Treating Inequality with Redistribution: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?

By Jonathan D. Ostry and Andrew Berg

(Versions in EspañolFrançaisPortuguêsРусский中文)

Rising income inequality looms high on the global policy agenda, reflecting not only fears of its pernicious social and political effects, (including questions about the consistency of extreme inequality with democratic governance), but also the economic implications. While positive incentives are surely needed to reward work and innovation, excessive inequality is likely to undercut growth, for example by undermining access to health and education, causing investment-reducing political and economic instability, and thwarting the social consensus required to adjust in the face of major shocks.

Understandably, economists have been trying to understand better the links between rising inequality and the fragility of economic growth. Recent narratives include how inequality intensified the leverage and financial cycle, sowing the seeds of crisis; or how political-economy factors, especially the influence of the rich, allowed financial excess to balloon ahead of the crisis.

But what is the role of policy, and in particular fiscal redistribution to bring about greater equality? Conventional wisdom would seem to suggest that redistribution would in itself be bad for growth but, conceivably, by engendering greater equality, might help growth. Looking at past experience, we find scant evidence that typical efforts to redistribute have on average had an adverse effect on growth. And faster and more durable growth seems to have followed the associated reduction in inequality.

Disentangling the effects of inequality and redistribution on growth

In earlier work, we documented a robust medium-run relationship between equality and the sustainability of growth. We did not, however, have much to say on whether this relationship justifies efforts to redistribute.

Indeed, many argue that redistribution undermines growth, and even that efforts to redistribute to address high inequality are the source of the correlation between inequality and low growth. If this is right, then taxes and transfers may be precisely the wrong remedy: a cure that may be worse than the disease itself.

The literature on this score remains controversial.  A number of papers point out that some policies that are redistributive—e.g., public investments in infrastructure, spending on health and education, and social insurance provision—may be both pro-growth and pro-equality. Others are more supportive of a fundamental tradeoff between redistribution and growth, as argued by Okun (1975) when he referred to the efficiency “leaks” that come with efforts to reduce inequality.

In a new paper, we ask what the historical data say about the relationship between inequality, redistribution, and growth. In particular, what is the evidence about the macroeconomic effects of redistributive policies, both directly on growth, and indirectly as they reduce inequality, which in turn affects growth?

To disentangle the channels, we make use of a new cross-country data set that carefully distinguishes net (post-tax and transfers) inequality from market (pre-tax and transfers) inequality and allows us to calculate redistributive transfers for a large number of countries over time—covering both advanced and developing countries. We analyze the behavior of average growth during five-year periods as well as the sustainability and duration of growth.

Our key questions are empirical. How big is the “big tradeoff”? How does the direct (in Okun’s view negative) effect of redistribution compare to its indirect and apparently positive effect through reduced inequality?

Some striking results on the links between redistribution, inequality and growth

First, we continue to find that inequality is a robust and powerful determinant both of the pace of medium-term growth and of the duration of growth spells, even controlling for the size of redistributive transfers. Thus, it would still be a mistake to focus on growth and let inequality take care of itself, if only because the resulting growth may be low and unsustainable. Inequality and unsustainable growth may be two sides of the same coin.

And second, there is remarkably little evidence in the historical data used in our paper of adverse effects of fiscal redistribution on growth. The average redistribution, and the associated reduction in inequality, seem to be robustly associated with higher and more durable growth. We find some mixed signs that very large redistributions may have direct negative effects on growth duration, such that the overall effect—including the positive effect on growth through lower inequality—is roughly growth-neutral.


These findings may suggest that countries that have carried out redistributive policies have actually designed those policies in a reasonably efficient way. However, it does not mean of course that countries wishing to enhance the redistributive role of fiscal policy should not pay attention to efficiency considerations. This is especially important for countries with weak governance and administrative capacity, where developing tax and spending instruments that can allow governments to undertake redistribution efficiently are of the essence. A forthcoming paper by the IMF will delve into these fiscal issues.

We should also be cautious about drawing definitive policy implications from cross-country regression analysis alone, of course. We know from history and first principles that after some point redistribution will be destructive to growth, and that beyond some point extreme equality also cannot be conducive to growth. And causality is difficult to establish with full confidence. And we also know that different sorts of policies are likely to have different effects in different countries at different times.

Bottom line

The conclusion that emerges from the historical macroeconomic data used in this paper is that, on average across countries and over time, the things that governments have typically done to redistribute do not seem to have led to bad growth outcomes. And quite apart from ethical, political, or broader social considerations, the resulting equality seems to have helped support faster and more durable growth.

To put it simply, we find little evidence of a “big tradeoff” between redistribution and growth. Inaction in the face of high inequality thus seems unlikely to be warranted in many cases.

2017-04-14T02:10:04-05:00February 26, 2014|


  1. Per Kurowski February 26, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    This is research that will hopefully help to shed light on how to make the reduction of post-tax and transfer inequality sustainable… because receiving transfers will never really mean the same as generating productive earnings. My impression is that this will foremost require efforts to reduce the market, pre-tax and transfers, inequality, which begins with assuring equality of opportunities. Just as a coincidence, I am briefly referring precisely to this issue tomorrow in an Op-Ed to be published in El Universal Caracas.

  2. Carlos A. Bivero March 14, 2014 at 7:39 pm

    Multilaterals seem to be convinced redistribution would be a sound policy choice to spur growth and lessen social tensions brought about by inequality. Admitting, as research would indicated, that it might be so, some questions still come to my mind: What are,if any, the necessary preconditions for redistribution to be efficient? It would seem good governance and democracy would be minimum requirements. But even developed economies with a good track record on these often find it very difficult to ensure efficiency in regards to how they manage their fiscal income with or without inequality in mind. What to say of so many developing countries plagued by fiscal profligacy, inefficient burocracies, and subdued civil societies? It seems to me, with such uncertainties in mind, that redistribution of wealth through fiscal policy is much more geared to political empowerment and social advancement than to economic growth, even if economic growth might also be thereby given impulse; and that extremely careful consideration should be given to making it a good-for-all countries policy recomendation.

  3. Alan Luchetti April 2, 2014 at 8:01 am

    “receiving transfers will never really mean the same as generating productive earnings”

    If demand for goods and services rises as post-tax inequality abates, why not?

  4. Per Kurowski April 7, 2014 at 4:21 pm

    If only it was that easy! Seen from the perspective of inequality, is the value of 1$ received in transfer the same as 1$ earned? The Gini coefficient assumes that.

  5. elsadutrou April 14, 2014 at 5:07 am

    I agree with M.Luchetti

Leave A Comment