The Evolution of Inequality
James K. Galbraith, a Government/ Business professor at the University of Texas in Austin, has gathered data and other sources to analyze the evolution of inequality in the world at large. Galbraith in junction with a group of students has created UTIP (University of Texas Inequality Project) a small research group whom measure and explain movements of global inequality. With the UTIP data, one can review changes in global inequality both across countries and through time.
So, why measure inequality? According to Galbraith, “measuring changes in inequality helps determine the effectiveness of policies aimed at affecting inequality and generates the data necessary to use inequality as a as an explanatory variable in policy analysis”. However, measuring, gathering, and uncovering new information is not simple. Dr. Galbraith’s methods to measure the rise or fall of inequality consist of three ways. The first way is “Un-weighted between countries”, which he concludes has been rising. This first way of measuring inequality does not include income, population or what is going on within that country, such as policy making, revolution, or war.
The second way is “weighted between –Countries”, with this method Dr. Galbraith concludes that inequality is decreasing. A reason for this decrease is China. Dr. Galbraith global graph of inequality from 1987 to 2000 demonstrates China’s contribution to inequality in a number of regions. The monopolized activity such as transport, utilities and banking, specifically in the richer areas has increased. The method allows mapping changes in the flow of incomes across the regions and across sectors very accurately through time, using national data resources and without relying on sample surveys. However, manufacturing and constructions with in the same regions have declined. Another graph demonstrates the oil boom of 1970-1976, inequality declines in the producing states, but rises in the industrial oil consuming countries, such as the United States.
Finally, the third way of measuring inequality is “With-in the country”. However, this measure is in question. Dr. Galbraith explains that existing studies of “true” world income inequality data source is poor. Especially in communist countries were data sources are not easily uncovered.
Dr. Galbraith concludes with the notion that inequality rose in most countries in the age of globalization. He also mentions that a major force of inequality came from high interest rates. During the “Age of Debt”, Latin America economies dependent only on primary products, barrowed more than they needed from western banks, the instability of money coming into the countries resulted in the lack of interest payment on their loans. After 9/11 interest stayed low from 2002 to 2004 for much of the world, and much of the world stopped paying their debt. China built its own reserve, borrowing money and not having to pay interest.
A resolution to the world’s inequality, Dr. Galbraith claims, “We need new governance”. The World Bank has failed to stabilize the world economy. He claims that the World Bank’s theoretical explanations of changing inequality rests on premises long ago demolished on logical grounds. He then closes his presentation saying, “Some day we’ll need a new system of world financial governance”.
The Evolution of Inequality INEQUALITY OF WHAT? RACIAL? RELIGIOUS? ETHNIC? ECONOMIC? NEED MORE SPECIFIC TITLE.
James K. Galbraith, a Government/ Business professor at the University of Texas in Austin, has gathered data and other sources DELETE "AND OTHER SOURCES." "DATA" WOULD INCLUDE ALL SOURCES. to analyze the evolution of inequality in the world at large. Galbraith WORKED in junction with a group of students has created UTIP (University of Texas Inequality Project) COMMA a small research group whom measure and explain movements of global inequality. With the UTIP data, one can review changes in global inequality both across countries and through time.
So, why measure inequality? According to Galbraith, “measuring changes in inequality helps determine the effectiveness of policies aimed at affecting inequality and generates the data necessary to use inequality as a as an explanatory variable in policy analysis”. PERIOD WITHIN QUOTES
NEW PARAGRAPH NEEDED TO INDICATE CHANGE IN TOPIC, PLACE, TIME OR PERSON. SKIP LINE OR INDENT TO INDICATE NEW PARAGRAPH.
However, measuring, gathering, and uncovering new information is not simple. Dr. Galbraith’s methods to measure the rise or fall of inequality consist of three ways. The first way is “Un-weighted between countries”, which he concludes WHAT? has been rising. This first way of measuring inequality does not include income, population or what is going on within that country, such as policy making, revolution, or war.
The second way is “weighted between –Countries”, with this method Dr. Galbraith concludes that inequality is decreasing. A reason for this decrease is IN? China. Dr. Galbraith global graph of inequality from 1987 to 2000 demonstrates China’s contribution to inequality in a number of regions. The monopolized activity such as transport, utilities and banking, specifically in the richer areas has increased. The method allows mapping changes in the flow of incomes across the regions and across sectors very accurately through time, using national data resources and without relying on sample surveys. However, manufacturing and constructions with in the same regions have declined.
Another graph demonstrates the oil boom of 1970-1976, inequality declines in the producing states, but rises in the industrial oil consuming countries, such as the United States.
Finally, the third way of measuring inequality is “With-in the country”. However, this measure is in question. Dr. Galbraith explains that existing studies of “true” world income inequality data source is poor. Especially in communist countries were data sources are not easily uncovered. NOT A SENTENCE.
Dr. Galbraith concludes with the notion that inequality rose in most countries in the age of globalization. He also mentions that a major force of inequality came from high interest rates. During the “Age of Debt”, Latin America economies dependent only on primary products, barrowed SP? more than they needed from western banks, the instability of money coming into the countries resulted in the lack of interest payment on their loans. After 9/11 interest stayed low from 2002 to 2004 for much of the world, and much of the world stopped paying their debt. China built its own reserve, borrowing money and not having to pay interest.
A resolution to the world’s inequality, Dr. Galbraith claims, “We need new governance”. The World Bank has failed to stabilize the world economy. He claims that the World Bank’s theoretical explanations of changing inequality rests on premises long ago demolished on logical grounds. He then DELETE "THEN" closes his presentation saying, “Some day we’ll need a new system of world financial governance”. PERIOD WITHIN QUOTES. IF QUOTE CONTINUES, CAN INDICATE BY USING "..." WITH AN EXTRA PERIOD TO USE TO INDICATE END OF SENTENCE "...."
In the future, if nobody is available to proofread your work, you can do this yourself. After writing your material, put it aside for a day — at least several hours. (This breaks mental sets you might have that keep you from noticing problems.) Then read it aloud as if you were reading someone else's work. (Reading aloud slows down your reading, so you are less likely to skip over problems.)
If your reading goes smoothly, that is fine. However, wherever you "stumble" in your reading, other persons are likely to have a problem in reading your material. Those "stumbles" indicate areas that need revising.
Once you have made your revisions, repeat the process above. Good papers often require many drafts.
I hope this helps. Thanks for asking.
The Evolution of Inequality, as analyzed by James K. Galbraith and the University of Texas Inequality Project (UTIP), examines changes in global inequality across countries and over time. Measuring inequality is important because it helps determine the effectiveness of policies aimed at addressing inequality and provides data to use inequality as an explanatory variable in policy analysis.
Galbraith uses three methods to measure the rise or fall of inequality. The first method is "Un-weighted between countries," which does not take into account income, population, or internal factors of a country such as policies, revolutions, or wars. According to this measure, inequality has been rising.
The second method is "Weighted between countries," which takes into account these factors. Galbraith concludes that inequality is decreasing when using this method, primarily due to China's contribution. China's monopoly activities in transportation, utilities, and banking in richer areas have increased, while manufacturing and construction within the same regions have declined. This method accurately maps changes in income flow across regions and sectors over time without relying on sample surveys. Galbraith's research also shows that the oil boom of 1970-1976 resulted in declining inequality in producing states but rising inequality in industrial oil-consuming countries like the United States.
The third method is "Within the country," which focuses on inequality within a specific country. However, gathering accurate data for this measure is challenging, especially in communist countries where data sources are not easily accessible.
Galbraith concludes that inequality has increased in most countries during the age of globalization. He attributes a major force behind inequality to high interest rates. During the "Age of Debt," Latin American economies borrowed more than they needed and faced difficulties in repaying their loans. This led to instability and lack of interest payments. After 9/11, interest rates remained low, causing many countries to stop paying their debts. China, on the other hand, built its own reserve by borrowing money without having to pay interest.
In terms of resolving global inequality, Galbraith suggests the need for new governance. He criticizes the World Bank for failing to stabilize the world economy and claims that the Bank's theoretical explanations for changing inequality are based on premises that have long been debunked. Galbraith concludes by stating that a new system of world financial governance will be necessary in the future.