Poverty & Inequality (Edexcel A Level Economics A): Exam Questions

Extract A

Lessons from globalisation

The past 25 years have seen a freeing up of trade. Capital has been free to move around the world. Formerly closed economies in Asia have been opened up and tariffs cut. In emerging economies, a billion people have been taken out of absolute poverty, but relative poverty remains a problem.

In many advanced economies globalisation has come to mean, according to the Governor of the Bank of England, “low wages, insecure employment, stateless corporations and striking inequalities”. His solution to these problems is threefold: an acceptance by economists that not everybody has gained from trade and technology; a better mix of monetary policy, fiscal policy and structural reform to boost growth; and more inclusive growth. In essence, this is the same conclusion that was reached in the past when there was a fear that market forces had to be moderated to prevent capitalism from destroying itself.

The good news is that this moderation of capitalism included real policy changes: an extension of the right to vote, the growth of trade unions, the creation of welfare states, a move to more progressive tax policies, nationalisation of key sectors of the economy, and more activist demand management. The bad news is that this process took about 100 years and was not completed until the end of the Second World War. What’s more, protectionism seems to be on the increase as countries seek to protect themselves from inequalities caused by rapid globalisation.

(Source: adapted from https://www.theguardian.com)

The chart below shows the UK Gini coefficient of incomes, 2007 to 2013.

Extract B

Taxing HFSS foods and subsidising healthy eating widens inequality

Since low-income groups spend a higher proportion of their income on food and tend to eat less healthily, they are the main targets of taxes on products that are high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS). Subsidies on healthy food are seen as an alternative policy approach to encourage healthy eating. While data on the impact of such policies are scarce, a recent study on the distributional impacts of HFSS taxes and healthy food subsidies found that these actually widened health and fiscal inequalities. The policies tend to be regressive and favour higher-income consumers. Taxes on unhealthy food increase prices which have a greater impact on low income groups rather than higher income groups. Lower income groups prefer to buy HFSS food.

Subsidies encouraged all income groups to buy more fruit and vegetables. However, those on higher incomes proved more responsive and the average share of budget spent on healthy food actually increased for the higher income groups who were more likely to buy the subsidised healthy food and then spend the savings they had enjoyed on yet more healthy food. The diets of the higher income groups before the subsidy tended to be healthier. The choices of the higher income groups are more responsive to price changes.

By contrast, lower income groups, if they responded to lower prices, often used the money saved to buy unhealthy items or something else entirely. The long-term benefits of a healthier diet are harder to grasp for consumers when information gaps exist. Often the immediate boost of a tasty treat is more appealing. Taxes and subsidies do not change that. Other strategies are needed to promote healthy eating, especially education.

(Source: adapted from https://www.economist.com and https://papers.ssrn.com)

Extract B

Tackling inequality

Despite decades of substantial progress in boosting prosperity and reducing absolute poverty, the world continues to suffer from substantial inequalities. For example, the poorest children are four times less likely than the richest children to be enrolled in primary education across developing countries. Among the estimated 780 million illiterate adults worldwide, nearly two-thirds are women. Poor people face higher risks of malnutrition and death in childhood and lower chances of receiving key healthcare. Such inequalities result in high financial costs, limit economic growth, and generate social and political burdens and barriers.

These consequences highlight the importance of directing attention to the problem of inequality. There are other reasons to tackle inequality. Most economies are struggling to recover from the global financial crisis that started in 2008 and the subsequent slowdown in global growth. The goal of eliminating absolute poverty by 2030 might not be achieved without accelerated economic growth or reductions in inequalities within countries, especially in those with large numbers of poor.

Generally speaking, poverty can be reduced through higher average growth, a narrowing in inequality, or a combination of the two. Achieving the same poverty reduction during a slowdown ingrowth therefore requires a more equal income distribution. Some level of inequality is desirable to maintain an appropriate incentive structure in the economy or simply because inequality also reflects different levels of talent and effort among individuals. However, the substantial inequality observed in the world today offers great scope for reducing the gap between rich and poor. Policies to redistribute income from higher-income and wealthy households to those on lower incomes can be achieved without compromising growth, if done effectively. A trade-off between efficiency and fairness is not inevitable.

(Source: adapted from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org)