022

William G. Gale, Semra Vignaux

September 7, 2023

The Brookings Institution is financed through the support of a diverse array of foundations, corporations, governments, individuals, as well as an endowment. A list of donors can be found in our annual reports published online  here . The findings, interpretations, and conclusions in this report are solely those of its author(s) and are not influenced by any donation.

Economic Studies

Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center

Ben S. Bernanke, Olivier Blanchard

May 16, 2024

Robin Brooks

May 9, 2024

Janice C. Eberly, Ben Harris, Stefanie Stantcheva, Jón Steinsson

Global Trends in Income Inequality and Income Dynamics: New Insights from GRID

The Global Repository of Income Dynamics (GRID) is a new open-access, cross- country database that contains a wide range of micro statistics on income inequality, dynamics, and mobility. It has four key characteristics: it is built on micro panel data drawn from administrative records; it fully exploits the longitudinal dimension of the underlying datasets; it offers granular descriptions of income inequality and income dynamics for finely defined subpopulations; and it is designed from the ground up with the goals of harmonization and cross-country comparability. This paper introduces the database and presents a set of global trends in income inequality and income dynamics across the 13 countries that are currently in GRID. Our results are based on the statistics created for GRID by the 13 country teams who also contributed to this special issue with individual articles.

GRID is a joint initiative between the Minnesota Economics Big Data Institute at the University of Minnesota, Princeton University, and Stanford University. GRID can be accessed at https://www.grid-database.org/. We owe special thanks to Serdar Ozkan (University of Toronto) and Sergio Salgado (Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania), who wrote and regularly updated the master code used by all country teams to produce statistics. We are grateful to all country team members who supported the project from the very beginning and gave us vital feedback on many aspects of the empirical analysis. We also thank Francisco Bullano for outstanding research assistance on this paper. Finally, we thank the institutions that provided funding for the GRID Project: the Data-Driven Social Science Initiative and Simpson Center at Princeton University, Stanford University, Heller-Hurwicz Economics Institute and the Minnesota Economics Big Data Institute (MEBDI) at University of Minnesota, Litigation Analytics, and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. All the statistics available in GRID and used in this paper have been cleared for distribution by the relevant authorities in respective countries. The US statistics were released by the US Census Bureau on June 15, 2022 with clearance number CBDRB-FY22-283. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

I have received more than $10,000 of compensation for consulting services by the European Central Bank, the Central Bank of Chile, and a hedge fund that makes asset management decisions also based on macroeconomic conditions.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Published Versions

More from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

Advertisement

Gender inequality as a barrier to economic growth: a review of the theoretical literature

• Open access
• Published: 15 January 2021
• Volume 19 , pages 581–614, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Manuel Santos Silva 1 &
• Stephan Klasen 1  

54k Accesses

28 Citations

24 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In this article, we survey the theoretical literature investigating the role of gender inequality in economic development. The vast majority of theories reviewed argue that gender inequality is a barrier to development, particularly over the long run. Among the many plausible mechanisms through which inequality between men and women affects the aggregate economy, the role of women for fertility decisions and human capital investments is particularly emphasized in the literature. Yet, we believe the body of theories could be expanded in several directions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Gender Inequality and Growth in Europe

The effect of gender inequality on economic development: case of african countries.

The Feminization U

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Theories of long-run economic development have increasingly relied on two central forces: population growth and human capital accumulation. Both forces depend on decisions made primarily within households: population growth is partially determined by households’ fertility choices (e.g., Becker & Barro 1988 ), while human capital accumulation is partially dependent on parental investments in child education and health (e.g., Lucas 1988 ).

In an earlier survey of the literature linking family decisions to economic growth, Grimm ( 2003 ) laments that “[m]ost models ignore the two-sex issue. Parents are modeled as a fictive asexual human being” (p. 154). Footnote 1 Since then, however, economists are increasingly recognizing that gender plays a fundamental role in how households reproduce and care for their children. As a result, many models of economic growth are now populated with men and women. The “fictive asexual human being” is a dying species. In this article, we survey this rich new landscape in theoretical macroeconomics, reviewing, in particular, micro-founded theories where gender inequality affects economic development.

For the purpose of this survey, gender inequality is defined as any exogenously imposed difference between male and female economic agents that, by shaping their behavior, has implications for aggregate economic growth. In practice, gender inequality is typically modeled as differences between men and women in endowments, constraints, or preferences.

Many articles review the literature on gender inequality and economic growth. Footnote 2 Typically, both the theoretical and empirical literature are discussed, but, in almost all cases, the vast empirical literature receives most of the attention. In addition, some of the surveys examine both sides of the two-way relationship between gender inequality and economic growth: gender equality as a cause of economic growth and economic growth as a cause of gender equality. As a result, most surveys end up only scratching the surface of each of these distinct strands of literature.

There is, by now, a large and insightful body of micro-founded theories exploring how gender equality affects economic growth. In our view, these theories merit a separate review. Moreover, they have not received sufficient attention in empirical work, which has largely developed independently (see also Cuberes & Teignier 2014 ). By reviewing the theoretical literature, we hope to motivate empirical researchers in finding new ways of putting these theories to test. In doing so, our work complements several existing surveys. Doepke & Tertilt ( 2016 ) review the theoretical literature that incorporates families in macroeconomic models, without focusing exclusively on models that include gender inequality, as we do. Greenwood, Guner and Vandenbroucke ( 2017 ), in turn, review the theoretical literature from the opposite direction; they study how macroeconomic models can explain changes in family outcomes. Doepke, Tertilt and Voena ( 2012 ) survey the political economy of women’s rights, but without focusing explicitly on their impact on economic development.

To be precise, the scope of this survey consists of micro-founded macroeconomic models where gender inequality (in endowments, constraints, preferences) affects economic growth—either by influencing the economy’s growth rate or shaping the transition paths between multiple income equilibria. As a result, this survey does not cover several upstream fields of partial-equilibrium micro models, where gender inequality affects several intermediate growth-related outcomes, such as labor supply, education, health. Additionally, by focusing on micro-founded macro models, we do not review studies in heterodox macroeconomics, including the feminist economics tradition using structuralist, demand-driven models. For recent overviews of this literature, see Kabeer ( 2016 ) and Seguino ( 2013 , 2020 ). Overall, we find very little dialogue between the neoclassical and feminist heterodox literatures. In this review, we will show that actually these two traditions have several points of contact and reach similar conclusions in many areas, albeit following distinct intellectual routes.

Although the incorporation of gender in macroeconomic models of economic growth is a recent development, the main gendered ingredients of those models are not new. They were developed in at least two strands of literature. First, since the 1960s, “new home economics” has applied the analytical toolbox of rational choice theory to decisions being made within the boundaries of the family (see, e.g., Becker 1960 , 1981 ). Footnote 3 A second literature strand, mostly based on empirical work at the micro level in developing countries, described clear patterns of gender-specific behavior within households that differed across regions of the developing world (see, e.g., Boserup 1970 ). Footnote 4 As we shall see, most of the (micro-founded) macroeconomic models reviewed in this article use several analytical mechanisms from "new home economics”; these mechanisms can typically rationalize several of the gender-specific regularities observed in early studies of developing countries. The growth theorist is then left to explore the aggregate implications for economic development.

The first models we present focus on gender discrimination in (or on access to) the labor market as a distortionary tax on talent. If talent is randomly distributed in the population, men and women are imperfect substitutes in aggregate production, and, as a consequence, gender inequality (as long as determined by non-market processes) will misallocate talent and lower incentives for female human capital formation. These theories do not rely on typical household functions such as reproduction and childrearing. Therefore, in these models, individuals are not organized into households. We review this literature in section 2 .

From there, we proceed to theories where the household is the unit of analysis. In sections 3 and 4 , we cover models that take the household as given and avoid marriage markets or other household formation institutions. This is a world where marriage (or cohabitation) is universal, consensual, and monogamous; families are nuclear, and spouses are matched randomly. The first articles in this tradition model the household as a unitary entity with joint preferences and interests, and with an efficient and centralized decision making process. Footnote 5 These theories posit how men and women specialize into different activities and how parents interact with their children. Section 3 reviews these theories. Over time, the literature has incorporated intra-household dynamics. Now, family members are allowed to have different preferences and interests; they bargain, either cooperatively or not, over family decisions. Now, the theorist recognizes power asymmetries between family members and analyzes how spouses bargain over decisions. Footnote 6 These articles are surveyed in section 4 .

The final set of articles we survey take into account how households are formed. These theories show how gender inequality can influence economic growth and long-run development through marriage market institutions and family formation patterns. Among other topics, this literature has studied ages at first marriage, relative supply of potential partners, monogamy and polygyny, arranged and consensual marriages, and divorce risk. Upon marriage, these models assume different bargaining processes between the spouses, or even unitary households, but they all recognize, in one way or another, that marriage, labor supply, consumption, and investment decisions are interdependent. We review these theories in section 5 .

Table 1 offers a schematic overview of the literature. To improve readability, the table only includes studies that we review in detail, with articles listed in order of appearance in the text. The table also abstracts from models’ extensions and sensitivity checks, and focuses exclusively on the causal pathways leading from gender inequality to economic growth.

The vast majority of theories reviewed argue that gender inequality is a barrier to economic development, particularly over the long run. The focus on long-run supply-side models reflects a recent effort by growth theorists to incorporate two stylized facts of economic development in the last two centuries: (i) a strong positive association between gender equality and income per capita (Fig. 1 ), and (ii) a strong association between the timing of the fertility transition and income per capita (Fig. 2 ). Footnote 7 Models that endogenize a fertility transition are able to generate a transition from a Malthusian regime of stagnation to a modern regime of sustained economic growth, thus replicating the development experience of human societies in the very long run (e.g., Galor 2005a , b ; Guinnane 2011 ). In contrast, demand-driven models in the heterodox and feminist traditions have often argued that gender wage discrimination and gendered sectoral and occupational segregation can be conducive to economic growth in semi-industrialized export-oriented economies. Footnote 8 In these settings—that fit well the experience of East and Southeast Asian economies—gender wage discrimination in female-intensive export industries reduces production costs and boosts exports, profits, and investment (Blecker & Seguino 2002 ; Seguino 2010 ).

Income level and gender equality. Income is the natural log of per capita GDP (PPP-adjusted). The Gender Development Index is the ratio of gender-specific Human Development Indexes: female HDI/male HDI. Data are for the year 2000. Sources: UNDP

Income level and timing of the fertility transition. Income is the natural log of per capita GDP (PPP-adjusted) in 2000. Years since fertility transition are the number of years between 2000 and the onset year of the fertility decline. See Reher ( 2004 ) for details. Sources: UNDP and Reher ( 2004 )

In most long-run, supply-side models reviewed here, irrespectively of the underlying source of gender differences (e.g., biology, socialization, discrimination), the opportunity cost of women’s time in foregone labor market earnings is lower than that of men. This gender gap in the value of time affects economic growth through two main mechanisms. First, when the labor market value of women’s time is relatively low, women will be in charge of childrearing and domestic work in the family. A low value of female time means that children are cheap. Fertility will be high, and economic growth will be low, both because population growth has a direct negative impact on long-run economic performance and because human capital accumulates at a slower pace (through the quantity-quality trade-off). Second, if parents expect relatively low returns to female education, due to women specializing in domestic activities, they will invest relatively less in the education of girls. In the words of Harriet Martineau, one of the first to describe this mechanism, “as women have none of the objects in life for which an enlarged education is considered requisite, the education is not given” (Martineau 1837 , p. 107). In the long run, lower human capital investments (on girls) lead to slower economic development.

Overall, gender inequality can be conceptualized as a source of inefficiency, to the extent that it results in the misallocation of productive factors, such as talent or labor, and as a source of negative externalities, when it leads to higher fertility, skewed sex ratios, or lower human capital accumulation.

We conclude, in section 6 , by examining the limitations of the current literature and pointing ways forward. Among them, we suggest deeper investigations of the role of (endogenous) technological change on gender inequality, as well as greater attention to the role and interests of men in affecting gender inequality and its impact on growth.

2 Gender discrimination and misallocation of talent

Perhaps the single most intuitive argument for why gender discrimination leads to aggregate inefficiency and hampers economic growth concerns the allocation of talent. Assume that talent is randomly distributed in the population. Then, an economy that curbs women’s access to education, market employment, or certain occupations draws talent from a smaller pool than an economy without such restrictions. Gender inequality can thus be viewed as a distortionary tax on talent. Indeed, occupational choice models with heterogeneous talent (as in Roy 1951 ) show that exogenous barriers to women’s participation in the labor market or access to certain occupations reduce aggregate productivity and per capita output (Cuberes & Teignier 2016 , 2017 ; Esteve-Volart 2009 ; Hsieh, Hurst, Jones and Klenow 2019 ).

Hsieh et al. ( 2019 ) represent the US economy with a model where individuals sort into occupations based on innate ability. Footnote 9 Gender and race identity, however, are a source of discrimination, with three forces preventing women and black men from choosing the occupations best fitting their comparative advantage. First, these groups face labor market discrimination, which is modeled as a tax on wages and can vary by occupation. Second, there is discrimination in human capital formation, with the costs of occupation-specific human capital being higher for certain groups. This cost penalty is a composite term encompassing discrimination or quality differentials in private or public inputs into children’s human capital. The third force are group-specific social norms that generate utility premia or penalties across occupations. Footnote 10

Assuming that the distribution of innate ability across race and gender is constant over time, Hsieh et al. ( 2019 ) investigate and quantify how declines in labor market discrimination, barriers to human capital formation, and changing social norms affect aggregate output and productivity in the United States, between 1960 and 2010. Over that period, their general equilibrium model suggests that around 40 percent of growth in per capita GDP and 90 percent of growth in labor force participation can be attributed to reductions in the misallocation of talent across occupations. Declining in barriers to human capital formation account for most of these effects, followed by declining labor market discrimination. Changing social norms, on the other hand, explain only a residual share of aggregate changes.

Two main mechanisms drive these results. First, falling discrimination improves efficiency through a better match between individual ability and occupation. Second, because discrimination is higher in high-skill occupations, when discrimination decreases, high-ability women and black men invest more in human capital and supply more labor to the market. Overall, better allocation of talent, rising labor supply, and faster human capital accumulation raise aggregate growth and productivity.

Other occupational choice models assuming gender inequality in access to the labor market or certain occupations reach similar conclusions. In addition to the mechanisms in Hsieh et al. ( 2019 ), barriers to women’s work in managerial or entrepreneurial occupations reduce average talent in these positions, resulting in aggregate losses in innovation, technology adoption, and productivity (Cuberes & Teignier 2016 , 2017 ; Esteve-Volart 2009 ). The argument can be readily applied to talent misallocation across sectors (Lee 2020 ). In Lee’s model, female workers face discrimination in the non-agricultural sector. As a result, talented women end up sorting into ill-suited agricultural activities. This distortion reduces aggregate productivity in agriculture. Footnote 11

To sum up, when talent is randomly distributed in the population, barriers to women’s education, employment, or occupational choice effectively reduce the pool of talent in the economy. According to these models, dismantling these gendered barriers can have an immediate positive effect on economic growth.

3 Unitary households: parents and children

In this section, we review models built upon unitary households. A unitary household maximizes a joint utility function subject to pooled household resources. Intra-household decision making is assumed away; the household is effectively a black-box. In this class of models, gender inequality stems from a variety of sources. It is rooted in differences in physical strength (Galor & Weil 1996 ; Hiller 2014 ; Kimura & Yasui 2010 ) or health (Bloom et al. 2015 ); it is embedded in social norms (Hiller 2014 ; Lagerlöf 2003 ), labor market discrimination (Cavalcanti & Tavares 2016 ), or son preference (Zhang, Zhang and Li 1999 ). In all these models, gender inequality is a barrier to long-run economic development.

Galor & Weil ( 1996 ) model an economy with three factors of production: capital, physical labor (“brawn”), and mental labor (“brain”). Men and women are equally endowed with brains, but men have more brawn. In economies starting with very low levels of capital per worker, women fully specialize in childrearing because their opportunity cost in terms of foregone market earnings is lower than men’s. Over time, the stock of capital per worker builds up due to exogenous technological progress. The degree of complementarity between capital and mental labor is higher than that between capital and physical labor; as the economy accumulates capital per worker, the returns to brain rise relative to the returns to brawn. As a result, the relative wages of women rise, increasing the opportunity cost of childrearing. This negative substitution effect dominates the positive income effect on the demand for children and fertility falls. Footnote 12 As fertility falls, capital per worker accumulates faster creating a positive feedback loop that generates a fertility transition and kick starts a process of sustained economic growth.

The model has multiple stable equilibria. An economy starting from a low level of capital per worker is caught in a Malthusian poverty trap of high fertility, low income per capita, and low relative wages for women. In contrast, an economy starting from a sufficiently high level of capital per worker will converge to a virtuous equilibrium of low fertility, high income per capita, and high relative wages for women. Through exogenous technological progress, the economy can move from the low to the high equilibrium.

Gender inequality in labor market access or returns to brain can slow down or even prevent the escape from the Malthusian equilibrium. Wage discrimination or barriers to employment would work against the rise of relative female wages and, therefore, slow down the takeoff to modern economic growth.

The Galor and Weil model predicts how female labor supply and fertility evolve in the course of development. First, (married) women start participating in market work and only afterwards does fertility start declining. Historically, however, in the US and Western Europe, the decline in fertility occurred before women’s participation rates in the labor market started their dramatic increase. In addition, these regions experienced a mid-twentieth century baby boom which seems at odds with Galor and Weil’s theory.

Both these stylized facts can be addressed by adding home production to the modeling, as do Kimura & Yasui ( 2010 ). In their article, as capital per worker accumulates, the market wage for brains rises and the economy moves through four stages of development. In the first stage, with a sufficiently low market wage, both husband and wife are fully dedicated to home production and childrearing. The household does not supply labor to the market; fertility is high and constant. In the second stage, as the wage rate increases, men enter the labor market (supplying both brawn and brain), whereas women remain fully engaged in home production and childrearing. But as men partially withdraw from home production, women have to replace them. As a result, their time cost of childrearing goes up. At this stage of development, the negative substitution effect of rising wages on fertility dominates the positive income effect. Fertility starts declining, even though women have not yet entered the labor market. The third stage arrives when men stop working in home production. There is complete specialization of labor by gender; men only do market work, and women only do home production and childrearing. As the market wage rises for men, the positive income effect becomes dominant and fertility increases; this mimics the baby-boom period of the mid-twentieth century. In the fourth and final stage, once sufficient capital is accumulated, women enter the market sector as wage-earners. The negative substitution effect of rising female opportunity costs dominates once again, and fertility declines. The economy moves from a “breadwinner model” to a “dual-earnings model”.

Another important form of gender inequality is discrimination against women in the form of lower wages, holding male and female productivity constant. Cavalcanti & Tavares ( 2016 ) estimate the aggregate effects of wage discrimination using a model-based general equilibrium representation of the US economy. In their model, women are assumed to be more productive in childrearing than men, so they pay the full time cost of this activity. In the labor market, even though men and women are equally productive, women receive only a fraction of the male wage rate—this is the wage discrimination assumption. Wage discrimination works as a tax on female labor supply. Because women work less than they would without discrimination, there is a negative level effect on per capita output. In addition, there is a second negative effect of wage discrimination operating through endogenous fertility. Since lower wages reduce women’s opportunity costs of childrearing, fertility is relatively high, and output per capita is relatively low. The authors calibrate the model to US steady state parameters and estimate large negative output costs of the gender wage gap. Reducing wage discrimination against women by 50 percent would raise per capita income by 35 percent, in the long run.

Human capital accumulation plays no role in Galor & Weil ( 1996 ), Kimura & Yasui ( 2010 ), and Cavalcanti & Tavares ( 2016 ). Each person is exogenously endowed with a unit of brains. The fundamental trade-off in the these models is between the income and substitution effects of rising wages on the demand for children. When Lagerlöf ( 2003 ) adds education investments to a gender-based model, an additional trade-off emerges: that between the quantity and the quality of children.

Lagerlöf ( 2003 ) models gender inequality as a social norm: on average, men have higher human capital than women. Confronted with this fact, parents play a coordination game in which it is optimal for them to reproduce the inequality in the next generation. The reason is that parents expect the future husbands of their daughters to be, on average, relatively more educated than the future wives of their sons. Because, in the model, parents care for the total income of their children’s future households, they respond by investing relatively less in daughters’ human capital. Here, gender inequality does not arise from some intrinsic difference between men and women. It is instead the result of a coordination failure: “[i]f everyone else behaves in a discriminatory manner, it is optimal for the atomistic player to do the same” (Lagerlöf 2003 , p. 404).

With lower human capital, women earn lower wages than men and are therefore solely responsible for the time cost of childrearing. But if, exogenously, the social norm becomes more gender egalitarian over time, the gender gap in parental educational investment decreases. As better educated girls grow up and become mothers, their opportunity costs of childrearing are higher. Parents trade-off the quantity of children by their quality; fertility falls and human capital accumulates. However, rising wages have an offsetting positive income effect on fertility because parents pay a (fixed) “goods cost” per child. The goods cost is proportionally more important in poor societies than in richer ones. As a result, in poor economies, growth takes off slowly because the positive income effect offsets a large chunk of the negative substitution effect. As economies grow richer, the positive income effect vanishes (as a share of total income), and fertility declines faster. That is, growth accelerates over time even if gender equality increases only linearly.

The natural next step is to model how the social norm on gender roles evolves endogenously during the course of development. Hiller ( 2014 ) develops such a model by combining two main ingredients: a gender gap in the endowments of brawn (as in Galor & Weil 1996 ) generates a social norm, which each parental couple takes as given (as in Lagerlöf 2003 ). The social norm evolves endogenously, but slowly; it tracks the gender ratio of labor supply in the market, but with a small elasticity. When the male-female ratio in labor supply decreases, stereotypes adjust and the norm becomes less discriminatory against women.

The model generates a U-shaped relationship between economic development and female labor force participation. Footnote 13 In the preindustrial stage, there is no education and all labor activities are unskilled, i.e., produced with brawn. Because men have a comparative advantage in brawn, they supply more labor to the market than women, who specialize in home production. This gender gap in labor supply creates a social norm that favors boys over girls. Over time, exogenous skill-biased technological progress raises the relative returns to brains, inducing parents to invest in their children’s education. At the beginning, however, because of the social norm, only boys become educated. The economy accumulates human capital and grows, generating a positive income effect that, in isolation, would eventually drive up parental investments in girls’ education. Footnote 14 But endogenous social norms move in the opposite direction. When only boys receive education, the gender gap in returns to market work increases, and women withdraw to home production. As female relative labor supply in the market drops, the social norm becomes more discriminatory against women. As a result, parents want to invest relatively less in their daughters’ education.

In the end, initial conditions determine which of the forces dominates, thereby shaping long-term outcomes. If, initially, the social norm is very discriminatory, its effect is stronger than the income effect; the economy becomes trapped in an equilibrium with high gender inequality and low per capita income. If, on the other hand, social norms are relatively egalitarian to begin with, then the income effect dominates, and the economy converges to an equilibrium with gender equality and high income per capita.

In the models reviewed so far, human capital or brain endowments can be understood as combining both education and health. Bloom et al. ( 2015 ) explicitly distinguish these two dimensions. Health affects labor market earnings because sick people are out of work more often (participation effect) and are less productive per hour of work (productivity effect). Female health is assumed to be worse than male health, implying that women’s effective wages are lower than men’s. As a result, women are solely responsible for childrearing. Footnote 15

The model produces two growth regimes: a Malthusian trap with high fertility and no educational investments; and a regime of sustained growth, declining fertility, and rising educational investments. Once wages reach a certain threshold, the economy goes through a fertility transition and education expansion, taking off from the Malthusian regime to the sustained growth regime.

Female health promotes growth in both regimes, and it affects the timing of the takeoff. The healthier women are, the earlier the economy takes off. The reason is that a healthier woman earns a higher effective wage and, consequently, faces higher opportunity costs of raising children. When female health improves, the rising opportunity costs of children reduce the wage threshold at which educational investments become attractive; the fertility transition and mass education periods occur earlier.

In contrast, improved male health slows down economic growth and delays the fertility transition. When men become healthier, there is only a income effect on the demand for children, without the negative substitution effect (because male childrearing time is already zero). The policy conclusion would be to redistribute health from men to women. However, the policy would impose a static utility cost on the household. Because women’s time allocation to market work is constrained by childrearing responsibilities (whereas men work full-time), the marginal effect of health on household income is larger for men than for women. From the household’s point of view, reducing the gender gap in health produces a trade-off between short-term income maximization and long-term economic development.

In an extension of the model, the authors endogeneize health investments, while keeping the assumption that women pay the full time cost of childrearing. Because women participate less in the labor market (due to childrearing duties), it is optimal for households to invest more in male health. A health gender gap emerges from rational household behavior that takes into account how time-constraints differ by gender; assuming taste-based discrimination against girls or gender-specific preferences is not necessary.

In the models reviewed so far, parents invest in their children’s human capital for purely altruistic reasons. This is captured in the models by assuming that parents derive utility directly from the quantity and quality of children. This is the classical representation of children as durable consumption goods (e.g., Becker 1960 ). In reality, of course, parents may also have egoistic motivations for investing in child quantity and quality. A typical example is that, when parents get old and retire, they receive support from their children. The quantity and quality of children will affect the size of old-age transfers and parents internalize this in their fertility and childcare behavior. According to this view, children are best understood as investment goods.

Zhang et al. ( 1999 ) build an endogenous growth model that incorporates the old-age support mechanism in parental decisions. Another innovative element of their model is that parents can choose the gender of their children. The implicit assumption is that sex selection technologies are freely available to all parents.

At birth, there is a gender gap in human capital endowment, favoring boys over girls. Footnote 16 In adulthood, a child’s human capital depends on the initial endowment and on the parents’ human capital. In addition, the probability that a child survives to adulthood is exogenous and can differ by gender.

Parents receive old-age support from children that survive until adulthood. The more human capital children have, the more old-age support they provide to their parents. Beyond this egoistic motive, parents also enjoy the quantity and the quality of children (altruistic motive). Son preference is modeled by boys having a higher relative weight in the altruistic-component of the parental utility function. In other words, in their enjoyment of children as consumer goods, parents enjoy “consuming” a son more than “consuming” a girl. Parents who prefer sons want more boys than girls. A larger preference for sons, a higher relative survival probability of boys, and a higher human capital endowment of boys positively affect the sex ratio at birth, because, in the parents’ perspective, all these forces increase the marginal utility of boys relative to girls.

Zhang et al. ( 1999 ) show that, if human capital transmission from parents to children is efficient enough, the economy grows endogenously. When boys have a higher human capital endowment than girls, and the survival probability of sons is not smaller than the survival probability of daughters, then only sons provide old-age support. Anticipating this, parents invest more in the human capital of their sons than on the human capital of their daughters. As a result, the gender gap in human capital at birth widens endogenously.

When only boys provide old-age support, an exogenous increase in son preference harms long-run economic growth. The reason is that, when son preference increases, parents enjoy each son relatively more and demand less old-age support from him. Other things equal, parents want to “consume” more sons now and less old-age support later. Because parents want more sons, the sex ratio at birth increases; but because each son provides less old-age support, human capital investments per son decrease (such that the gender gap in human capital narrows). At the aggregate level, the pace of human capital accumulation slows down and, in the long run, economic growth is lower. Thus, an exogenous increase in son preference increases the sex ratio at birth, and reduces human capital accumulation and long-run growth (although it narrows the gender gap in education).

In summary, in growth models with unitary households, gender inequality is closely linked to the division of labor between family members. If women earn relatively less in market activities, they specialize in childrearing and home production, while men specialize in market work. And precisely due to this division of labor, the returns to female educational investments are relatively low. These household behaviors translate into higher fertility and lower human capital and thus pose a barrier to long-run development.

4 Intra-household bargaining: husbands and wives

In this section, we review models populated with non-unitary households, where decisions are the result of bargaining between the spouses. There are two broad types of bargaining processes: non-cooperative, where spouses act independently or interact in a non-cooperative game that often leads to inefficient outcomes (e.g., Doepke & Tertilt 2019 , Heath & Tan 2020 ); and cooperative, where the spouses are assumed to achieve an efficient outcome (e.g., De la Croix & Vander Donckt 2010 ; Diebolt & Perrin 2013 ). As in the previous section, all of these non-unitary models take the household as given, thereby abstracting from marriage markets or other household formation institutions, which will be discussed separately in section 5 . When preferences differ by gender, bargaining between the spouses matters for economic growth. If women care more about child quality than men do and human capital accumulation is the main engine of growth, then empowering women leads to faster economic growth (Prettner & Strulik 2017 ). If, however, men and women have similar preferences but are imperfect substitutes in the production of household public goods, then empowering women has an ambiguous effect on economic growth (Doepke & Tertilt 2019 ).

A separate channel concerns the intergenerational transmission of human capital and woman’s role as the main caregiver of children. If the education of the mother matters more than the education of the father in the production of children’s human capital, then empowering women will be conducive to growth (Agénor 2017 ; Diebolt & Perrin 2013 ), with the returns to education playing a crucial role in the political economy of female empowerment (Doepke & Tertilt 2009 ).

However, different dimensions of gender inequality have different growth impacts along the development process (De la Croix & Vander Donckt 2010 ). Policies that improve gender equality across many dimensions can be particularly effective for economic growth by reaping complementarities and positive externalities (Agénor 2017 ).

The idea that women might have stronger preferences for child-related expenditures than men can be easily incorporated in a Beckerian model of fertility. The necessary assumption is that women place a higher weight on child quality (relative to child quantity) than men do. Prettner & Strulik ( 2017 ) build a unified growth theory model with collective households. Men and women have different preferences, but they achieve efficient cooperation based on (reduced-form) bargaining parameters. The authors study the effect of two types of preferences: (i) women are assumed to have a relative preference for child quality, while men have a relative preference for child quantity; and (ii) parents are assumed to have a relative preference for the education of sons over the education of daughters. In addition, it is assumed that the time cost of childcare borne by men cannot be above that borne by women (but it could be the same).

When women have a relative preference for child quality, increasing female empowerment speeds up the economy’s escape from a Malthusian trap of high fertility, low education, and low income per capita. When female empowerment increases (exogenously), a woman’s relative preference for child quality has a higher impact on household’s decisions. As a consequence, fertility falls, human capital accumulates, and the economy starts growing. The model also predicts that the more preferences for child quality differ between husband and wife, the more effective is female empowerment in raising long-run per capita income, because the sooner the economy escapes the Malthusian trap. This effect is not affected by whether parents have a preference for the education of boys relative to that of girls. If, however, men and women have similar preferences with respect to the quantity and quality of their children, then female empowerment does not affect the timing of the transition to the sustained growth regime.

Strulik ( 2019 ) goes one step further and endogeneizes why men seem to prefer having more children than women. The reason is a different preference for sexual activity: other things equal, men enjoy having sex more than women. Footnote 17 When cheap and effective contraception is not available, a higher male desire for sexual activity explains why men also prefer to have more children than women. In a traditional economy, where no contraception is available, fertility is high, while human capital and economic growth are low. When female bargaining power increases, couples reduce their sexual activity, fertility declines, and human capital accumulates faster. Faster human capital accumulation increases household income and, as a consequence, the demand for contraception goes up. As contraception use increases, fertility declines further. Eventually, the economy undergoes a fertility transition and moves to a modern regime with low fertility, widespread use of contraception, high human capital, and high economic growth. In the modern regime, because contraception is widely used, men’s desire for sex is decoupled from fertility. Both sex and children cost time and money. When the two are decoupled, men prefer to have more sex at the expense of the number of children. There is a reversal in the gender gap in desired fertility. When contraceptives are not available, men desire more children than women; once contraceptives are widely used, men desire fewer children than women. If women are more empowered, the transition from the traditional equilibrium to the modern equilibrium occurs faster.

Both Prettner & Strulik ( 2017 ) and Strulik ( 2019 ) rely on gender-specific preferences. In contrast, Doepke & Tertilt ( 2019 ) are able to explain gender-specific expenditure patterns without having to assume that men and women have different preferences. They set up a non-cooperative model of household decision making and ask whether more female control of household resources leads to higher child expenditures and, thus, to economic development. Footnote 18

In their model, household public goods are produced with two inputs: time and goods. Instead of a single home-produced good (as in most models), there is a continuum of household public goods whose production technologies differ. Some public goods are more time-intensive to produce, while others are more goods-intensive. Each specific public good can only be produced by one spouse—i.e., time and good inputs are not separable. Women face wage discrimination in the labor market, so their opportunity cost of time is lower than men’s. As a result, women specialize in the production of the most time-intensive household public goods (e.g., childrearing activities), while men specialize in the production of goods-intensive household public goods (e.g., housing infrastructure). Notice that, because the household is non-cooperative, there is not only a division of labor between husband and wife, but also a division of decision making, since ultimately each spouse decides how much to provide of his or her public goods.

When household resources are redistributed from men to women (i.e., from the high-wage spouse to the low-wage spouse), women provide more public goods, in relative terms. It is ambiguous, however, whether the total provision of public goods increases with the re-distributive transfer. In a classic model of gender-specific preferences, a wife increases child expenditures and her own private consumption at the expense of the husband’s private consumption. In Doepke & Tertilt ( 2019 ), however, the rise in child expenditures (and time-intensive public goods in general) comes at the expense of male consumption and male-provided public goods.

Parents contribute to the welfare of the next generation in two ways: via human capital investments (time-intensive, typically done by the mother) and bequests of physical capital (goods-intensive, typically done by the father). Transferring resources to women increases human capital, but reduces the stock of physical capital. The effect of such transfers on economic growth depends on whether the aggregate production function is relatively intensive in human capital or in physical capital. If aggregate production is relatively human capital intensive, then transfers to women boost economic growth; if it is relatively intensive in physical capital, then transfers to women may reduce economic growth.

There is an interesting paradox here. On the one hand, transfers to women will be growth-enhancing in economies where production is intensive in human capital. These would be more developed, knowledge intensive, service economies. On the other hand, the positive growth effect of transfers to women increases with the size of the gender wage gap, that is, decreases with female empowerment. But the more advanced, human capital intensive economies are also the ones with more female empowerment (i.e., lower gender wage gaps). In other words, in settings where human capital investments are relatively beneficial, the contribution of female empowerment to human capital accumulation is reduced. Overall, Doepke and Tertilt’s ( 2019 ) model predicts that female empowerment has at best a limited positive effect and at worst a negative effect on economic growth.

Heath & Tan ( 2020 ) argue that, in a non-cooperative household model, income transfers to women may increase female labor supply. Footnote 19 This result may appear counter-intuitive at first, because in collective household models unearned income unambiguously reduces labor supply through a negative income effect. In Heath and Tan’s model, husband and wife derive utility from leisure, consuming private goods, and consuming a household public good. The spouses decide separately on labor supply and monetary contributions to the household public good. Men and women are identical in preferences and behavior, but women have limited control over resources, with a share of their income being captured by the husband. Female control over resources (i.e., autonomy) depends positively on the wife’s relative contribution to household income. Thus, an income transfer to the wife, keeping husband unearned income constant, raises the fraction of her own income that she privately controls. This autonomy effect unambiguously increases women’s labor supply, because the wife can now reap an additional share of her wage bill. Whenever the autonomy effect dominates the (negative) income effect, female labor supply increases. The net effect will be heterogeneous over the wage distribution, but the authors show that aggregate female labor supply is always weakly larger after the income transfer.

Diebolt & Perrin ( 2013 ) assume cooperative bargaining between husband and wife, but do not rely on sex-specific preferences or differences in ability. Men and women are only distinguished by different uses of their time endowments, with females in charge of all childrearing activities. In line with this labor division, the authors further assume that only the mother’s human capital is inherited by the child at birth. On top of the inherited maternal endowment, individuals can accumulate human capital during adulthood, through schooling. The higher the initial human capital endowment, the more effective is the accumulation of human capital via schooling.

A woman’s bargaining power in marriage determines her share in total household consumption and is a function of the relative female human capital of the previous generation. An increase in the human capital of mothers relative to that of fathers has two effects. First, it raises the incentives for human capital accumulation of the next generation, because inherited maternal human capital makes schooling more effective. Second, it raises the bargaining power of the next generation of women and, because women’s consumption share increases, boosts the returns on women’s education. The second effect is not internalized in women’s time allocation decisions; it is an intergenerational externality. Thus, an exogenous increase in women’s bargaining power would promote economic growth by speeding up the accumulation of human capital across overlapping generations.

De la Croix & Vander Donckt ( 2010 ) contribute to the literature by clearly distinguishing between different gender gaps: a gap in the probability of survival, a wage gap, a social and institutional gap, and a gender education gap. The first three are exogenously given, while the fourth is determined within the model.

By assumption, men and women have identical preferences and ability, but women pay the full time cost of childrearing. As in a typical collective household model, bargaining power is partially determined by the spouses’ earnings potential (i.e., their levels of human capital and their wage rates). But there is also a component of bargaining power that is exogenous and captures social norms that discriminate against women—this is the social and institutional gender gap.

Husbands and wives bargain over fertility and human capital investments for their children. A standard Beckerian result emerges: parents invest relatively less in the education of girls, because girls will be more time-constrained than boys and, therefore, the female returns to education are lower in relative terms.

There are at least two regimes in the economy: a corner regime and an interior regime. The corner regime consists of maximum fertility, full gender specialization (no women in the labor market), and large gender gaps in education (no education for girls). Reducing the wage gap or the social and institutional gap does not help the economy escaping this regime. Women are not in labor force, so the wage gap is meaningless. The social and institutional gap will determine women’s share in household consumption, but does not affect fertility and growth. At this stage, the only effective instruments for escaping the corner regime are reducing the gender survival gap or reducing child mortality. Reducing the gender survival gap increases women’s lifespan, which increases their time budget and attracts them to the labor market. Reducing child mortality decreases the time costs of kids, therefore drawing women into the labor market. In both cases, fertility decreases.

In the interior regime, fertility is below the maximum, women’s labor supply is above zero, and both boys and girls receive education. In this regime, with endogenous bargaining power, reducing all gender gaps will boost economic growth. Footnote 20 Thus, depending on the growth regime, some gender gaps affect economic growth, while others do not. Accordingly, the policy-maker should tackle different dimensions of gender inequality at different stages of the development process.

Agénor ( 2017 ) presents a computable general equilibrium that includes many of the elements of gender inequality reviewed so far. An important contribution of the model is to explicitly add the government as an agent whose policies interact with family decisions and, therefore, will impact women’s time allocation. Workers produce a market good and a home good and are organized in collective households. Bargaining power depends on the spouses’ relative human capital levels. By assumption, there is gender discrimination in market wages against women. On top, mothers are exclusively responsible for home production and childrearing, which takes the form of time spent improving children’s health and education. But public investments in education and health also improve these outcomes during childhood. Likewise, public investment in public infrastructure contributes positively to home production. In particular, the ratio of public infrastructure capital stock to private capital stock is a substitute for women’s time in home production. The underlying idea is that improving sanitation, transportation, and other infrastructure reduces time spent in home production. Health status in adulthood depends on health status in childhood, which, in turn, relates positively to mother’s health, her time inputs into childrearing, and government spending. Children’s human capital depends on similar factors, except that mother’s human capital replaces her health as an input. Additionally, women are assumed to derive less utility from current consumption and more utility from children’s health relative to men. Wives are also assumed to live longer than their husbands, which further down-weights female’s emphasis on current consumption. The final gendered assumption is that mother’s time use is biased towards boys. This bias alone creates a gender gap in education and health. As adults, women’s relative lower health and human capital are translated into relative lower bargaining power in household decisions.

Agénor ( 2017 ) calibrates this rich setup for Benin, a low income country, and runs a series of policy experiments on different dimensions of gender inequality: a fall in childrearing costs, a fall in gender pay discrimination, a fall in son bias in mother’s time allocation, and an exogenous increase in female bargaining power. Footnote 21 Interestingly, despite all policies improving gender equality in separate dimensions, not all unambiguously stimulate economic growth. For example, falling childrearing costs raise savings and private investments, which are growth-enhancing, but increase fertility (as children become ‘cheaper’) and reduce maternal time investment per child, thus reducing growth. In contrast, a fall in gender pay discrimination always leads to higher growth, through higher household income that, in turn, boosts savings, tax revenues, and public spending. Higher public spending further contributes to improved health and education of the next generation. Lastly, Agénor ( 2017 ) simulates the effect of a combined policy that improves gender equality in all domains simultaneously. Due to complementarities and positive externalities across dimensions, the combined policy generates more economic growth than the sum of the individual policies. Footnote 22

In the models reviewed so far, men are passive observers of women’s empowerment. Doepke & Tertilt ( 2009 ) set up an interesting political economy model of women’s rights, where men make the decisive choice. Their model is motivated by the fact that, historically, the economic rights of women were expanded before their political rights. Because the granting of economic rights empowers women in the household, and this was done before women were allowed to participate in the political process, the relevant question is why did men willingly share their power with their wives?

Doepke & Tertilt ( 2009 ) answer this question by arguing that men face a fundamental trade-off. On the one hand, husbands would vote for their wives to have no rights whatsoever, because husbands prefer as much intra-household bargaining power as possible. But, on the other hand, fathers would vote for their daughters to have economic rights in their future households. In addition, fathers want their children to marry highly educated spouses, and grandfathers want their grandchildren to be highly educated. By assumption, men and women have different preferences, with women having a relative preference for child quality over quantity. Accordingly, men internalize that, when women become empowered, human capital investments increase, making their children and grandchildren better-off.

Skill-biased (exogenous) technological progress that raises the returns to education over time can shift male incentives along this trade-off. When the returns to education are low, men prefer to make all decisions on their own and deny all rights to women. But once the returns to education are sufficiently high, men voluntarily share their power with women by granting them economic rights. As a result, human capital investments increase and the economy grows faster.

In summary, gender inequality in labor market earnings often implies power asymmetries within the household, with men having more bargaining power than women. If preferences differ by gender and female preferences are more conducive to development, then empowering women is beneficial for growth. When preferences are the same and the bargaining process is non-cooperative, the implications are less clear-cut, and more context-specific. If, in addition, women’s empowerment is curtailed by law (e.g., restrictions on women’s economic rights), then it is important to understand the political economy of women’s rights, in which men are crucial actors.

5 Marriage markets and household formation

Two-sex models of economic growth have largely ignored how households are formed. The marriage market is not explicitly modeled: spouses are matched randomly, marriage is universal and monogamous, and families are nuclear. In reality, however, household formation patterns vary substantially across societies, with some of these differences extending far back in history. For example, Hajnal ( 1965 , 1982 ) described a distinct household formation pattern in preindustrial Northwestern Europe (often referred to as the “European Marriage Pattern”) characterized by: (i) late ages at first marriage for women, (ii) most marriages done under individual consent, and (iii) neolocality (i.e., upon marriage, the bride and the groom leave their parental households to form a new household). In contrast, marriage systems in China and India consisted of: (i) very early female ages at first marriage, (ii) arranged marriages, and (iii) patrilocality (i.e., the bride joins the parental household of the groom).

Economic historians argue that the “European Marriage Pattern” empowered women, encouraging their participation in market activities and reducing fertility levels. While some view this as one of the deep-rooted factors explaining Northwestern Europe’s earlier takeoff to sustained economic growth (e.g., Carmichael, de Pleijt, van Zanden and De Moor 2016 ; De Moor & Van Zanden 2010 ; Hartman 2004 ), others have downplayed the long-run significance of this marriage pattern (e.g., Dennison & Ogilvie 2014 ; Ruggles 2009 ). Despite this lively debate, the topic has been largely ignored by growth theorists. The few exceptions are Voigtländer and Voth ( 2013 ), Edlund and Lagerlöf ( 2006 ), and Tertilt ( 2005 , 2006 ).

After exploring different marriage institutions, we zoom in on contemporary monogamous and consensual marriage and review models where gender inequality affects economic growth through marriage markets that facilitate household formation (Du & Wei 2013 ; Grossbard & Pereira 2015 ; Grossbard-Shechtman 1984 ; Guvenen & Rendall 2015 ). In contrast with the previous two sections, where the household is the starting point of the analysis, the literature on marriage markets and household formation recognizes that marriage, labor supply, and investment decisions are interlinked. The analysis of these interlinkages is sometimes done with unitary households (upon marriage) (Du & Wei 2013 ; Guvenen & Rendall 2015 ), or with non-cooperative models of individual decision-making within households (Grossbard & Pereira 2015 ; Grossbard-Shechtman 1984 ).

Voigtländer and Voth ( 2013 ) argue that the emergence of the “European Marriage Pattern” is a direct consequence of the mid-fourteen century Black Death. They set up a two-sector agricultural economy consisting of physically demanding cereal farming, and less physically demanding pastoral production. The economy is populated by many male and female peasants and by a class of idle, rent-maximizing landlords. Female peasants are heterogeneous with respect to physical strength, but, on average, are assumed to have less brawn relative to male peasants and, thus, have a comparative advantage in the pastoral sector. Both sectors use land as a production input, although the pastoral sector is more land-intensive than cereal production. All land is owned by the landlords, who can rent it out for peasant cereal farming, or use it for large-scale livestock farming, for which they hire female workers. Crucially, women can only work and earn wages in the pastoral sector as long as they are unmarried. Footnote 23 Peasant women decide when to marry and, upon marriage, a peasant couple forms a new household, where husband and wife both work on cereal farming, and have children at a given time frequency. Thus, the only contraceptive method available is delaying marriage. Because women derive utility from consumption and children, they face a trade-off between earned income and marriage.

Initially, the economy rests in a Malthusian regime, where land-labor ratios are relatively low, making the land-intensive pastoral sector unattractive and depressing relative female wages. As a result, women marry early and fertility is high. The initial regime ends in 1348–1350, when the Black Death kills between one third and half of Europe’s population, exogenously generating land abundance and, therefore, raising the relative wages of female labor in pastoral production. Women postpone marriage to reap higher wages, and fertility decreases—moving the economy to a regime of late marriages and low fertility.

In addition to late marital ages and reduced fertility, another important feature of the “European Marriage Pattern” was individual consent for marriage. Edlund and Lagerlöf ( 2006 ) study how rules of consent for marriage influence long-run economic development. In their model, marriages can be formed according to two types of consent rules: individual consent or parental consent. Under individual consent, young people are free to marry whomever they wish, while, under parental consent, their parents are in charge of arranging the marriage. Depending on the prevailing rule, the recipient of the bride-price differs. Under individual consent, a woman receives the bride-price from her husband, whereas, under parental consent, her father receives the bride-price from the father of the groom. Footnote 24 In both situations, the father of the groom owns the labor income of his son and, therefore, pays the bride-price, either directly, under parental consent, or indirectly, under individual consent. Under individual consent, the father needs to transfer resources to his son to nudge him into marrying. Thus, individual consent implies a transfer of resources from the old to the young and from men to women, relative to the rule of parental consent. Redistributing resources from the old to the young boosts long-run economic growth. Because the young have a longer timespan to extract income from their children’s labor, they invest relatively more in the human capital of the next generation. In addition, under individual consent, the reallocation of resources from men to women can have additional positive effects on growth, by increasing women’s bargaining power (see section 4 ), although this channel is not explicitly modeled in Edlund and Lagerlöf ( 2006 ).

Tertilt ( 2005 ) explores the effects of polygyny on long-run development through its impact on savings and fertility. In her model, parental consent applies to women, while individual consent applies to men. There is a competitive marriage market where fathers sell their daughters and men buy their wives. As each man is allowed (and wants) to marry several wives, a positive bride-price emerges in equilibrium. Footnote 25 Upon marriage, the reproductive rights of the bride are transferred from her father to her husband, who makes all fertility decisions on his own and, in turn, owns the reproductive rights of his daughters. From a father’s perspective, daughters are investments goods; they can be sold in the marriage market, at any time. This feature generates additional demand for daughters, which increases overall fertility, and reduces the incentives to save, which decreases the stock of physical capital. Under monogamy, in contrast, the equilibrium bride-price is negative (i.e., a dowry). The reason is that maintaining unmarried daughters is costly for their fathers, so they are better-off paying a (small enough) dowry to their future husbands. In this setting, the economic returns to daughters are lower and, consequently, so is the demand for children. Fertility decreases and savings increase. Thus, moving from polygny to monogamy lowers population growth and raises the capital stock in the long run, which translates into higher output per capita in the steady state.

Instead of enforcing monogamy in a traditionally polygynous setting, an alternative policy is to transfer marriage consent from fathers to daughters. Tertilt ( 2006 ) shows that when individual consent is extended to daughters, such that fathers do not receive the bride-price anymore, the consequences are qualitatively similar to a ban on polygyny. If fathers stop receiving the bride-price, they save more physical capital. In the long run, per capita output is higher when consent is transferred to daughters.

Grossbard-Shechtman ( 1984 ) develops the first non-cooperative model where (monogamous) marriage, home production, and labor supply decisions are interdependent. Footnote 26 Spouses are modeled as separate agents deciding over production and consumption. Marriage becomes an implicit contract for ‘work-in-household’ (WiHo), defined as “an activity that benefits another household member [typically a spouse] who could potentially compensate the individual for these efforts” (Grossbard 2015 , p. 21). Footnote 27 In particular, each spouse decides how much labor to supply to market work and WiHo, and how much labor to demand from the other spouse for WiHo. Through this lens, spousal decisions over the intra-marriage distribution of consumption and WiHo are akin to well-known principal-agent problems faced between firms and workers. In the marriage market equilibrium, a spouse benefiting from WiHo (the principal) must compensate the spouse producing it (the agent) via intra-household transfers (of goods or leisure). Footnote 28 Grossbard-Shechtman ( 1984 ) and Grossbard ( 2015 ) show that, under these conditions, the ratio of men to women (i.e., the sex ratio) in the marriage market is inversely related to female labor supply to the market. The reason is that, as the pool of potential wives shrinks, prospective husbands have to increase compensation for female WiHo. From the potential wife’s point of view, as the equilibrium price for her WiHo increases, market work becomes less attractive. Conversely, when sex ratios are lower, female labor supply outside the home increases. Although the model does not explicit derive growth implications, the relative increase in female labor supply is expected to be beneficial for economic growth, as argued by many of the theories reviewed so far.

In an extension of this framework, Grossbard & Pereira ( 2015 ) analyze how sex ratios affect gendered savings over the marital life-cycle. Assuming that women supply a disproportionate amount of labor for WiHo (due, for example, to traditional gender norms), the authors show that men and women will have very distinct saving trajectories. A higher sex ratio increases savings by single men, who anticipate higher compensation transfers for their wives’ WiHo, whereas it decreases savings by single women, who anticipate receiving those transfers upon marriage. But the pattern flips after marriage: precautionary savings raise among married women, because the possibility of marriage dissolution entails a loss of income from WiHo. The opposite effect happens for married men: marriage dissolution would imply less expenditures in the future. The higher the sex ratio, the higher will be the equilibrium compensation paid by husbands for their wives’ WiHo. Therefore, the sex ratio will positively affect savings among single men and married women, but negatively affect savings among single women and married men. The net effect on the aggregate savings rate and on economic growth will depend on the relative size of these demographic groups.

In a related article, Du & Wei ( 2013 ) propose a model where higher sex ratios worsen marriage markets prospects for young men and their families, who react by increasing savings. Women in turn reduce savings. However, because sex ratios shift the composition of the population in favor of men (high saving type) relative to women (low saving type) and men save additionally to compensate for women’s dis-saving, aggregate savings increase unambiguously with sex ratios.

In Guvenen & Rendall ( 2015 ), female education is, in part, demanded as insurance against divorce risk. The reason is that divorce laws often protect spouses’ future labor market earnings (i.e., returns to human capital), but force them to share their physical assets. Because, in the model, women are more likely to gain custody of their children after divorce, they face higher costs from divorce relative to their husbands. Therefore, the higher the risk of divorce, the more women invest in human capital, as insurance against a future vulnerable economic position. Guvenen & Rendall ( 2015 ) shows that, over time, divorce risk has increased (for example, consensual divorce became replaced by unilateral divorce in most US states in the 1970s). In the aggregate, higher divorce risk boosted female education and female labor supply.

In summary, the rules regulating marriage and household formation carry relevant theoretical consequences for economic development. While the few studies on this topic have focused on age at marriage, consent rules and polygyny, and the interaction between sex ratios, marriage, and labor supply, other features of the marriage market remain largely unexplored (Borella, De Nardi and Yang 2018 ). Growth theorists would benefit from further incorporating theories of household formation in gendered macro models. Footnote 29

6 Conclusion

In this article, we surveyed micro-founded theories linking gender inequality to economic development. This literature offers many plausible mechanisms through which inequality between men and women affects the aggregate economy (see Table 1 ). Yet, we believe the body of theories could be expanded in several directions. We discuss them below and highlight lessons for policy.

The first direction for future research concerns control over fertility. In models where fertility is endogenous, households are always able to achieve their preferred number of children (see Strulik 2019 , for an exception). The implicit assumption is that there is a free and infallible method of fertility control available for all households—a view rejected by most demographers. The gap between desired fertility and achieved fertility can be endogeneized at three levels. First, at the societal level, the diffusion of particular contraceptive methods may be influenced by cultural and religious norms. Second, at the household level, fertility control may be object of non-cooperative bargaining between the spouses, in particular, for contraceptive methods that only women perfectly observe (Ashraf, Field and Lee 2014 ; Doepke & Kindermann 2019 ). More generally, the role of asymmetric information within the household is not yet explored (Walther 2017 ). Third, if parents have preferences over the gender composition of their offspring, fertility is better modeled as a sequential and uncertain process, where household size is likely endogenous to the sex of the last born child (Hazan & Zoabi 2015 ).

A second direction worth exploring concerns gender inequality in a historical perspective. In models with multiple equilibria, an economy’s path is often determined by its initial level of gender equality. Therefore, it would be useful to develop theories explaining why initial conditions varied across societies. In particular, there is a large literature on economic and demographic history documenting how systems of marriage and household formation differed substantially across preindustrial societies (e.g., De Moor & Van Zanden 2010 ; Hajnal 1965 , 1982 ; Hartman 2004 ; Ruggles 2009 ). In our view, more theoretical work is needed to explain both the origins and the consequences of these historical systems.

A third avenue for future research concerns the role of technological change. In several models, technological change is the exogenous force that ultimately erodes gender gaps in education or labor supply (e.g., Bloom et al. 2015 ; Doepke & Tertilt 2009 ; Galor & Weil 1996 ). For that to happen, technological progress is assumed to be skill-biased, thus raising the returns to education—or, in other words, favoring brain over brawn. As such, new technologies make male advantage in physical strength ever more irrelevant, while making female time spent on childrearing and housework ever more expensive. Moreover, recent technological progress increased the efficiency of domestic activities, thereby relaxing women’s time constraints (e.g., Cavalcanti & Tavares 2008 ; Greenwood, Seshadri and Yorukoglu 2005 ). These mechanisms are plausible, but other aspects of technological change need not be equally favorable for women. In many countries, for example, the booming science, technology, and engineering sectors tend to be particularly male-intensive. And Tejani & Milberg ( 2016 ) provide evidence for developing countries that as manufacturing industries become more capital intensive, their female employment share decreases.

Even if current technological progress is assumed to weaken gender gaps, historically, technology may have played exactly the opposite role. If technology today is more complementary to brain, in the past it could have been more complementary to brawn. An example is the plow that, relative to alternative technologies for field preparation (e.g., hoe, digging stick), requires upper body strength, on which men have a comparative advantage over women (Alesina, Giuliano and Nunn 2013 ; Boserup 1970 ). Another, even more striking example, is the invention of agriculture itself—the Neolithic Revolution. The transition from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to sedentary agriculture involved a relative loss of status for women (Dyble et al. 2015 ; Hansen, Jensen and Skovsgaard 2015 ). One explanation is that property rights on land were captured by men, who had an advantage on physical strength and, consequently, on physical violence. Thus, in the long view of human history, technological change appears to have shifted from being male-biased towards being female-biased. Endogeneizing technological progress and its interaction with gender inequality is a promising avenue for future research.

Fourth, open economy issues are still almost entirely absent. An exception is Rees & Riezman ( 2012 ), who model the effect of globalization on economic growth. Whether global capital flows generate jobs primarily in female or male intensive sectors matters for long-run growth. If globalization creates job opportunities for women, their bargaining power increases and households trade off child quantity by child quality. Fertility falls, human capital accumulates, and long-run per capita output is high. If, on the other hand, globalization creates jobs for men, their intra-household power increases; fertility increases, human capital decreases, and steady-state income per capita is low. The literature would benefit from engaging with open economy demand-driven models of the feminist tradition, such as Blecker & Seguino ( 2002 ), Seguino ( 2010 ). Other fruitful avenues for future research on open economy macro concern gender analysis of global value chains (Barrientos 2019 ), gendered patterns of international migration (Cortes 2015 ; Cortes & Tessada 2011 ), and the diffusion of gender norms through globalization (Beine, Docquier and Schiff 2013 ; Klasen 2020 ; Tuccio & Wahba 2018 ).

A final point concerns the role of men in this literature. In most theoretical models, gender inequality is not the result of an active male project that seeks the domination of women. Instead, inequality emerges as a rational best response to some underlying gender gap in endowments or constraints. Then, as the underlying gap becomes less relevant—for example, due to skill-biased technological change—, men passively relinquish their power (see Doepke & Tertilt 2009 , for an exception). There is never a male backlash against the short-term power loss that necessarily comes with female empowerment. In reality, it is more likely that men actively oppose losing power and resources towards women (Folbre 2020 ; Kabeer 2016 ; Klasen 2020 ). This possibility has not yet been explored in formal models, even though it could threaten the typical virtuous cycle between gender equality and growth. If men are forward-looking, and the short-run losses outweigh the dynamic gains from higher growth, they might ensure that women never get empowered to begin with. Power asymmetries tend to be sticky, because “any group that is able to claim a disproportionate share of the gains from cooperation can develop social institutions to fortify their position” (Folbre 2020 , p. 199). For example, Eswaran & Malhotra ( 2011 ) set up a household decision model where men use domestic violence against their wives as a tool to enhance male bargaining power. Thus, future theories should recognize more often that men have a vested interest on the process of female empowerment.

More generally, policymakers should pay attention to the possibility of a male backlash as an unintended consequence of female empowerment policies (Erten & Keskin 2018 ; Eswaran & Malhotra 2011 ). Likewise, whereas most theories reviewed here link lower fertility to higher economic growth, the relationship is non-monotonic. Fertility levels below the replacement rate will eventually generate aggregate social costs in the form of smaller future workforces, rapidly ageing societies, and increased pressure on welfare systems, to name a few.

Many theories presented in this survey make another important practical point: public policies should recognize that gender gaps in separate dimensions complement and reinforce one another and, therefore, have to be dealt with simultaneously. A naïve policy targeting a single gap in isolation is unlikely to have substantial growth effects in the short run. Typically, inequalities in separate dimensions are not independent from each other (Agénor 2017 ; Bandiera & Does 2013 ; Duflo 2012 ; Kabeer 2016 ). For example, if credit-constrained women face weak property rights, are unable to access certain markets, and have mobility and time constraints, then the marginal return to capital may nevertheless be larger for men. Similarly, the return to male education may well be above the female return if demand for female labor is low or concentrated in sectors with low productivity. In sum, “the fact that women face multiple constraints means that relaxing just one may not improve outcomes” (Duflo 2012 , p. 1076).

Promising policy directions that would benefit from further macroeconomic research are the role of public investments in physical infrastructure and care provision (Agénor 2017 ; Braunstein, Bouhia and Seguino 2020 ), gender-based taxation (Guner, Kaygusuz and Ventura 2012 ; Meier & Rainer 2015 ), and linkages between gender equality and pro-environmental agendas (Matsumoto 2014 ).

See Echevarria & Moe ( 2000 ) for a similar complaint that “theories of economic growth and development have consistently neglected to include gender as a variable” (p. 77).

A non-exhaustive list includes Bandiera & Does ( 2013 ), Braunstein ( 2013 ), Cuberes & Teignier ( 2014 ), Duflo ( 2012 ), Kabeer ( 2016 ), Kabeer & Natali ( 2013 ), Klasen ( 2018 ), Seguino ( 2013 , 2020 ), Sinha et al. ( 2007 ), Stotsky ( 2006 ), World Bank ( 2001 , 2011 ).

For an in-depth history of “new home economics” see Grossbard-Shechtman ( 2001 ) and Grossbard ( 2010 , 2011 ).

For recent empirical reviews see Duflo ( 2012 ) and Doss ( 2013 ).

Although the unitary approach has being rejected on theoretical (e.g., Echevarria & Moe 2000 ; Folbre 1986 ; Knowles 2013 ; Sen 1989 ) and empirical grounds (e.g., Doss 2013 ; Duflo 2003 ; Lundberg et al. 1997 ), these early models are foundational to the subsequent literature. As it turns out, some of the key mechanisms survive in non-unitary theories of the household.

For nice conceptual perspectives on conflict and cooperation in households see Sen ( 1989 ), Grossbard ( 2011 ), and Folbre ( 2020 ).

The relationship depicted in Fig. 1 is robust to using other composite measures of gender equality (e.g., UNDP’s Gender Inequality Index or OECD’s Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) (see Branisa, Klasen and Ziegler 2013 )), and other years besides 2000. In Fig. 2 , the linear prediction explains 56 percent of the cross-country variation in per capita income.

See Seguino ( 2013 , 2020 ) for a review of this literature.

The model allows for sorting on ability (“some people are better teachers”) or sorting on occupation-specific preferences (“others derive more utility from working as a teacher”) (Hsieh et al. 2019 , p. 1441). Here, we restrict our presentation to the case where sorting occurs primarily on ability. The authors find little empirical support for sorting on preferences.

Because the home sector is treated as any other occupation, the model can capture, in a reduced-form fashion, social norms on women’s labor force participation. For example, a social norm on traditional gender roles can be represented as a utility premium obtained by all women working on the home sector.

Note, however, that discrimination against women raises productivity in the non-agricultural sector. The reason is that the few women who end up working outside agriculture are positively selected on talent. Lee ( 2020 ) shows that this countervailing effect is modest and dominated by the loss of productivity in agriculture.

This is not the classic Beckerian quantity-quality trade-off because parents cannot invest in the quality of their children. Instead, the mechanism is built by assumption in the household’s utility function. When women’s wages increase relative to male wages, the substitution effect dominates the income effect.

The hypothesis that female labor force participation and economic development have a U-shaped relationship—known as the feminization-U hypothesis—goes back to Boserup ( 1970 ). See also Goldin ( 1995 ). Recently, Gaddis & Klasen ( 2014 ) find only limited empirical support for the feminization-U.

The model does not consider fertility decisions. Parents derive utility from their children’s human capital (social status utility). When household income increases, parents want to “consume” more social status by investing in their children’s education—this is the positive income effect.

Bloom et al. ( 2015 ) build their main model with unitary households, but show that the key conclusions are robust to a collective representation of the household.

This assumption does not necessarily mean that boys are more talented than girls. It can be also interpreted as a reduced-form way of capturing labor market discrimination against women.

Many empirical studies are in line with this assumption, which is rooted in evolutionary psychology. See Strulik ( 2019 ) for references. There are several other evolutionary arguments for men wanting more children (including with different women). See, among others, Mulder & Rauch ( 2009 ), Penn & Smith ( 2007 ), von Rueden & Jaeggi ( 2016 ). However, for a different view, see Fine ( 2017 ).

They do not model fertility decisions. So there is no quantity-quality trade-off.

In their empirical application, Heath & Tan ( 2020 ) study the Hindu Succession Act, which, through improved female inheritance rights, increased the lifetime unearned income of Indian women. Other policies consistent with the model are, for example, unconditional cash transfers to women.

De la Croix & Vander Donckt ( 2010 ) show this with numerical simulations, because the interior regime becomes analytically intractable.

We focus on gender-related policies in our presentation, but the article simulates additional public policies.

Agénor and Agénor ( 2014 ) develop a similar model, but with unitary households, and Agénor and Canuto ( 2015 ) have a similar model of collective households for Brazil, where adult women can also invest time in human capital formation. Since public infrastructure substitutes for women’s time in home production, more (or better) infrastructure can free up time for female human capital accumulation and, thus, endogenously increase wives’ bargaining power.

Voigtländer and Voth ( 2013 ) justify this assumption arguing that, in England, employment contracts for farm servants working in animal husbandry were conditional on celibacy. However, see Edwards & Ogilvie ( 2018 ) for a critique of this assumption.

The bride-price under individual consent need not be paid explicitly as a lump-sum transfer. It could, instead, be paid to the bride implicitly in the form of higher lifetime consumption.

In Tertilt ( 2005 ), all men are similar (except in age). Widespread polygyny is possible because older men marry younger women and population growth is high. This setup reflects stylized facts for Sub-Saharan Africa. It differs from models that assume male heterogeneity in endowments, where polygyny emerges because a rich male elite owns several wives, while poor men remain single (e.g., Gould, Moav and Simhon 2008 ; Lagerlöf 2005 , 2010 ).

See Grossbard ( 2015 ) for more details and extensions of this model and Grossbard ( 2018 ) for a non-technical overview of the related literature. For an earlier application, see Grossbard ( 1976 ).

The concept of WiHo is closely related but not equivalent to the ‘black-box’ term home production used by much of the literature. It also relates to feminist perspectives on care and social reproduction labor (c.f. Folbre 1994 ).

In the general setup, the model need not lead to a corner solution where only one spouse specializes in WiHo.

For promising approaches, see, among others, Cubeddu and Ríos-Rull ( 2003 ), Goussé, Jacquemet and Robin ( 2017 ), Greenwood, Guner, Kocharkov and Santos ( 2016 ), Guler, Guvenen and Violante ( 2012 ), Walther ( 2017 ), Wong ( 2016 ).

Agénor, P.-R. (2017). A computable overlapping generations model for gender and growth policy analysis. Macroeconomic Dynamics , 21 (1), 11–54.

Article   Google Scholar  

Agénor, P.-R., & Agénor, M. (2014). Infrastructure, women’s time allocation, and economic development. Journal of Economics , 113 (1), 1–30.

Agénor, P.-R., & Canuto, O. (2015). Gender equality and economic growth in Brazil: A long-run analysis. Journal of Macroeconomics , 43 , 155–172.

Alesina, A., Giuliano, P., & Nunn, N. (2013). On the origins of gender roles: women and the plough. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 128 (2), 469–530.

Ashraf, N., Field, E., & Lee, J. (2014). Household bargaining and excess fertility: an experimental study in Zambia. American Economic Review , 104 (7), 2210–2237.

Bandiera, O., & Does, A. N. (2013). Does gender inequality hinder development and economic growth? evidence and policy implications. World Bank Research Observer , 28 (1), 2–21.

Barrientos, S. (2019). Gender and work in global value chains: Capturing the gains? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Becker, G. S. (1960). An economic analysis of fertility. In Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries . Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 209–240.

Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar  

Becker, G. S., & Barro, R. J. (1988). A reformulation of the economic theory of fertility. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 103 (1), 1–26.

Beine, M., Docquier, F., & Schiff, M. (2013). International migration, transfer of norms and home country fertility. Canadian Journal of Economics , 46 (4), 1406–1430.

Blecker, R. A., & Seguino, S. (2002). Macroeconomic effects of reducing gender wage inequality in an export-oriented, semi-industrialized economy. Review of Development Economics , 6 (1), 103–119.

Bloom, D. E., Kuhn, M., & Prettner, K. (2015). The Contribution of Female Health to Economic Development . NBER Working Paper 21411, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

Borella, M., De Nardi, M., & Yang, F. (2018). The aggregate implications of gender and marriage. The Journal of the Economics of Ageing , 11 , 6–26.

Boserup, E. (1970). Woman’s role in economic development . London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Branisa, B., Klasen, S., & Ziegler, M. (2013). Gender inequality in social institutions and gendered development outcomes. World Development , 45 , 252–268.

Braunstein, E. (2013). Gender, growth and employment. Development , 56 (1), 103–113.

Braunstein, E., Bouhia, R., & Seguino, S. (2020). Social reproduction, gender equality and economic growth. Cambridge Journal of Economics , 44 (1), 129–156.

Carmichael, S. G., de Pleijt, A., van Zanden, J. L., & De Moor, T. (2016). The European marriage pattern and its measurement. Journal of Economic History , 76 (01), 196–204.

Cavalcanti, T., & Tavares, J. (2016). The output cost of gender discrimination: a model-based macroeconomics estimate. Economic Journal , 126 (590), 109–134.

Cavalcanti, T. Vd. V., & Tavares, J. (2008). Assessing the "Engines of Liberation”: Home Appliances and Female Labor Force Participation. The Review of Economics and Statistics , 90 (1), 81–88.

Cortes, P. (2015). The feminization of international migration and its effects on the children left behind: evidence from the Philippines. World Development , 65 , 62–78.

Cortes, P., & Tessada, J. (2011). Low-skilled immigration and the labor supply of highly skilled women. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics , 3 (3), 88–123.

Cubeddu, L., & Ríos-Rull, J.-V. (2003). Families as shocks. Journal of the European Economic Association , 1 (2–3), 671–682.

Cuberes, D., & Teignier, M. (2014). Gender inequality and economic growth: a critical review. Journal of International Development , 26 (2), 260–276.

Cuberes, D., & Teignier, M. (2016). Aggregate effects of gender gaps in the labor market: a quantitative estimate. Journal of Human Capital , 10 (1), 1–32.

Cuberes, D., & Teignier, M. (2017). Macroeconomic costs of gender gaps in a model with entrepreneurship and household production. The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics , 18 (1), 20170031.

De la Croix, D., & VanderDonckt, M. (2010). Would empowering women initiate the demographic transition in least developed countries? Journal of Human Capital , 4 (2), 85–129.

De Moor, T., & Van Zanden, J. L. (2010). Girl power: The European marriage pattern and labour markets in the north sea region in the late medieval and early modern period. Economic History Review , 63 (1), 1–33.

Dennison, T., & Ogilvie, S. (2014). Does the European marriage pattern explain economic growth? Journal of Economic History , 74 (3), 651–693.

Diebolt, C., & Perrin, F. (2013). From stagnation to sustained growth: the role of female empowerment. American Economic Review , 103 (3), 545–549.

Doepke, M., & Kindermann, F. (2019). Bargaining over babies: Theory, evidence, and policy implications. American Economic Review , 109 (9), 3264–3306.

Doepke, M., & Tertilt, M. (2009). Women’s Liberation: What’s in It for Men? Quarterly Journal of Economics , 124 (4), 1541–1591.

Doepke, M., & Tertilt, M. (2016). Families in macroeconomics. In J. B. Taylor and H. Uhlig (eds.), Handbook of Macroeconomics , vol. 2, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1789–1891.

Doepke, M., & Tertilt, M. (2019). Does female empowerment promote economic development? Journal of Economic Growth , 24 (4), 309–343.

Doepke, M., Tertilt, M., & Voena, A. (2012). The economics and politics of women’s rights. Annual Review of Economics , 4 (1), 339–372.

Doss, C. (2013). Intrahousehold bargaining and resource allocation in developing countries. The World Bank Research Observer , 28 (1), 52–78.

Du, Q., & Wei, S.-J. (2013). A theory of the competitive saving motive. Journal of International Economics , 91 (2), 275–289.

Duflo, E. (2003). Grandmothers and granddaughters: old-age pensions and intrahousehold allocation in South Africa. The World Bank Economic Review , 17 (1), 1–25.

Duflo, E. (2012). Women empowerment and economic development. Journal of Economic Literature , 50 (4), 1051–1079.

Dyble, M., Salali, G. D., Chaudhary, N., Page, A., Smith, D., Thompson, J., Vinicius, L., Mace, R., & Migliano, A. B. (2015). Sex equality can explain the unique social structure of hunter-gatherer bands. Science , 348 (6236), 796–798.

Echevarria, C., & Moe, K. S. (2000). On the need for gender in dynamic models. Feminist Economics , 6 (2), 77–96.

Edlund, L., & Lagerlöf, N.-P. (2006). Individual versus parental consent in marriage: implications for intra-household resource allocation and growth. American Economic Review , 96 (2), 304–307.

Edwards, J., & Ogilvie, S. (2018). Did the Black Death cause economic development by “inventing” fertility restriction? CESifo Working Papers 7016, Munich.

Erten, B., & Keskin, P. (2018). For better or for worse? Education and the prevalence of domestic violence in Turkey. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics , 10 (1), 64–105.

Esteve-Volart, B. (2009). Gender discrimination and growth: theory and evidence from India . Mimeo: York University.

Eswaran, M., & Malhotra, N. (2011). Domestic violence and women’s autonomy in developing countries: theory and evidence. Canadian Journal of Economics , 44 (4), 1222–1263.

Fine, C. (2017). Testosterone rex: Myths of sex, science, and society . New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.

Folbre, N. (1986). Hearts and spades: paradigms of household economics. World Development , 14 (2), 245–255.

Folbre, N. (1994). Who pays for the kids: gender and the structures of constraint . New York: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Folbre, N. (2020). Cooperation & conflict in the patriarchal labyrinth. Daedalus , 149 (1), 198–212.

Gaddis, I., & Klasen, S. (2014). Economic development, structural change, and women’s labor force participation. Journal of Population Economics , 27 (3), 639–681.

Galor, O. (2005a). From stagnation to growth: unified growth theory. Handbook of Economic Growth , vol. 1, North-Holland: Elsevier, pp. 171–293.

Galor, O. (2005b). The demographic transition and the emergence of sustained economic growth. Journal of the European Economic Association , 3 (2-3), 494–504.

Galor, O., & Weil, D. N. (1996). The gender gap, fertility, and growth. American Economic Review , 86 (3), 374–387.

Goldin, C. (1995). The U-shaped female labor force function in economic development and economic history. In T. P. Schultz (ed.), Investment in Women’s Human Capital and Economic Development . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 61–90.

Gould, E. D., Moav, O., & Simhon, A. (2008). The mystery of monogamy. American Economic Review , 98 (1), 333–57.

Goussé, M., Jacquemet, N., & Robin, J.-M. (2017). Household labour supply and the marriage market in the UK, 1991-2008. Labour Economics , 46 , 131–149.

Greenwood, J., Guner, N., Kocharkov, G., & Santos, C. (2016). Technology and the changing family: a unified model of marriage, divorce, educational attainment, and married female labor-force participation. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics , 8 (1), 1–41.

Greenwood, J., Guner, N., & Vandenbroucke, G. (2017). Family economics writ large. Journal of Economic Literature , 55 (4), 1346–1434.

Greenwood, J., Seshadri, A., & Yorukoglu, M. (2005). Engines of liberation. Review of Economic Studies , 72 (1), 109–133.

Grimm, M. (2003). Family and economic growth: a review. Mathematical Population Studies , 10 (3), 145–173.

Grossbard, A. (1976). An economic analysis of polygyny: The case of Maiduguri. Current Anthropology , 17 (4), 701–707.

Grossbard, S. (2010). How “Chicagoan” are Gary Becker’s Economic Models of Marriage? Journal of the History of Economic Thought , 32 (3), 377–395.

Grossbard, S. (2011). Independent individual decision-makers in household models and the New Home Economics. In J. A. Molina (ed.), Household Economic Behaviors . New York, NY: Springer, pp. 41–56.

Grossbard, S. (2015). The Marriage Motive: A Price Theory of Marriage. How Marriage Markets Affect Employment, Consumption, and Savings . New York, NY: Springer.

Grossbard, S. (2018). Marriage and Marriage Markets. In S. L. Averett, L. M. Argys and S. D. Hoffman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Women and the Economy . New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 55–74.

Grossbard, S., & Pereira, A. M. (2015). Savings, Marriage, and Work-in-Household. In S. Grossbard, The Marriage Motive . New York, NY: Springer New York, pp. 191–209.

Grossbard-Shechtman, A. (1984). A theory of allocation of time in markets for labour and marriage. The Economic Journal , 94 (376), 863–882.

Grossbard-Shechtman, S. (2001). The new home economics at Colombia and Chicago. Feminist Economics , 7 (3), 103–130.

Guinnane, T. W. (2011). The historical fertility transition: a guide for economists. Journal of Economic Literature , 49 (3), 589–614.

Guler, B., Guvenen, F., & Violante, G. L. (2012). Joint-search theory: new opportunities and new frictions. Journal of Monetary Economics , 59 (4), 352–369.

Guner, N., Kaygusuz, R., & Ventura, G. (2012). Taxation and household labour supply. The Review of Economic Studies , 79 (3), 1113–1149.

Guvenen, F., & Rendall, M. (2015). Women’s emancipation through education: a macroeconomic analysis. Review of Economic Dynamics , 18 (4), 931–956.

Hajnal, J. (1965). European Marriage Patterns in Perspective. In D. V. Glass and D. E. C. Eversley (eds.), Population in History: Essays in Historical Demography , 6 . London: Edward Arnold Ltd, pp. 101–143.

Hajnal, J. (1982). Two kinds of preindustrial household formation system. Population and Development Review , 8 (3), 449–494.

Hansen, C. W., Jensen, P. S., & Skovsgaard, C. V. (2015). Modern gender roles and agricultural history: the neolithic inheritance. Journal of Economic Growth , 20 (4), 365–404.

Hartman, M. S. (2004). The Household and the Making of History: A Subversive View of the Western Past . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hazan, M., & Zoabi, H. (2015). Sons or daughters? Sex preferences and the reversal of the gender educational gap. Journal of Demographic Economics , 81 (2), 179–201.

Heath, R., & Tan, X. (2020). Intrahousehold bargaining, female autonomy, and labor supply: theory and evidence from India. Journal of the European Economic Association , 18 (4), 1928–1968.

Hiller, V. (2014). Gender inequality, endogenous cultural norms, and economic development. Scandinavian Journal of Economics , 116 (2), 455–481.

Hsieh, C.-T., Hurst, E., Jones, C. I., & Klenow, P. J. (2019). The allocation of talent and US economic growth. Econometrica , 87 (5), 1439–1474.

Kabeer, N. (2016). Gender equality, economic growth, and women’s agency: the “endless variety” and “monotonous similarity” of patriarchal constraints. Feminist Economics , 22 (1), 295–321.

Kabeer, N., & Natali, L. (2013). Gender Equality and Economic Growth: Is there a Win-Win? IDS Working Papers 417. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

Kimura, M., & Yasui, D. (2010). The Galor-Weil gender-gap model revisited: from home to market. Journal of Economic Growth , 15 , 323–351.

Klasen, S. (2018). The impact of gender inequality on economic performance in developing countries. Annual Review of Resource Economics , 10 , 279–298.

Klasen, S. (2020). From ‘MeToo’ to Boko Haram: a survey of levels and trends of gender inequality in the world. World Development , 128 , 104862.

Knowles, J. A. (2013). Why are married men working so much? An aggregate analysis of intra-household bargaining and labour supply. Review of Economic Studies , 80 (3), 1055–1085.

Lagerlöf, N.-P. (2003). Gender equality and long-run growth. Journal of Economic Growth , 8 , 403–426.

Lagerlöf, N.-P. (2005). Sex, equality, and growth. Canadian Journal of Economics , 38 (3), 807–831.

Lagerlöf, N.-P. (2010). Pacifying monogamy. Journal of Economic Growth , 15 (3), 235–262.

Lee, M. (2020). Allocation of Female Talent and Cross-Country Productivity Differences . Mimeo: UC San Diego.

Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics , 22 (1), 3–42.

Lundberg, S. J., Pollak, R. A., & Wales, T. J. (1997). Do husbands and wives pool their resources? Evidence from the United Kingdom child benefit. Journal of Human Resources , 32 (3), 463–480.

Martineau, H. (1837). Society in America , vol. 3. London: Saunders & Otley.

Matsumoto, S. (2014). Spouses’ time allocation to pro-environmental activities: Who is saving the environment at home? Review of Economics of the Household , 12 (1), 159–176.

Meier, V., & Rainer, H. (2015). Pigou meets Ramsey: gender-based taxation with non-cooperative couples. European Economic Review , 77 , 28–46.

Mulder, M. B., & Rauch, K. L. (2009). Sexual conflict in humans: variations and solutions. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews , 18 (5), 201–214.

Penn, D. J., & Smith, K. R. (2007). Differential fitness costs of reproduction between the sexes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 104 (2), 553–558.

Prettner, K., & Strulik, H. (2017). Gender equity and the escape from poverty. Oxford Economic Papers , 69 (1), 55–74.

Rees, R., & Riezman, R. (2012). Globalization, gender, and growth. Review of Income and Wealth , 58 (1), 107–117.

Reher, D. S. (2004). The demographic transition revisited as a global process. Population, Space and Place , 10 (1), 19–41.

Roy, A. D. (1951). Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings. Oxford Economic Papers , 3 (2), 135–146.

Ruggles, S. (2009). Reconsidering the Northwest European Family System: Living Arrangements of the Aged in Comparative Historical Perspective. Population and Development Review , 35 (2), 249–273.

Seguino, S. (2010). Gender, distribution, and balance of payments constrained growth in developing countries. Review of Political Economy , 22 (3), 373–404.

Seguino, S. (2013). From micro-level gender relations to the macro economy and back again. In D. M. Figart and T. L. Warnecke (eds.), Handbook of Research on Gender and Economic Life . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 325–344.

Seguino, S. (2020). Engendering macroeconomic theory and policy. Feminist Economics , 26 , 27–61.

Sen, A. (1989). Cooperation, inequality, and the family. Population and Development Review , 15 , 61–76.

Sinha, N., Raju, D., & Morrison, A. (2007). Gender equality, poverty and economic growth . World Bank Policy Research Paper 4349. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Stotsky, J. G. (2006). Gender and its relevance to macroeconomic policy: a survey . IMF Working Paper 06/233. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

Strulik, H. (2019). Desire and development. Macroeconomic Dynamics , 23 (7), 2717–2747.

Tejani, S., & Milberg, W. (2016). Global defeminization? Industrial upgrading and manufacturing employment in developing countries. Feminist Economics , 22 (2), 24–54.

Tertilt, M. (2005). Polygyny, fertility, and savings. Journal of Political Economy , 113 (6), 1341–1371.

Tertilt, M. (2006). Polygyny, women’s rights, and development. Journal of the European Economic Association , 4 , 523–530.

Tuccio, M., & Wahba, J. (2018). Return migration and the transfer of gender norms: evidence from the Middle East. Journal of Comparative Economics , 46 (4), 1006–1029.

Voigtländer, N., & Voth, H.-J. (2013). How the West “invented” fertility restriction. American Economic Review , 103 (6), 2227–2264.

von Rueden, C. R., & Jaeggi, A. V. (2016). Men’s status and reproductive success in 33 nonindustrial societies: effects of subsistence, marriage system and reproductive strategy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 113 (39), 10824–10829.

Walther, S. (2017). Moral hazard in marriage: the use of domestic labor as an incentive device. Review of Economics of the Household , 15 (2), 357–382.

Wong, H.-P. C. (2016). Credible commitments and marriage: when the homemaker gets her share at divorce. Journal of Demographic Economics , 82 (3), 241–279.

World Bank (2001). Engendering Development Through Gender Equality in Rights, Resources, and Voice . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

World Bank (2011). World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development . Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Zhang, J., Zhang, J., & Li, T. (1999). Gender bias and economic development in an endogenous growth model. Journal of Development Economics , 59 (2), 497–525.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Editor, Shoshana Grossbard, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. We gratefully acknowledge funding from the Growth and Economic Opportunities for Women (GrOW) initiative, a multi-funder partnership between the UK’s Department for International Development, the Hewlett Foundation and the International Development Research Centre. All views expressed here and remaining errors are our own. Manuel dedicates this article to Stephan Klasen, in loving memory.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics, University of Goettingen, Platz der Goettinger Sieben 3, 37073, Goettingen, Germany

Manuel Santos Silva & Stephan Klasen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Santos Silva .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Santos Silva, M., Klasen, S. Gender inequality as a barrier to economic growth: a review of the theoretical literature. Rev Econ Household 19 , 581–614 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-020-09535-6

Download citation

Received : 27 May 2019

Accepted : 07 December 2020

Published : 15 January 2021

Issue Date : September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-020-09535-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Gender equality
• Economic growth
• Human capital
• Comparative development

JEL classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Beyond income: A multidimensional approach to tackling inequality

James foster, michael m. lokshin.

Rising income inequality in many developed and developing countries captures the attention of social activists and policy makers alike. Yet income is just one dimension of inequality. It exists in health, education, and social services, whose dimension-specific inequalities may reinforce or dampen the impact of income inequality. Focusing solely on income inequality offers only a partial view of what Amartya Sen has termed “ economic inequality ” limiting the scope and accuracy of a country’s policy responses.

Imagine a country or a region where the rich live in areas with the best public schools and the best publicly funded hospitals while the poor live where the schools and hospitals are of poor quality. Now, consider a counterfactual where the poor have access to top-quality public education and healthcare. The government implements a program to improve the quality of education in the lagging regions.

The impact of such an intervention can be assessed in two ways. In the first scenario, the poor will have access to better quality schooling, resulting in higher test scores for their children, while in the second scenario, the schools will be improved for the rich. Under some innocuous assumptions, we conclude that economic inequality would decline in the first case and rise in the second. But income and health inequalities are unchanged in both scenarios, while education inequality will be lower compared to the pre-policy situation. The so-called “dashboard” approach of measuring each dimension-specific inequality level separately (or taking a weighted average) ignores potential interactions across dimensions. However, such effects could be of critical importance as they convey valuable information on how people and societies experience inequality. Improving the quality of education for the poor will increase social mobility and allow many families to escape poverty, thus reducing income inequality. Investing in education in affluent areas might result in heightened political tensions and could stunt economic growth.

To account for these interactions and better gauge the extent of economic inequality, measures of multidimensional inequality have been developed. Despite significant advances in the range of tools available for measuring inequality across multiple dimensions, the policy impact of these measures has been muted.   

In our recent paper , we propose new multidimensional inequality measures that are easily implementable and transparent and overcome many deficiencies of existing measures. The paper aims to identify axiomatically sound multidimensional inequality measures with attributes well-suited for policy. The measures follow a traditional two-stage format, suggested by  Maasoumi (1986) , which aggregates dimensions first and then applies a unidimensional measure like the Gini coefficient to the distribution of aggregates.

We show that only a linear form can be used for aggregation of the individual-level components. Previous studies have considered linear aggregation, but this is the first paper to select this structure based on the axiomatic properties of its associated measures. We demonstrate that multidimensional inequality can be expressed as a weighted average of specific inequalities and a non-negative term reflecting the relevant aspects of the joint distribution across dimensions.

We also develop a calibration approach based on data in an initial period and normative policy weights. Once the multidimensional inequality measure has been calibrated, it can be used to gauge the multidimensional inequality through time and, with additional assumptions, through space.  

Application and Impact in Developing Countries

We illustrate the application of our methodology by analyzing changes in multidimensional inequality in Azerbaijan from 2016 to 2023. We use data from the second (2016) and the fourth (2023) rounds of the Life in Transition Survey ( LITS ). We construct the multidimensional inequality index based on three dimensions captured by the monthly per capita income, years of education, and respondent’s subjective health assessment. The measure is calibrated for 2016 using normative weights of ½ for income and ¼ for the education and health dimensions.

Table 1 presents the specific and multidimensional inequality levels for Azerbaijan. The mean monthly per capita income increased by almost 59 percent from about 852 PPP dollars in 2016 to 1350 PPP dollars in 2023. Income growth was accompanied by an increase in income inequality, from a Gini of 0.253 in 2016 to 0.339 in 2023. The average years of education and health self-assessment remained relatively stable. The inequality in years of education grew while the inequality in health assessment slightly declined.

Table 1: Specific and multidimensional inequalities in Azerbaijan, 2016–2023.

Multidimensional inequality M(x)   as measured by Gini, increased between 2016 and 2023, from 0.144 to 0.230. This increase is due to (i) changes in the specific inequalities, (ii) changes in the effective weights as dimensional means change, and (iii) changes in the rearrangement term R(x) . The rearrangement term fell slightly from 0.037 to 0.029, reflecting greater alignment of dimensions in the second year, meaning that people with higher incomes also got better education and health. To reduce economic inequality in the country, the government of Azerbaijan might invest in improving the quality of education in the country’s poorest regions.

Expanding Understanding of Inequality

By adopting such a multidimensional approach, developing countries, with their limited resources and high inequality rates, can better address their policy challenges. Tackling income inequality is notoriously difficult, and such policies often generate undesirable second-order effects. Our framework allows countries to reduce economic inequality by providing public goods to people experiencing poverty, which is straightforward from the implementation perspective and much more palatable politically. By recognizing the interconnectedness of various life dimensions, policy makers can devise more effective strategies to promote equitable growth and ensure that no one is left behind.

• Inequality and Shared Prosperity

Guest blogger

Lead Economist, Office of the Regional Chief Economist, Europe and Central Asia

Join the Conversation

• Share on mail
• comments added

103 Economic Inequality Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best economic inequality topic ideas & essay examples, ⭐ most interesting economic inequality topics to write about, 👍 good essay topics on economic inequality, ❓ research questions about economic inequality.

• Income Inequality as a Major Roadblock in the Way for Economic and Social Prosperity This is because to a large extent, the income inequality mostly applies to the difference between the rich and the middle-class people in the society.
• US Wealth Inequality: Analyzing the Economic Divide From this point, the remarkable economic inequality in the United States is a consequence of the policies, according to which the value of the market economy was placed higher than the value of the ordinary […]
• The Illusion of Diversity: How Ignoring Economic Inequality Divides Us In simple terms, the author of this article is emphatic on the point that diversity is used as a solution to resolve the current systemic prejudice in society but exacerbates the problem.
• Rural Development, Economic Inequality and Poverty The percentage of the rural population is lower for developed countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. Thus, the objective of the proposal is to determine how the inhabitants of the country in […]
• Apple Inc.’s Impact on Economic Inequality Economic inequality generates social injustice, and Apple Inc.has addressed this social cause by creating jobs in American states through accurate racial representation in their workforce, the creation of data centers and universities, and the rise […]
• A Study of Income Inequality in the United States The urgency of this topic is dictated by the attempts to eliminate poverty and reduce the global gap between different economic classes, in the long run leading to a serious national budget crisis.
• Analysis of Income Inequality in Italy For instance, both the earned and the unearned income should be taxed in the same way; this intervention would be functional in helping to bridge the gap between the poor and the rich.
• Economic Inequality in the United States Therefore, the gap in wealth and income between social groups of people is a serious problem that contributes to other inequalities existing in the world.
• Economic Inequality During COVID-19: Correlation With Depression and Addiction Thus, during the pandemic, people with lower incomes experienced depression and increased their addictive behaviors to cope with the stress of COVID-19.
• Economic Inequality and Socially Optimal Outcomes It is responsible for the widening wealth gap between the rich and the poor in society. The prevalence of income inequality is higher in the U.
• Income Inequality Measurements Within Country The Lorenz curve and the Gini coefficient, often some of the first measures of income inequality studied by economics students, provide a visual representation of the disparity. Therefore, the bigger the area between the equality […]
• Income Inequality and Related Racial Issues However, racism remains an issue in the fields that directly affect the black population’s income, so the efforts to combat it should not halt.
• Sectoral Decomposition Analysis of Regional Income Inequality Paas and Schlitte deal with the development of regional disparities in per capita GDP and convergence processes in the enlarged EU by conducting a study on income disparities and convergence processes at regional level in […]
• Social and Economic Inequality in the United States I believe that there is a strong negative reaction to women on welfare for two reasons: First, the general public perceives welfare for women, especially single mothers, as a government handout to assist individuals who […]
• Economic Inequality and Government Policies One can argue that such policies and other tax deductions that are given to home owners have heavily contributed to the increase in economic inequality in the country.
• Underdevelopment, Economic Inequality and Democratization In conclusion, this work has clearly discussed the impacts of economic inequality and underdevelopment on the attempts to democratize a nation.
• Income Inequality Issue in the United States It has been boldly predicted that the rise of income inequality in the United States of America will become one of the most complicated issues to resolve over the next ten to twenty years.
• Globalization and Income Inequality Relationship Specifically, at the turn of the 21st century, almost all the rich people received close to five times more income as compared to the earnings of the majority of the poor households.
• Income Inequality in America: Support and Critique Monrone and Kerg also say the income of the wealthiest 1% Americans has increased by 154%, while the income of the rest of the population has only grown by 17%. For example, they say income […]
• Income Inequality and Its History in the US During the World War II, The National Labor Board reduced the income for the top earners while at the same time increasing the income for the poor and the working class.
• Income Inequality and Education Opportunities It is due to this obvious trend that protesters in The moral issue in the case of this issue is the issue of “the denial of opportunity” that people face when confronted with income inequality.
• Income Inequality as the Challenge for Human Dignity I am inclined to share the opinion that the issue of income inequality should be addressed and resolved in the American society effectively because income inequality can lead to losing hopes and dignity, to increase […]
• Economic Inequality as a Result of Globalisation This is shown by the lack of trend in economic disparity in the pre-globalisation period and the acceleration of disparity during and after globalisation.
• Addressing the Income Inequality in the People’s Republic of China It is obvious that the mentioned issues are among the most relevant reasons for II; eliminating them should lead to the improvement of II situation in the world.
• Economic Inequality and Colonialism The participation of the European settlers in the development of these institutions played a significant role in the provocation of the economic weakness of the colonized countries.
• Income Inequality in the United Kingdom The graph above shows that the level of income inequality is at its highest at the top of the income scale.
• Income Inequality in the United States According to Mankiw’s article, the author of “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” argues that the rate of areturn on investment in the United States is greater than the rate of the country’s average economic growth.
• The Impact of Higher Education Expansion on Income Inequality in China Trends in the access to higher education since the expansion of education reforms in 1989 signal a rise in inequality. Wu observes that during the expansion of education in China, the Gini Coefficient rose to […]
• Income Inequality in Marxism, Structuralism, Neoliberalism, and Dependency Theory The peculiar features of every country’s development should be discussed from the point of the character of the economic relations within the country and from the point of the country’s position within the global economic […]
• The Influence on Health of Economic Inequality The poor find it difficult to meet the living standards accepted in the society, which are often set by the rich, and they opt to move in poor houses with unhygienic conditions, which lack of […]
• The Problem of Social and Economic Inequality in Modern Society The author claims that it is the role of the government to ensure the efficiency of the current employment legislation. In summary, the analyzed articles are devoted to the problem of social and economic inequality.
• Social and Economic Inequality While structural changes have reduced economic and social inequalities in some areas, the concept has led to a worsening of conditions in some countries.
• Accelerating Economic Inequality and the Moral Responsibilities of Corporate-Employed Technologists
• Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America
• After Deindustrialization: Uneven Growth and Economic Inequality in Postindustrial Chicago
• Diversionary Nationalism: Economic Inequality and the Formation of National Pride
• Drug Enforcement, Prostitution, and Racial Economic Inequality in the United States
• Economic Inequality and Burden-Sharing in the Provision of Local Environmental Quality
• Educational Assortative Mating and Economic Inequality: Latin American Countries Comparative Analysis
• Economic Inequality and Economic Development: Global Experiences for the Arab World
• Educational Imbalance, Socio-Economic Inequality, Political Freedom and Economic Development
• Economic Inequality and Environmental Quality: Evidence of Pollution Shifting in Russia
• The Relationships Between Educational Opportunity and Economic Inequality
• Economic Inequality and Growth Before the Industrial Revolution
• Education and the Reproduction of Economic Inequality in the United States
• Economic Inequality and Happiness: Quantitative Study Among the Elderly in Rural Vietnam
• Overview of Financial Frictions, Occupational Choice, and Economic Inequality
• Economic Inequality and Health: Looking Beyond Aggregate Indicators
• Economic Inequality and How It Affects Overall Economic Growth
• Globalization and Economic Inequality in the Short and Long Run
• Economic Inequality and Intergenerational Transfers: Evidence From Mexico
• Globalization: Economic Inequality and International Trade
• Economic Inequality and Its Effects on Economic Growth
• The Problems of Health Care Quality and Economic Inequality
• Economic Inequality and Optimal Redistribution: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis
• Higher Education, Economic Inequality and Social Mobility: Implications for Emerging East Asia
• Economic Inequality and Paretian Welfare Economics: Some Insinuating Questions
• Identity, Patronage, and Redistribution: Economic Inequality in Bolivia Under Evo Morales
• Economic Inequality and Political Power: Comparative Analysis of Argentina and Brazil
• Income Mobility and Economic Inequality From a Regional Perspective
• Economic Inequality and Poverty in the Very Long Run
• Individual Health and the Visibility of Village Economic Inequality
• Economic Inequality and Social Differentials in Mortality
• Economic Inequality and the Urban Environment: Case of Water and Sanitation
• Intergenerational Earnings Persistence and Economic Inequality in the Long-Run
• Linking International Migration, Ethnicity, and Economic Inequality
• Economic Inequality: The Middle Class in America Is Becoming Poorer
• Labor Markets and Economic Inequality in the United States
• Economic Inequality: The Wealth Gap Between Americans
• Local Social Inequality, Economic Inequality, and Disparities in Child Height in India
• Measuring Economic Inequality: Deprivation, Economising, and Possessing
• Microscopic Models for Welfare Measures Addressing a Reduction of Economic Inequality
• Does Economic Inequality Affect Child Malnutrition?
• Has Trade Liberalization Increased Economic Inequality Among the Mexican States?
• How Does Economic Inequality Affect Our Lives?
• Was the Early Modern Period a Time of Growing Economic Inequality?
• Does Economic Inequality Affect the Quality of Life of Older People in Rural Vietnam?
• Is Economic Inequality a Global Problem?
• What Is the Concept of Economic Inequality?
• Does Economic Inequality Exist in the United States?
• How Does Economic Inequality Cause Social Problems?
• What Are the Consequences of Economic Inequality?
• How Is Economic Inequality Different From Poverty?
• Does Economic Inequality Affect Institutional Quality?
• What Are the Main Types of Economic Inequality?
• How Does Social Class Shape Attitudes on Economic Inequality?
• Where Is Economic Inequality Most Common?
• How Does Economic Inequality Affect Mental and Physical Health?
• Why Is Economic Inequality a Social Problem?
• How Does Economic Inequality Affect Growth?
• Which Country Has High Economic Inequality?
• How Do Sweden and Colombia Deal With Economic Inequality?
• What Is the Measure of Economic Inequality?
• Does Economic Inequality Cause Poverty?
• How Can We Solve Economic Inequality?
• Why Is It Difficult to Measure Economic Inequality?
• How Does Economic Inequality Affect the United States?
• What Was the Main Cause of Economic Inequality According to Karl Marx?
• Does Democracy Reduce Economic Inequality?
• How Does Economic Inequality Shape Social Class Stereotyping?
• What Is the Relation Between Social and Economic Inequality?
• How Does Economic Inequality in the US Compare to Other Countries?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 26). 103 Economic Inequality Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/economic-inequality-essay-topics/

"103 Economic Inequality Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/economic-inequality-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '103 Economic Inequality Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 26 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "103 Economic Inequality Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/economic-inequality-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "103 Economic Inequality Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/economic-inequality-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "103 Economic Inequality Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/economic-inequality-essay-topics/.

• Gender Inequality Research Topics
• Homelessness Questions
• Globalization Essay Topics
• Macroeconomics Topics
• Great Depression Research Topics
• Poverty Essay Titles
• Segregation Research Topics
• Social Class Research Ideas

241 Inequality Essay Topics on Income, Gender, & Social Injustice

Are you searching for the best inequality topics for your presentation, discussion, or research paper? Look no further! StudyCorgi has compiled an extensive list of social, income, racial, and gender inequality topics to write about. Feel free to use these ideas for your writing assignments on injustice issues.

🏆 Best Research Topics on Inequality

⭐ catchy inequality essay topics, 👍 good inequality research topics & essay examples, 🌶️ hot social inequality essay topics for students, 🎓 most interesting social inequality topics, ✍️ inequality essay topics for college, ❓ inequality research questions, 👩‍🔬 gender inequality titles for essays, 💸 income inequality essay topics.

• Gender Inequality Issue and Solutions
• Effects of Social Inequality: Essay Example
• Gender Inequality in the Workplace
• Discrimination and Inequality in the Education System
• Social Problem Analysis: Social Inequality in Education
• Characteristics of Feminism: Inequality in the Aging Experience
• Social Inequality in Poems, Songs, and Films
• Income Inequality in Modern Society The issue of income inequality has not yet been resolved. It remains a significant problem in society and leads to social and economic hardship.
• Invisible Inequality: Childrearing in Black Families and White Families Social inequality but not racial differences affect the range of activities in which children may be involved and their future lives.
• Social Inequality: “The Notebook” by Nick Cassavetes The purpose of this paper is to illustrate social inequalities in American society through The Notebook movie by Nick Cassavetes.
• Social Inequality, Discrimination, and Solution Social inequality is one of the primary drivers of racial discrimination. At the micro-level, unequal distribution of wealth contributes to racial segregation.
• Gender Roles and Inequalities in Advertisement The perfume for men, Dior Sauvage, was released in 2019, and an advertising campaign supported it with Johnny Depp.
• Education and Social Inequality The problem of the relationship between education and social inequality has been of concern to sociologists for more than a decade.
• Social Stratification and Inequality Social stratification is a term that describes the social standing system: race, money, power, and education form the social status which differs one group of people from others.
• Social Inequalities for People With Disabilities Individuals with disabilities face many social problems – some are very visible, and others are hard to notice for people without disabilities.
• Men’s Superiority Theory and Inequality Issues This paper critically explores the claims to develop a conclusion regarding the validity of the school of thought that supports men’s superiority.
• Education and Income Inequality Relationship Income inequality is a great problem of every society since it widens the chasm between the richest and the most deprived people and negatively affects economic growth.
• Poverty and Inequality: Income and Wealth Inequality The Stanford Center of Poverty and Inequality does an in-depth job of finding causes and capturing statistics on poverty and inequality.
• Sexism and Gender Inequality in Sport The paper reviews an example of sexism and gender inequality and academic scholarship on the topic. Women athletes have faced gender inequality and sexism.
• Marriage and Inequalities With Gender The issue of bridging gender equality has been the center of debate in the 21 century. The role of women in society could no longer be underestimated.
• Approaches to the Study of Social Inequality The paper states that class inequality inherently implies different opportunities and unequal access to available public and material goods.
• Gender Inequality at Google Inc. Some percentage of women employed in Google shows that it is possible and both genders should work hard to get a job there.
• Role of Ideology and Institutions in Gender Inequality This paper aims to present the current status of the issue while evaluating the importance of ideologies and institutions, masculine and feminine norms, the racialization of gender.
• Women: Gender Inequality and Discrimination This paper explains whether innate gender differences exist and how they determine the abilities, choices, and aptitudes that differentiate men from women.
• Discrimination and Inequality in Society Countering discrimination and a meaningful debate about ethnic and racial equality requires a mature society with well-developed legal institutions.
• The Pink Tax: Inequality Should Be Outlawed Inequality can be manifested in different dimensions, ranging from racial prejudices to judgment of personal life partner choices.
• “Gender Inequality in “”The Yellow Wallpaper””, “”A Rose for Emily””, and “”Trifels””” The paper focuses on analyzing A Rose for Emily, written by William Faulkner, The Yellow Wallpaper, by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and Susan Glaspell’s Trifles.
• Gender Inequality in French Hospitality Industry The study scrutinizes the French hotel and tourism sector and the concerns and challenges women encounter in management roles and compares them to the trends.
• Inequality in “The Lesson” by Toni Cade Bambara Toni Cade Bambara’s “The Lesson” is about the social and economic injustices experienced in many societies. The story highlights the oppression and unfairness faced in the US.
• Inequality of Digital Divide in Education Students’ ability to learn is hindered by their impaired access to technology devices because they cannot keep up with integrating technology into teaching.
• Racial Inequality in “Recitatif” by Morrison Race, inequality, discrimination, and prejudice are the issues that have been significantly addressed recently but will probably remain a part of human nature forever.
• Gender Inequality in Social Inequality This topic was chosen because the problem of gender inequality has existed for a long time and is being solved with varying success.
• Sociable Letters: Inequality in Social and Economic Status The paper discusses “Sociable Letters” which demonstrates the true happiness gap between the upper and lower classes, demonstrating that nobles are jealous of each other.
• The Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality Theory The theory of race, crime, and urban inequality is based on the paradigm of social disorganization theory formulated by the Chicago School.
• Social Institutions Maintaining Inequality Systems The paper investigates the aspects of influence that social institutions have on oppression and privilege as well on access to resources.
• Ethics in Social Work: Addressing Economic Inequality It is imperative to understand the application of core ethical values of social work that are relevant to the identified problem of inequality and explore the challenge.
• Social Inequality Depicted in Art Works Understanding social inequality is important since it is the root of major social problems such as unemployment, substance abuse, and criminality.
• Tax Inequality in America While the American tax model is intended to remain progressive, little gains have been recorded so far since the level of tax inequality has remained the same over the years.
• Gender Inequality in Security Sector The assumption of gender composition in the security sector has been linked with the apparent norm that women cannot work in the military.
• The Problems of Gender Inequality This paper tells that gender inequality is a serious issue, which affects everyone. It starts with the stereotype of males’ superiority and turns into numerous problems.
• Linking Income, Wealth, and Inequality The main reasons for inequality are unequal distribution of property, differences in educational level, skills, work experience, and other essential factors.
• Income Inequality Based on Gender Income inequality based on gender is the dissimilarity between male and female earnings usually expressed in part by male earnings.
• Gender Inequality and Feminism in a TV Series Gender inequality indicators measure quantifiable aspects of biases against women or men. It is the women who suffer the most from gender discrimination.
• Education and Income Inequality in the United States The education-based income gap is one of the areas of major concern for policymakers as education is one of the influential factors leading to the increase in the gap.
• Racial Inequality in the USA: Problem & Solution In the current world, the USA still has challenges in overcoming racial inequality, for example, people practice racial inequality for job promotions or payments.
• Inequalities in China and India The paper states that inequalities in China and India are a big issue after looking at the drastic economic differences within the countries.
• The Problem of Social Inequality at Schools in Canada Social inequality at schools is a issue that undermines the effectiveness of secondary education and leads to long-term and short-term problems of individual and group nature.
• Determinants in Oral Health Inequalities The paper seeks to look at the existing inequalities in dental health. The paper also proposes ways that can be used to reduce these inequalities.
• Global Poverty, Inequality, and Mass Migration Such global issues as poverty and inequality and mass migration are significant today since many people are involved in them.
• India’s Policies to Tackle Poverty and Inequality This paper aims to identify potential policies in infrastructure and education and develop new options to deal with poverty and inequality in India.
• Brazil’ Poverty and Inequality Poverty in Brazil has been unresponsive to growth due to the challenges of eliminating inequality. The poverty eradication programs reduced the poverty rate.
• Gender Inequality as an International Issue The presentation is devoted to an issue: gender inequality. The inequality in career progression that is still characteristic of several societies all over the world.
• Injustice, Inequality, and the Quest for Inclusivity: Synthesis and Reflection It should be noted that injustice and inequality in American society, discrimination and oppression of citizens, and the issue of exclusivity of individuals are fundamental concepts.
• The Concept of Social Inequality The concept of social inequality is essential for making a global change and improving everyone’s quality of life since it reflects the problems on a societal level.
• Legal Issues of Racial Inequality The most serious consequences of discrimination on the basis of race are associated with violence and impairment of rights.
• Social Inequality and Juvenile Delinquency There is a high crime rate among adolescents. At the same time, as it is commonly believed, young people are considered to be the future of the country.
• Vulnerable Populations: Homeless People and Health Inequalities This paper focuses on vulnerable populations, including changing students’ perceptions of the homeless and the immense health inequalities associated with the homeless population.
• Economic Inequality as a Social Welfare Challenge Economic inequality as a notion stands for the disparities in the individuals’ incomes and wealth caused by various social, geographical, and financial aspects.
• Health Care Inequality: The Socio-Economic Factors This paper aims at outlining the socio-economic factors, particularly economic inequality, as the most significant cause for healthcare inequality in the USA.
• Racial and Ethnic Inequality Perception The paper stresses the essence of exploring the roots of racial and ethnic inequality in the United States to obtain a better sense of the people who are trying to stir this issue.
• Social Inequality at School The aim of this project is to contribute to the development of tailored solutions for the problems of Canadian school education.
• Inequality in Russia: Causes and Consequences This paper argues that corruption regional inequalities and bias policy framework are the causes of inequality in Russia.
• Social Inequalities’ Influences on Health There is a strong relationship between the contribution that society makes to the health of an individual and just how much social inequalities affect the health of an individual.
• Sex, Gender, and Inequalities In this paper, gender binarism, sexism, institutionalized gender, and sex patterns in the society are assessed. It is important in reviewing the differences between gender and sex.
• Gender Inequality in India and Iran Politics This paper explores the role of women in politics in India and Iran as the two countries have different nature of political gender inequalities.
• Social Problem of Inequality Studies of social inequality included non-urban areas and social inequality factors that had not been included in previous studies.
• Debate on Gender and Sex Inequalities The main aim of this paper was to analyze the distinction between gender and sex. The impacts of the two on social structures were highlighted.
• Colonialism, Inequality, and Modernity in European History The paper discusses the ideas of several political and social theorists, including Aimé Césaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Karl Marx.
• Social Inequality and Global Disparities There are still disparities in the globe based on opportunity, income, sex, age, handicap, sexual orientation, color, class, and ethnicity.
• The Gender-Based Pay Inequality Factors This research paper focuses on the factors that influence societal engagement in the widespread gender pay gap.
• Monetary Policy, Inequality, and Federal Reserve Interest Rates One of the most effective methods for advancing and improving financial knowledge is the use of legislation and public policy initiatives.
• The Persistence of Inequality From Different Perspectives This paper delves into the concept of inequality, highlighting its long-standing presence in society and its impact on both the global community and local communities.
• Addressing Global Inequality in the Era of Globalization While globalization has led to social, political, and economic increase, it has also given rise to global inequality, particularly through the exploitation of developing countries.
• Race and Sports: Inequality in Sports In her New York Times article “Equity in Sports Has Focused on Gender, Not Race. So Gaps Persist,” Alanis Thames discusses mass gender and racial inequality in sports.
• The Problem of Inequality in Crack and Powder Cocaine Sentencing The difference in perception and sentencing of cases of crack cocaine and powder cocaine raises a major inequality problem in legislation and society.
• Global Gender Inequality and Its Main Trends In this research study, the scholars investigate whether gender inequality is decreasing across the world as is the case with other welfare indicators.
• Pay Inequality and Its Impact on Women and Other Groups This article discusses pay inequality as demonstrated in the YouTube video “Child Social Experiment Looks at Gender Equality”.
• Economic Inequality and Its Relationship to Poverty This research paper will discuss the problem of economic inequality and show how this concept relates to poverty.
• Life of Humanity: Inequality, Poverty, and Tolerance The paper concerns the times in which humanity, and especially the American people, live, not forgetting about inequality, poverty, and tolerance.
• Gender Inequality for Men and Women Gender inequality in the US for men and women has significant consequences both in the family and in the professional sphere. Thus, in the family, inequality is primarily reflected in specific relationships between the genders, and it also affects parents’ roles. In the family, men may sometimes experience pressure and…
• Inequality in the Mayan Civilization The research used a thought-provoking methodology to discuss the reasons for inequality and regions of Maya settlement.
• Racial Inequality in Modern Society Racial discrimination and the inequality caused by it in relation to representatives of any non-white community is the most critical problem of modern society.
• Maintaining Hierarchical Interactions with Concealed Inequality in Language The objective of this research is to the connection between language, authority, and interpersonal interactions.
• Gender Inequality Among Women in Canada This paper seeks to discuss the approaches to gender inequality, the causes, impacts, and solutions to gender inequality among women in Canada.
• Racial Inequality Under the Law in Canada Black people in Canada have traditionally been segregated based on race through legislation, judicial rulings, and societal standards.
• Racial Inequality in Hiring and Workplace Racial discrimination involves denying people from a particular race equal treatment and opportunities as others due to variations in personal characteristics.
• Inequality Within the Australian Labour Market There is a need to identify the primary forms of imbalances in labor relations and analyze their consequences to propose possible solutions to the problem.
• Wealth Inequality and Redistribution: Robert Nozick’s Perspective Poverty and wealth inequality have been concerning society for a very long time. This paper examines Robert Nozick’s perspective concerning this issue.
• Capitalism as a Means of Promoting Inequality The degree to which capitalism has impacted the distribution of wealth and opportunities in society has shaped the course of events in the world.
• The Issue of Gender Inequality in Kenya Kenya is one of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa with oppressive conditions, most preferably the gender inequality and marginalization of a specific proportion of the populace.
• Social Inequality in the United States Social inequality is a critical aspect in the United States since it is intertwined with economic, cultural, and political issues.
• Inequality in American Society: Myths and Realities Inequality in modern society is the result of an economic model of capitalism, where each person’s input into the economic context is valued.
• The Racial Inequality Problem in the US Racial inequality is a complex issue that requires the efforts of the whole society in the history of the United States.
• History and Effects of Racial Inequality in the United States Racial inequality in the United States is a widespread issue that affects a significant portion of the population.
• Addressing Economic Inequality: The Pandemic Challenge Economic inequality continues to be relevant to modern society, with the full range of human rights being available only to the wealthy minority.
• Economic Inequality and Pandemic Challenge The most vulnerable populations were affected by the coronavirus pandemic because they often could not access economic and public health resources to meet their needs.
• Economic Inequality Between Genders Discussions on the problems of gender inequality have been going on for decades that’s why the difference in the earnings between men and women is called the gender pay gap.
• Inequality and Poverty in the United States One of the most common myths is that the United States (US) is a meritocracy, where anyone can succeed if they maintain industriousness.
• Social Inequality and Human Rights in the Modern World This paper theorize civil rights to be the basis of developing the main social fields of education, healthcare, and career opportunities.
• Inspiration for Women to Address Inequality When you think about inequality, according to you, what kind of people face it now more than others? Blacks? Latinos? The right answer is women.
• Historical Review of Gender Inequality in the USA Gender inequality in society is a widespread problem worldwide, rooted in the patriarchal system and associated prejudices, and the United States is no exception in this regard.
• Pandemic Challenge and Economic Inequality The coronavirus pandemic has presented two significant challenges for American society: public health and economic crises.
• Inequality: The Lesson About Privilege There are several factors used to divide society into groups, and they can be based on age, nationality, poverty or wealth, skin color, and sexual orientation.
• Social Inequality: Challenges and Benefits Social inequality can be eliminated by massively investing in public finances to provide free education to everyone.
• Racial Inequality, Immigration, and Healthcare in the US This essay discusses racial inequality, immigration, and healthcare in America, focusing on the preferential treatment of different races in the U.S.
• The State of Women Inequality Worldwide Regardless of advancement toward gender impartiality in education, girls still represent a greater proportion of dropout children than boys.
• Racial Inequality in the Judicial System This essay will expound while offering some critiques and counter-arguments on why the justice offered by the justice system highly depends on the race of the convict.
• Globalization Impact on Socioeconomic Inequality This paper analyzes the link between globalization and socioeconomic inequality, and how the inequality problem can be mitigated.
• Economic Class Inequality in America The growing income inequality in America can no longer be neglected because it affects millions of people of different races and classes.
• Social Inequality and Discrimination in the US The problem of social inequality in the country has continued to widen the gap between the rich and the poor over the years.
• Racial and Ethnicity Inequality Racial and ethnic inequality is a national problem in the US. Non-dominant racial and ethnic groups have lower incomes and less access to medical services.
• Rising Crime and Ethnic Inequality in the United States The article raises the up-to-date topic of the sharp increase in the crime rate in the United States. The numbers are exceptionally high among African Americans and Latinos.
• Measuring Economic Inequality The measurement of economic inequality is challenged by the evidence of a wide partisan gap in whether inequality is a problem that needs addressing.
• Income Inequality: A Historical Review The problem of income inequality is of high social importance: it negatively affects the country’s economy and society.
• Inequality in the Texas Legislature Over the years, the constitution of the Texas Senate and state legislative chamber has always been discriminative against certain groups.
• Financial Inclusion and Income Inequality The effect of financial inclusion in overcoming income inequality depends on the government’s ability to create an enabling environment.
• The Hunger Games Book One: Inequality Problem Relation The first part of the trilogy Hunger Games tells about the despotic government, which organizes an annual demonstration game of survival, watched from the air by the whole world.
• Marketing and Interaction Through Social Media Platforms and Gender Inequalities The photos posted by individuals on their social media accounts reproduce gender inequalities and reinforce harmful gender identity norms.
• Racial and Ethnic Inequality: Annotated Bibliography An annotated bibliography on racial and ethnic inequality, exploring the topic in aspects of education and occupation, crimes, healthcare, and socioeconomic status.
• Misconceptions About Income Inequality Since the views on the current state of income inequality are diametrically opposite, it is essential to examine the exact situation on a global scale.
• “Measuring Inequality in Community Resilience to Natural Disasters” by Hong et al. This paper analyzes the scientific study “Measuring inequality in community resilience to natural disasters using large-scale mobility data” and the content of the article.
• Inequality Disparities in Georgia State The paper states that implementing evidence-based policymaking in the state of Georgia has the potential to eliminate equality disparities.
• Negative Consequences of Social Inequality This paper aims to prove social inequality has always led to negative consequences, analyze the injustice of the superiority of one gender, nation, or social group over another.
• “Inequality for All”: Arguments’ Study The film “Inequality for All” presents an idea that abolishing inequality is impossible in capitalism, and forcing such a system is strict socialism.
• Postapartheid South Africa: Understanding Inequality The abolition of the apartheid policy took place in harsh conditions, sometimes bordering on a civil war. This event was preceded by the radicalization of the black population.
• Concept of Educational Inequality The paper discusses the case of educational inequality. People share information with others by retweeting the post, taking a screenshot, or commenting on it.
• How Does Racial Inequality Play a Role in the US Culture? The topic of race is one of the most discussed in contemporary society. The paper explains how racial inequality plays a role in the United States culture.
• Racial Inequalities in the Context of Pandemic Vaccination To concretize the study, a current journalistic article in The New York Times was chosen to highlight racial inequalities in the context of pandemic vaccination.
• “Racial Inequality, at College and in the Workplace” by Johnson Despite the intentions to create an equal and unbiased society, many modern Americans still experience serious challenges based on racial or gender inequalities.
• Gender Inequality Articles by Beaumont vs. Eigenberg The purpose of this article is to analyze and compare two articles on gender inequality and gender bias as a cause of its prevalence.
• The PBS Interview on Income Inequality: Main Ideas The PBS interview on income inequality emphasizes the role of social class in the widening gap between the rich and the poor.
• Health Inequality in the United States Hospitals in the US should employ more health professionals from diverse ethnic backgrounds to overcome rising hindrances such as language barriers and promote equality.
• Gender Inequality in Ohio’s Education and Labor Market This paper provides an insight into the problems, solutions, and barriers to gender equality in the education and the labor market in Ohio state.
• Inequalities and Police Brutality Against the Black This paper aims to research racial inequality and hostile police attitudes towards the black population in the United States.
• Poverty in America: Socio-Economic Inequality The primary cause of poverty in the United States is socio-economic inequality since such ethnic minorities as Native Americans are among the poorest social groups in the US.
• McGuffey’s Justification of Inequality McGuffey’s references to morality imply that ideology is needed to assure the peaceful coexistence of unequal groups.
• The Attitude to Inequality of Two People The purpose of this paper is to analyze the experience, beliefs, ideas, and attitudes to inequality of two people who are not seen as normal by conservative society members.
• Effects of the Income Inequality After watching the CNBC video, that described how the middle-skill workers share has shrunk over time, I thought of my uncle, who was laid off from a steel company in the early 2000s.
• Why It Is Important to Fight Social Inequality Seems vital to take action and do something about this problem. The following paper will discuss why it is important to deal with social inequalities.
• Racial Inequality in Education: Remaining Problems In the essay, it will be argued that in education, the manifestations of racial inequality are still observed, although they often remain implicit and indirect.
• Income Inequality in Developed Countries This article describes the problem of income inequality in developed countries such as China, Germany, France, and the United States, and the reasons for this problem.
• Black Lives Matter: Fight Against the Inequality The Black Lives Matter reflected attitudes of black people of the country towards the killings caused by white cops. It implied the need to fight against the existing inequality.
• Inequality in Public Schools The history course was changed in 1954 when the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that racial segregation in public schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
• Activism and Social Theory: Inequality The issues of equality became central to the U. S. social, political, and economic agendas. This paper dwells upon the coloniality of power, knowledge, and gender in American society.
• Globalization and Economic Inequality The debate on the issue of economic inequality mitigation has been one of the central aspects of global discussion for decades.
• Gender Inequality in Modern Societies and Its Reasons The essay is devoted to gender inequality in modern societies and its reasons. A short history of society’s development that shows the reasons for inequality.
• Determinants of Oral Health Inequalities The aim of the paper is to get all the players in the dental field to appreciate the role played by good oral health and hence stay committed to promoting it.
• Ethnic Inequality: Black Lives Matter The question of ethnic inequality is rather pronounced in the USA, where occurrences of unfair treatment against African American individuals are recorded more and more often.
• The Problem of Inequality of Criminal Justice Pregnancy and maternity in correctional facilities are some of the controversial problems in criminal justice.
• The Issue of Inequality in the United States The current situation in the USA proves that the growing level of inequality is relevant as long as there are people who consider it normal.
• “Coming of Age in Mississippi”: Inequality in a Society In the book “Coming of Age in Mississippi” The NAACP movement encouraged its members to participate in activities that protest against racial injustice in society.
• Racial Inequality in the Job Market of the U.S. Inequalities in the labor market in the United States can cause a major breakdown of the economy. Guarding the labor market is the most important responsibility of the leaders.
• Women and Inequality in Aboriginal Society Aboriginal women have never had the same rights like Aboriginal men, who have respect to pass on “Indian status” to their children.
• ‘Racial’ and Ethnic Inequality in Western Europe and North America Media has been found to play a major role in the production of ethnic as well as racial inequality in the various structures of the contemporary societies.
• The Unfairness and Inequalities Present in the World To this end, the focus will be on the unfairness and inequalities present in the world and how they affect the victims.
• Confidentiality and Inequality as Human Resource Management Issues
• Economic Crisis and Inequality
• “Globalization, Poverty and Inequality” by Kaplinsky
• Continuing Inequalities in America
• Income Inequality in the Workplace: Feminist Responses
• Gender Inequality in Democratic Welfare States
• Educational Policy for Income Inequality in India
• Poverty and Inequality Reducing Policies in China
• Labor and Income Inequality in the U.S.
• Low Wages and Inequality Solutions in the USA
• Education and Inequality in Various Countries
• American Welfare State and Income Inequality
• Inequality in Developing States and Its Measures
• Social Inequality and Stratification in the US
• Racial Inequality: African-American Males Experience
• Gendered Society, Inequality and Violence
• Criminal Behavior, Structural and Social Inequality
• Trust and Inequality as Economic Influences
• Racial Minorities and European Immigrants Inequality
• Racism and Inequality in the United States
• Economic Inequality in Australia
• Wealth Inequality in the United States’ Society
• US Racial Inequality, Legislation and Immigration
• Income Inequality: Changes and Causes in the US
• Disparity or Inequality in Health Care
• Economy Studying: Income Inequality
• Inequality in Wealth Distribution in the US
• Wealth Inequality Effects on American Democracy
• Racial Gender Inequality in the United States
• Income Inequality and Discrimination in the US
• Inequality in Australia: Poverty Rates and Globalism
• Inequalities in the Health Care Arena
• International Development, Colonialism, Social Inequality and Class Stratification
• How Wealth Inequality Affects Democracy in America?
• Global Inequality: Gender, Racial and Ethnic Inequality
• What Are Some Examples of Inequality?
• Are Earnings Inequality and Mobility Overstated?
• What Is Human Inequality?
• What Are the Five Types of Inequality?
• Are People Inequality Averse, and Do They Prefer Redistribution by the State?
• Why Is Inequality Important in Society?
• Are Private Transfers Poverty and Inequality Reducing?
• What Is the Impact of Inequality in Our Society?
• How Does Inequality Threaten All Human Rights?
• Can Educational Expansion Improve Income Inequality?
• Where Does Inequality Occur?
• Can Growth Compensate Inequality and Risk?
• Does Inequality Cause Civil War in the US?
• Can Higher Education Reduce Inequality in Developing Countries?
• Does Inequality Lead to Social Unrest?
• What Is the Major Cause of Social Inequality and Conflict in Societies?
• What Is the Difference Between Poverty and Inequality?
• Can Income Inequality Contribute to Understanding Inequalities in Health?
• How Does Inequality Affect the Economy?
• Has Inequality Risen or Fallen Around the World?
• Did Partial Globalization Increase Inequality?
• What Are the Two Main Approaches to Explaining Inequality?
• Does Agriculture Help Poverty and Inequality Reduction?
• What Are the Indicators of Inequality?
• Does Consumption Inequality Track Income Inequality in Italy?
• What Are the Three Ways to Measure Inequality?
• Does Economic Inequality Affect Child Malnutrition?
• Does Financial Development Increase Rural-Urban Income Inequality?
• Does Gender Inequality Hinder Development and Economic Growth?
• What Determines Gender Inequality in Household Food Security in Kenya?
• Gender-based violence and its societal impact.
• The effects of media portrayals of women on gender inequality.
• Challenges and progress in women’s political representation.
• Transgender inequality in the workplace.
• Addressing gender inequalities in healthcare.
• The glass ceiling: women’s underrepresentation in corporate leadership.
• The role of language in perpetuating inequality.
• The impact of masculine societal norms on men’s mental health.
• The gender gap in financial literacy.
• Gender bias in AI algorithms and ways to address them.
• The link between income inequality and economic growth.
• Racial disparities in wealth accumulation.
• Is universal basic income a solution to economic inequality?
• The role of taxation and wealth redistribution in addressing income inequality.
• The link between income inequality and access to healthcare and education.
• The likelihood of escaping poverty in the US.
• The connection between income inequality and social unrest.
• How does the gig economy promote economic inequality?
• The role of trade and global supply chains in income inequality.
• The impact of the housing market on wealth inequality.

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 16). 241 Inequality Essay Topics on Income, Gender, & Social Injustice. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/inequality-essay-topics/

"241 Inequality Essay Topics on Income, Gender, & Social Injustice." StudyCorgi , 16 Jan. 2022, studycorgi.com/ideas/inequality-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) '241 Inequality Essay Topics on Income, Gender, & Social Injustice'. 16 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "241 Inequality Essay Topics on Income, Gender, & Social Injustice." January 16, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/inequality-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "241 Inequality Essay Topics on Income, Gender, & Social Injustice." January 16, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/inequality-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "241 Inequality Essay Topics on Income, Gender, & Social Injustice." January 16, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/inequality-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Inequality were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on January 8, 2024 .

Female labor force participation

Across the globe, women face inferior income opportunities compared with men. Women are less likely to work for income or actively seek work. The global labor force participation rate for women is just over 50% compared to 80% for men. Women are less likely to work in formal employment and have fewer opportunities for business expansion or career progression. When women do work, they earn less. Emerging evidence from recent household survey data suggests that these gender gaps are heightened due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Women’s work and GDP

Women’s work is posited to be related to development through the process of economic transformation.

Levels of female labor force participation are high for the poorest economies generally, where agriculture is the dominant sector and women often participate in small-holder agricultural work. Women’s participation in the workforce is lower in middle-income economies which have much smaller shares of agricultural activities. Finally, among high-income economies, female labor force participation is again higher, accompanied by a shift towards a service sector-based economy and higher education levels among women.

This describes the posited  U-shaped relationship  between development (proxied by GDP per capita) and female labor force participation where women’s work participation is high for the poorest economies, lower for middle income economies, and then rises again among high income economies.

This theory of the U-shape is observed globally across economies of different income levels. But this global picture may be misleading. As more recent studies have found, this pattern does not hold within regions or when looking within a specific economy over time as their income levels rise.

In no region do we observe a U-shape pattern in female participation and GDP per capita over the past three decades.

Structural transformation, declining fertility, and increasing female education in many parts of the world have not resulted in significant increases in women’s participation as was theorized. Rather, rigid historic, economic, and social structures and norms factor into stagnant female labor force participation.

Historical view of women’s participation and GDP

Taking a historical view of female participation and GDP, we ask another question: Do lower income economies today have levels of participation that mirror levels that high-income economies had decades earlier?

The answer is no.

This suggests that the relationship of female labor force participation to GDP for lower-income economies today is different than was the case decades past. This could be driven by numerous factors -- changing social norms, demographics, technology, urbanization, to name a few possible drivers.

Gendered patterns in type of employment

Gender equality is not just about equal access to jobs but also equal access for men and women to good jobs. The type of work that women do can be very different from the type of work that men do. Here we divide work into two broad categories: vulnerable work and wage work.

The Gender gap in vulnerable and wage work by GDP per capita

Vulnerable employment is closely related to GDP per capita. Economies with high rates of vulnerable employment are low-income contexts with a large agricultural sector. In these economies, women tend to make up the higher share of the vulnerably employed. As economy income levels rise, the gender gap also flips, with men being more likely to be in vulnerable work when they have a job than women.

From COVID-19 crisis to recovery

The COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated these gender gaps in employment. Although comprehensive official statistics from labor force surveys are not yet available for all economies,  emerging studies  have consistently documented that working women are taking a harder hit from the crisis. Different patterns by sector and vulnerable work do not explain this. That is, this result is not driven by the sectors in which women work or their higher rates of vulnerable work—within specific work categories, women fared worse than men in terms of COVID-19 impacts on jobs.

Among other explanations is that women have borne the brunt of the increase in the demand for care work (especially for children). A strong and inclusive recovery will require efforts which address this and other underlying drivers of gender gaps in employment opportunities.

• Research and Publications
• Projects and Operations
• Privacy Notice
• Site Accessibility
• Access to Information
• REPORT FRAUD OR CORRUPTION

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Income, Wealth & Poverty

What the data says about food stamps in the u.s..

The food stamp program is one of the larger federal social welfare initiatives, and in its current form has been around for nearly six decades.

Economic ratings are poor – and getting worse – in most countries surveyed

Single women own more homes than single men in the u.s., but that edge is narrowing, who pays, and doesn’t pay, federal income taxes in the u.s., sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

7 facts about Americans and taxes

A majority of U.S. adults say they’re bothered a lot by the feeling that some corporations (61%) and some wealthy people (60%) don’t pay their fair share.

Key facts about Asian Americans living in poverty

Burmese (19%) and Hmong Americans (17%) were among the Asian origin groups with the highest poverty rates in 2022.

1 in 10: Redefining the Asian American Dream (Short Film)

Of the 24 million Asians living in the United States, about 2.3 million live in poverty. This short film explores their diverse stories and experiences.

The Hardships and Dreams of Asian Americans Living in Poverty

About one-in-ten Asian Americans live in poverty. Pew Research Center conducted 18 focus groups in 12 languages to explore their stories and experiences.

A booming U.S. stock market doesn’t benefit all racial and ethnic groups equally

Nearly two-thirds of White families (66%) owned stocks directly or indirectly, compared with 39% of Black families and 28% of Hispanic families.

Who Are You? The Art and Science of Measuring Identity

As a shop that studies human behavior through surveys and other social scientific techniques, we have a good line of sight into the contradictory nature of human preferences. Here’s a look at how we categorize our survey participants in ways that enhance our understanding of how people think and behave.

Black Americans’ Views on Success in the U.S.

While Black adults define personal and financial success in different ways, most see these measures of success as major sources of pressure in their lives.

New Year’s resolutions: Who makes them and why

Nearly a month into the new year, most people who made New Year’s resolutions have stuck with them, although 13% say they have not kept any of them.

Older Workers Are Growing in Number and Earning Higher Wages

Roughly one-in-five Americans ages 65 and older were employed in 2023 – nearly double the share of those who were working 35 years ago.

Wealth Surged in the Pandemic, but Debt Endures for Poorer Black and Hispanic Families

About one-in-four Black households and one-in-seven Hispanic households had no wealth or were in debt in 2021, compared with about one-in-ten U.S. households overall.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

Research teams.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center