Gupta, Abhay (2005): Inequality: An explanation using State-Utility and Information Asymmetry.
Download (153kB) | Preview
Having a formal understanding of what various institutions represent should be important. There are few economic variables which can accumulate over time (and give us what i call as "state utility"). All these institutions, like education, health, social (like caste system, dowry etc.), do is change the way these state variables evolve. Government affects these institutions by investing in them which changes the rate of evolvement (via advances in technology or infrastructure or formal laws etc) There are no "good" or "bad" institutions. There are institutions which are "in-line" with the people's preferences and there are the ones who are "mismatch" with what people want. As economist, we may think that since caste system etc. are not beneficial in "monetary" terms, they are bad for growth. But comments like "i PREFER being hungry than borrow money from some lower caste person (to start new business)" should make us realize that these institutions are not like some mysterious forces. They represent the aggregate level mechanism by which people let their preferences known and how these preferences evolve. We should not force the kind of development (i.e. kind of institutions), we (policy makers) want them to have. May be that is not what people want. Hence, having a formal understanding of these institutions and the mechanisms through which government can know about these "preferred" institutions becomes important.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Inequality: An explanation using State-Utility and Information Asymmetry|
|Subjects:||D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D63 - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D02 - Institutions: Design, Formation, and Operations
D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D82 - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology > Z13 - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Social and Economic Stratification
|Depositing User:||Abhay Gupta|
|Date Deposited:||07. Jun 2008 05:54|
|Last Modified:||13. Feb 2013 12:42|
Venables, Anthony J. & Burgess, Robin, 2004. "Toward a microeconomics of growth," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3257, The World Bank • Datt & Ravallion, (2002), “Is India’s Economic Growth Leaving the Poor Behind?” in JEP, 16(3), 89-108 • Conley, T. and C. Udry (2004) “Learning about a new technology: pineapple in Ghana”, mimeo, Yale University. • Foster, A. and M. Rosenzweig (1996) “Technical change and human capital returns and investments: evidence from the Green revolution” American Economic Review, 86(4), 931-953. • Hoff, K. and P. Pandey (2003) “Why are social inequalities so durable? An experimental test of the effects of Indian Caste on Performance” mimeo, The World Bank. • Besley, T. and R. Burgess (2000) “Land reform, poverty reduction, and growth: evidence from India” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(2), 389-430.