I also was wondering about Polly's claim about inequality. And I am also   
wondering about Humberto's extension.  
  
Easterly writes of "high" inequality not of medium or low inequality. In   
reading Easterly, one thinks of the inequality associated with   
monarchies and oligarchies in which raw materials are "owned" by the   
monarch or oligarchs. Or one thinks of slavery or military oppression   
and perhaps genocide. Greater equality in such highly unequal societies   
would mean much more than land redistribution, a vaguely defined term in   
any case; since the legal rights associated with land ownership in such   
diverse countries as those described by Easterly mean quite different   
things. It would mean greater equality under the law -- a movement   
toward the rule of law.  
  
Regarding the development of Taiwan, Korea, and Japan; each adopted a   
land-to-the tiller program. But each also adopted a myriad of other   
programs, including policies that prevented small land parcels being   
aggregated to take advantage of economies of scale. In each country, the   
new owners of land also were granted, by the new governments, new legal   
and political rights that had not been available to these "classes"   
previously. Whether the mere redistribution of land was responsible for   
even part of the development is practically impossible to determine.  
  
Also noteworthy is the dominance of rice production in each country and   
that each country has in recent years exercised rights of exemptions to   
WTO principles relating to rice imports. Greater equality of rice farm   
ownership may be a factor holding back growth in those countries today   
rather than one that contributes to growth.  
  
It is worth remembering the old lesson from elementary social statistics   
that correlation does not imply causation.  
  
Pat Gunning