I was startled to read Polly Cleveland's claim that "as any development  
economist can tell us, growth proceeds faster in more egalitarian   
societies with relatively low levels of corruption."  I'd like to have   
some documentation of the claim because, for more than two decades of   
teaching development economics, I have yet to find such evidence with   
respect to egalitarianism causing growth.  She may have a point with   
respect to corruption.  
  
In fact, I just looked up some of the data on growth in per capita   
income (1980-2000) in Meier and Rauch (2005) and Gini index (as a   
measure of egalitarianism or income distribution) from World Development   
Report (2003) and found hardly any firm association between growth and   
distribution.  Thus, Thailand had an average annual growth rate of 4.6%,   
India 3.8%, Malaysia 3.6%, Sri Lanka 3.1%, Chile 3.0%, USA 2.2%, and UK   
2.1%.  Their respective Gini indexes are 41.4, 37.8, 49.2, 34.4, 56.7,   
40.8, 36.8.  Of course, some of the worst performing economies over the   
period also had higher Gini indexes: Nigeria -2.7% (50.6), Nicaragua   
-2.7 (60.3); note that these countries had the complications of war or   
political instability.  
  
In fact, one may argue the causality the other way around: the faster   
the growth of an economy, the more egalitarian income distribution may   
get over time.  This because what we call income distribution is simply   
another name for the relative contributions of different members of a   
society to total income production.  There is no one out there handing   
different individuals or groups their shares of "national income."   
Government policies may hold down the growth of income for the more   
industrious and thus create a more egalitarian society but in which most   
people are poor.  On the other hand, policies may enable people to take   
advantage of their talents and industry and generate more incomes for   
themselves.  As growth (of the economy) occurs, indexes of   
egalitarianism may worsen.  But as demand for the services of the less   
industrious grows over time, their incomes may rise and the inequality   
decrease.  
  
Deng Xiaoping may have put this insight best when, in liberating the   
Chinese economy from its Maoist strappings, he argued that it was better   
for some to get ahead for the rest to follow than all (that is, most) of   
the Chinese people being held down in poverty.  China's Gini index in   
1998 was 40.3, which I'd bet would be higher than what it was in 1976.   
I suspect its estimate in 2006 may still be higher.  
  
My next graduate class in development economics is scheduled for this   
fall.  I'm genuinely interested in Polly Cleveland's pointing to the   
evidence in support of her claim so I may enrich my instruction or, at   
least, not mis-educate my students.  
  
James Ahiakpor