Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 124 items for :

  • "land redistribution" x
Clear All
Mr. Michael Sarel and Mr. Peter Wickham

’s results suggest a possible explanation for the east Asian miracle, they are not robust enough to rule out other possibilities. Furthermore, it is not clear what are the normative implications of these findings. For example, suppose that land equality is indeed very beneficial for economic growth. Does that mean that land redistribution is a good policy to promote growth? The answer, obviously, is: not necessarily. The redistribution itself may be extremely damaging, by having a negative impact on property rights, political stability, or other factors that may be


them, and they continue to pay the health, and, therefore, income consequences of inadequate access to safe potable water. Less clear is the environmental outcome of redistributing unequally owned natural resources. Land redistribution may create more jobs and reduce migration to fragile frontier resources. But in practice, redistribution often involves protracted social upheaval and uncertainty, with owners—who anticipate losing old rights or who doubt the durability of new rights—apt to overexploit natural resources, sometimes converting them into more mobile

International Monetary Fund

African Banks in African countries and its gradual capital account liberalization which is translating into sizable portfolio investment in Africa. Major strides have been made in addressing the significant social needs, including providing assistance to those affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. South Africa has demonstrated leadership in addressing difficult reforms such as reducing wide racial inequalities in income, wealth and land redistribution and their experience shows that doing so within the context of a growing economy is fundamental, complemented by skilful

Mr. Michael Sarel
This paper examines the different arguments raised by the studies that addressed the East Asian growth experience. The original arguments presented in this paper are all on the negative side, highlighting problems associated with some of the possible explanations for the East Asian miracle. The paper concentrates mainly on four dimensions of the debate about the East Asian growth experience: (i) The nature of economic growth intensive or extensive?; (ii) The role of public policy and of selective interventions; (iii) The role of high investment rates and a strong export orientation as possible engines of growth; and (iv) The importance of the initial conditions and their relevance for policy.