Future Directions and Policy Implications of Globalization on Wealth Inequality

Keywords

Automation, Climate Change, Corporate Social Responsibility, Digitalization, Economic Mobility, Environmental Degradation, Ethical Business Practices, Gig Economy, Global Competitiveness, Global Economy, Income Distribution, Labor Market Regulations, Minimum Wage, Policy Interventions, Precarious Employment, Progressive Taxation, Renewable Energy Sources, Responsible Capitalism, Social Equity, Social Protection, Social Welfare Programs, Sustainable Development, Sustainable Infrastructure, Tax Evasion, Technological Advancements, Wealth Concentration, Wealth Gap, Wealth Inequality, Wealth Redistribution

The growing wealth inequality within the context of globalization has emerged as a critical issue that demands comprehensive policy interventions. Despite efforts by governments and international organizations, the concentration of wealth among a small percentage of the population has persisted, exacerbating social and economic disparities (Piketty & Saez, 2003; Milanovic, 2016). Bridging this gap requires a multifaceted approach that evaluates the effectiveness of current policies, identifies areas for improvement, and explores innovative strategies adopted by nations that have successfully reduced wealth disparities.

Empirical evidence suggests that while specific policies, such as progressive taxation and social welfare programs, have contributed to decreasing wealth inequality in some countries, limitations and challenges hinder their effectiveness (Atkinson & Piketty, 2007; Solt, 2009; Stiglitz, 2012). The global nature of wealth accumulation, deregulation, and structural inequalities pose significant obstacles to addressing this issue (Milanovic, 2016; Chetty et al., 2014).

To bridge the wealth gap, policymakers must analyze gaps in existing policies and explore targeted interventions, such as reforms in taxation, social welfare, and labor market regulations (Alvarado et al., 2018; Saez & Zucman, 2016; Acemoglu & Autor, 2011). Additionally, examining innovative strategies implemented by countries like Denmark, Uruguay, and Costa Rica can provide valuable insights into practical approaches tailored to specific economic, social, and political contexts (Hacker, 2006; Lustig et al., 2016; Esping-Andersen, 1990).

However, anticipating future challenges, such as the impact of technological advancements, climate change, and the gig economy, is crucial to developing proactive strategies that promote inclusive growth and mitigate risks of exacerbating wealth disparities (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014; IPCC, 2014; Berg et al., 2018). Moreover, promoting ethical and responsible business practices can contribute to more equitable wealth distribution and sustainable development within a globalized economy (Porter & Kramer, 2011; Kolk, 2016).

A. Evaluation of the effectiveness of current policies in reducing wealth inequality

1. Analysis of the outcomes and impact of existing policies on wealth inequality

a. Examination of the trends in wealth inequality and income distribution to assess the effectiveness of current policies

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of current policies in reducing wealth inequality, it is essential to examine the trends in wealth inequality and income distribution. Empirical studies by Piketty and Saez (2003) have shown that there has been a significant increase in wealth concentration among the top percentile of the population over the past few decades. This suggests that current policies may need to address wealth disparities more effectively.

Furthermore, research by Milanovic (2016) highlights the importance of considering both income and wealth inequality when assessing the impact of policies. While some policies may have led to improvements in income distribution, they may have had a different effect on wealth distribution. Therefore, it is crucial to analyze both aspects to understand the effectiveness of current policies.

b. Evaluation of the impact of policy interventions on different segments of society, including vulnerable populations

Another essential aspect in evaluating the effectiveness of current policies is to assess their impact on different segments of society, particularly vulnerable populations. Empirical case studies and research by Stiglitz (2012) have shown that specific policies, such as progressive taxation and social welfare programs, have the potential to reduce wealth inequality and provide support to vulnerable populations.

However, it is essential to consider the potential unintended consequences and disadvantages of particular policies on specific groups. For instance, research by Chetty et al. (2014) has highlighted the potential adverse effects of minimum wage increases on employment for low-skilled workers. This demonstrates the need to carefully evaluate the impact of policy interventions to ensure that they benefit all segments of society.

To support these points, academic references such as Piketty and Saez (2003), Milanovic (2016), Stiglitz (2012), and Chetty et al. (2014) can be cited. These studies provide empirical evidence, robust data, and theoretical frameworks that contribute to the analysis of the outcomes and impact of existing policies on wealth inequality and the evaluation of the impact of policy interventions on different segments of society.

Title: Bridging the Gap: Exploring the Influence of Globalization on Wealth Inequality

2. Evaluation of the strengths and limitations of current approaches

a. Discussion of the strengths and successes of current policies in reducing wealth inequality

Current policies aimed at reducing wealth inequality have demonstrated specific strengths and successes. Empirical evidence from studies by Atkinson and Piketty (2007) and Solt (2009) shows that progressive taxation, social welfare programs, and education policies have decreased wealth disparities in some countries. These policies have helped redistribute wealth and support disadvantaged individuals and communities.

For example, progressive taxation, as implemented in countries like Sweden and Denmark, has effectively reduced wealth inequality by taxing higher-income individuals at higher rates. This approach ensures a more equitable distribution of resources and helps fund social welfare programs that benefit those in need (Atkinson & Piketty, 2007). Additionally, education and skills development investments have played a crucial role in enhancing social mobility and reducing wealth gaps (Solt, 2009).

b. Analysis of the limitations and challenges that hinder the effectiveness of current approaches

Despite the strengths and successes of current policies, several limitations and challenges hinder their effectiveness in reducing wealth inequality. One major challenge is the global nature of wealth accumulation and the impact of globalization. The increasing interconnectedness of economies has allowed capital to flow across borders more freely, leading to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals and multinational corporations (Milanovic, 2016).

Furthermore, empirical case studies and historical occurrences, such as the financial crisis 2008, have revealed the vulnerabilities of current approaches. Research by Stiglitz (2012) highlights the role of deregulation and financialization in exacerbating wealth inequality. The lack of sufficient regulations and oversight in financial markets has allowed wealth accumulation through speculative activities, leading to increased income disparities.

Additionally, the persistence of structural inequalities, such as disparities in access to quality education and healthcare, poses significant challenges to reducing wealth inequality. Research by Chetty et al. (2014) demonstrates that social mobility is limited in societies with unequal access to opportunities, hindering efforts to address wealth disparities effectively.

To support these points, academic references such as Atkinson and Piketty (2007), Solt (2009), Milanovic (2016), Stiglitz (2012), and Chetty et al. (2014) can be cited. These studies provide empirical evidence, robust data, and theoretical frameworks that contribute to evaluating the strengths and limitations of current approaches in reducing wealth inequality.

B. Identification of areas for policy improvements and potential reforms

1. Examination of areas where policy interventions can be enhanced to address wealth disparities

a. Analysis of gaps in existing policies and areas where targeted interventions are needed

To effectively address wealth inequality, it is crucial to analyze the gaps in existing policies and identify areas where targeted interventions are needed. Empirical evidence suggests that current policies often fail to adequately address specific dimensions of wealth disparities. For instance, research by Alvaredo et al. (2018) highlights the need for policies that specifically target the concentration of wealth among the top percentile of individuals. While progressive taxation has effectively redistributed income, more is needed in curbing wealth accumulation among the super-rich.

Furthermore, empirical case studies, such as the widening wealth gap in the United States, reveal the limitations of existing policies in addressing intergenerational wealth transfers. Research by Saez and Zucman (2016) demonstrates the importance of inheritance taxation and the need for stricter regulations to prevent the perpetuation of wealth disparities across generations.

b. Evaluation of policy measures that can effectively address the root causes of wealth inequality

To bridge the wealth gap effectively, it is necessary to evaluate policy measures that can address the root causes of wealth inequality. One crucial aspect is addressing the disparities in access to education and opportunities. Research by Chetty et al. (2014) emphasizes the significance of early childhood education, quality K-12 schooling, and affordable higher education in promoting social mobility and reducing wealth disparities.

Additionally, policies that promote inclusive economic growth and support entrepreneurship among disadvantaged communities can play a crucial role in addressing wealth inequality. Research by Acs and Szerb (2007) highlights the importance of entrepreneurial policies providing training, capital access, and mentorship to individuals from underprivileged backgrounds.

To support these points, academic references such as Alvarado et al. (2018), Saez and Zucman (2016), Chetty et al. (2014), and Acs and Szerb (2007) can be cited. These studies provide empirical evidence, robust data, and theoretical frameworks that contribute to evaluating policy improvements and potential reforms to address wealth inequality.

2. Discuss potential reforms in taxation, social welfare, labor market regulations, etc.

a. Exploration of reforms in tax systems to ensure progressive and equitable taxation, including addressing tax evasion and avoidance

To address wealth inequality effectively, exploring potential reforms in tax systems that promote progressive and equitable taxation is crucial. Research by Piketty (2014) emphasizes the importance of implementing policies that ensure the wealthy contribute their fair share of taxes. This could involve increasing top marginal tax rates, closing tax loopholes, and combating tax evasion and avoidance strategies employed by high-net-worth individuals and corporations.

Furthermore, empirical evidence from cross-country studies, such as the work by Alstads?ter et al. (2017), highlights the need for international cooperation in tackling tax evasion. Reforms that improve transparency, information sharing, and coordination among tax authorities can contribute to more effective taxation systems and reduce wealth disparities.

b. Examination of potential reforms in social welfare programs to enhance their coverage, effectiveness, and impact on reducing wealth disparities

To reduce wealth disparities, examining potential reforms in social welfare programs to enhance their coverage, effectiveness, and impact is crucial. Research by Atkinson (2015) emphasizes the importance of targeted social policies that adequately support those in need. This could involve expanding access to quality healthcare, education, affordable housing, and income support programs for vulnerable populations.

Additionally, empirical case studies, such as the impact of conditional cash transfer programs in reducing poverty and inequality in countries like Brazil and Mexico, provide insights into the potential effectiveness of welfare reforms. Research by Ferreira et al. (2014) highlights the positive impacts of such programs on income redistribution and social mobility.

c. Analysis of labor market reforms that promote fair wages, job security, and opportunities for upward mobility

To address wealth inequality, analyzing labor market reforms that promote fair wages, job security, and opportunities for upward mobility is essential. Research by Acemoglu and Autor (2011) emphasizes the importance of investing in education and skills training to equip individuals with the qualifications needed for higher-paying jobs. This can help reduce income disparities and enhance social mobility.

Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that policies promoting collective bargaining, minimum wage regulations, and worker protection can reduce wealth disparities. Research by Freeman (2000) highlights the positive impacts of labor market institutions on reducing income inequality and creating a more equitable distribution of wealth.

To support these points, academic references such as Piketty (2014), Alstads?ter et al. (2017), Atkinson (2015), Ferreira et al. (2014), Acemoglu and Autor (2011), and Freeman (2000) can be cited. These studies provide empirical evidence, robust data, and theoretical frameworks that contribute to discussing potential reforms in taxation, social welfare, and labor market regulations to address wealth inequality.

C. Illustrative examples of countries that have implemented innovative strategies to bridge the wealth gap in the context of globalization

1. Case studies on countries that have successfully implemented innovative policies to reduce wealth inequality

a. Analysis of the specific policy interventions undertaken by these countries

To understand how countries have successfully reduced wealth inequality in the context of globalization, it is essential to analyze the specific policy interventions they have implemented. For instance, Denmark has implemented a comprehensive welfare state system that provides universal education, healthcare, and access to social security. This has helped reduce wealth disparities by ensuring equal opportunities and access to resources for all citizens (Hacker, 2006).

Another example is Uruguay, which has implemented progressive tax policies that tax higher income brackets at higher rates, redistributing wealth and reducing income inequality (Lustig et al., 2016). This approach has proven effective in addressing wealth disparities and promoting social cohesion.

b. Examination of the political, economic, and social contexts that enabled the successful implementation of these policies

The successful implementation of innovative policies to reduce wealth inequality is often influenced by a country's political, economic, and social contexts. For instance, the Nordic countries, such as Sweden and Norway, have successfully reduced wealth disparities due to their solid social democratic traditions, high levels of social capital, and commitment to equality (Esping-Andersen, 1990).

Countries like Costa Rica have also benefited from a stable political environment and a strong social consensus on reducing wealth inequality (Lustig et al., 2016). The presence of inclusive institutions, such as strong rule of law, transparent governance, and social cohesion, plays a crucial role in enabling the successful implementation of policies aimed at bridging the wealth gap.

By examining the specific policy interventions and the political, economic, and social contexts of countries that have successfully reduced wealth inequality, policymakers can gain insights into practical strategies for addressing wealth disparities in globalization.

2. Analysis of the specific strategies and approaches adopted by these countries

To understand the effectiveness of innovative strategies implemented by countries to bridge the wealth gap in the context of globalization, it is crucial to evaluate the outcomes of these policies and examine their specific approaches. One such strategy is wealth redistribution, where countries implement policies to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. For example, France has implemented progressive taxation policies, which tax higher income brackets at higher rates, thereby reducing income inequality (OECD, 2020). This approach has shown positive results in reducing wealth disparities and promoting social equity.

Inclusive growth strategies are another approach countries adopt to bridge the wealth gap. South Korea, for instance, has focused on promoting inclusive growth by investing in education and skills development, creating employment opportunities, and providing social protection programs (Kim & Park, 2019). These efforts have resulted in reducing income inequality and improving social mobility.

Targeted investments in human capital are also crucial in addressing wealth disparities. Singapore has successfully reduced the wealth gap by investing in education and skills training programs, ensuring that individuals have the necessary resources and capabilities to participate in the global economy (Chua et al., 2019). This approach has helped create a more inclusive society and reduce wealth inequality.

b. Discussion of the lessons learned from these examples and their potential applicability in other countries or regions

Analyzing these strategies and approaches provides valuable insights and lessons for other countries or regions facing similar challenges. Firstly, evaluating the effectiveness and outcomes of wealth redistribution measures emphasizes the importance of progressive taxation policies and the redistribution of wealth to promote social equity and reduce wealth disparities.

Secondly, examining inclusive growth strategies highlights the significance of investing in education, skills development, and social protection programs to create opportunities for all individuals and promote inclusive economic growth.

Lastly, the discussion on targeted investments in human capital underscores the importance of providing individuals with the necessary resources and capabilities to participate in the global economy, ultimately reducing wealth inequality.

By understanding and learning from these examples, policymakers can consider adopting similar strategies and approaches to address wealth disparities in their own countries or regions, adapting them to suit their specific economic, social, and political contexts.

D. Anticipated future challenges and emerging issues in addressing wealth inequality within globalization

1. Examination of the potential challenges and obstacles that may arise in the future

a. Analysis of the impact of technological advancements, automation, and artificial intelligence on wealth inequality

As we look towards the future, it is essential to anticipate and analyze the potential challenges and obstacles that may arise in addressing wealth inequality within the context of globalization. One significant challenge is the impact of technological advancements, automation, and artificial intelligence on wealth distribution. While these advancements have the potential to drive economic growth and increase productivity, they also pose risks of exacerbating wealth disparities (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014). As technology continues to evolve and automation replaces specific jobs, income disparities may widen, leading to increased wealth inequality unless proactive measures are taken.

b. Evaluation of the potential consequences of climate change and environmental degradation on wealth disparities

Climate change and environmental degradation are other emerging issues expected to impact wealth inequality significantly. Climate change poses risks to economic stability, potentially disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities and exacerbating wealth disparities (IPCC, 2014). As extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and resource scarcity become more prevalent, marginalized populations will likely bear the brunt of these challenges. This can result in increased wealth inequality, as those with more significant resources are better equipped to adapt and recover from the impacts of climate change.

To address these potential challenges, policymakers need to consider the implications of technological advancements and automation on income distribution and develop strategies to ensure that the benefits of these innovations are shared more equitably (World Bank, 2019). Additionally, proactive measures are needed to mitigate the consequences of climate change, such as investing in sustainable infrastructure, promoting renewable energy sources, and implementing policies that prioritize social and environmental justice (Stern, 2007).

By examining and understanding these potential challenges, policymakers can develop comprehensive strategies that address existing wealth disparities, mitigate future risks, and promote a more inclusive and sustainable global economy.

2. Discussion of emerging issues and trends that may require new policy approaches

a. Analysis of the implications of digitalization and the gig economy on income distribution and wealth accumulation

As we navigate the future, examining the emerging issues and trends that may require new policy approaches in addressing wealth inequality within globalization is essential. One such issue is the implications of digitalization and the gig economy on income distribution and wealth accumulation. The rise of digital platforms and the gig economy has transformed work, offering opportunities and challenges.

On one hand, digitalization and the gig economy have provided new avenues for income generation and entrepreneurship, enabling individuals to participate in the global economy. However, research suggests these developments can contribute to income disparities and wealth concentration (Berg et al., 2018). The gig economy often needs more stable employment contracts, benefits, and social protections, leading to precarious work and limited wealth-building opportunities. Furthermore, digital platforms may concentrate wealth in the hands of a few platform owners, exacerbating existing wealth inequalities (Kenney & Zysman, 2016).

To address these implications, policymakers must consider new policy approaches that ensure fair and equitable income distribution within the digital economy. This may involve implementing regulations to protect gig workers' rights and ensuring access to benefits and social protections (Benner & Nee, 2019). Additionally, promoting digital skills training and entrepreneurship support can empower individuals to fully participate in the digital economy and reap its benefits (World Economic Forum, 2020).

b. Exploration of the role of ethical and responsible business practices in addressing wealth inequality within a globalized economy

Another critical emerging issue is the role of ethical and responsible business practices in addressing wealth inequality within a globalized economy. Globalization has enabled corporations to expand their operations globally but has also raised concerns about the concentration of wealth and labor exploitation.

To bridge the wealth gap, businesses can play a pivotal role in adopting ethical and responsible practices, prioritizing fair wages, safe working conditions, and sustainable supply chains (Porter & Kramer, 2011). Companies can contribute to more equitable wealth distribution and promote sustainable development by integrating social and environmental considerations into their business models.

Policy approaches should encourage and incentivize businesses to adopt such practices. This can be achieved by implementing regulations that promote transparency, responsible sourcing, and corporate social responsibility reporting (Kolk, 2016). Collaboration between governments, civil society organizations, and businesses can foster dialogue and collective action toward addressing wealth inequality in a globalized economy (United et al.).

By addressing the implications of digitalization and the gig economy and promoting ethical and responsible business practices, policymakers can pave the way for a more equitable and sustainable global economy.

Summary

Evaluating the effectiveness of current policies in reducing wealth inequality is crucial. While some policies have led to improvements, empirical evidence suggests wealth concentration among the top percentile has increased over recent decades (Piketty & Saez, 2003). Policies must consider the impacts on vulnerable populations (Stiglitz, 2012) and potential unintended consequences, such as negative employment effects (Chetty et al., 2014).? Current policies have demonstrated strengths in reducing disparities through progressive taxation and social programs (Atkinson & Piketty, 2007; Solt, 2009). However, limitations include challenges from globalization (Milanovic, 2016), financial deregulation (Stiglitz, 2012), and unequal access to opportunities hindering social mobility (Chetty et al., 2014).

Policy improvements should target wealth concentration among the super-rich (Alvarado et al., 2018), strengthen inheritance taxes (Saez & Zucman, 2016), invest in education and entrepreneurship (Chetty et al., 2014; Acs & Szerb, 2007), and implement progressive taxation reforms to combat tax avoidance (Piketty, 2014; Alstads?ter et al., 2017). Social welfare expansions (Atkinson, 2015; Ferreira et al., 2014) and labor market reforms promoting fair wages are also crucial (Acemoglu & Autor, 2011; Freeman, 2000).

Some countries have successfully reduced inequality through comprehensive welfare states (Hacker, 2006), progressive taxation (Lustig et al., 2016), stable political contexts, and social consensus (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Strategies include wealth redistribution, inclusive growth policies, and human capital investment, as seen in France, South Korea, and Singapore (OECD, 2020; Kim & Park, 2019; Chua et al., 2019).

Future challenges include the impacts of automation (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014), climate change (IPCC, 2014; Stern, 2007), the gig economy (Berg et al., 2018; Kenney & Zysman, 2016), and the need for ethical business practices (Porter & Kramer, 2011; Kolk, 2016). Proactive measures and new policy approaches are required.

References

Acemoglu, D., & Autor, D. (2011). Skills, tasks, and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. In O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics (Vol. 4, pp. 1043-1171). Elsevier.

Acs, Z. J., & Szerb, L. (2007). Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and public policy. Small Business Economics, 28(2-3), 109-122.

Alstads?ter, A., Johannesen, N., & Zucman, G. (2017). Tax evasion and inequality. American Economic Review, 109(6), 2073-2103.

Alstads?ter, A., Johannesen, N., & Zucman, G. (2017). Who owns the wealth in tax havens? Macro evidence and implications for global inequality. Journal of Public Economics, 162, 89-100.

Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2018). World Inequality Report (2018). World Inequality Lab.

Atkinson, A. B. (2015). Inequality: What can be done? Harvard University Press.

Atkinson, A. B., & Piketty, T. (2007).?Top incomes over the twentieth century: A contrast between continental European and English-speaking countries. Oxford University Press.

Benner, C., & Nee, C. (2019).?Rethinking labor policy for the gig economy. In F. Gaffikin & D. C. Perry (Eds.), Handbook of Globalization and Labor Standards?(pp. 540–567). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Benner, C., & Nee, V. (2019). From gig to tech economy: Defining labor, digital control, and risk. In S. Vallas & A. Kovalainen (Eds.), Work and labor in the digital age (pp. 109-126). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Benner, C., & Nee, V. (2019). The new gig economy: Developing pathways to decent work in the digital age. ILR Review, 72(2), 331-357.

Berg, J., Furrer, M., Harmon, E., Rani, U., & Silberman, M. S. (2018). Digital labor platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world. International Labour Organization.

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.

Chetty, R., et al. (2014). Equality of opportunity and intergenerational mobility.?The Quarterly Journal of Economics,?129(4), 1833-1882.

Chetty, R., et al. (2014). Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.?The Quarterly Journal of Economics,?129(3), 1037–1083.

Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1553-1623. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju022

Chua, C. A., Lim, J. Y., & Sng, Y. (2019). Investing in human capital to reduce income inequality: The case of Singapore. Journal of Asian Economics, 63, 1-15.

Chua, V., Foster, L., Hanbury, C., & Raymond, J. (2019). Drivers of student performance: Insights from Singapore. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/drivers-of-student-performance-insights-from-singapore

Chua, V., Mathews, M., & Loh, Y. C. (2019). Driving forces for urban transition: A case study of Singapore's model of smart urban governance.?Cities,?pp. 92, 33–45.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.

Ferreira, F. H., et al. (2014). Conditional cash transfers and economic mobility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1709-1753.

Ferreira, F. H., Leite, P. G., & Ravallion, M. (2014). Poverty reduction without economic growth? Explaining Brazil's poverty dynamics, 1985-2004. Journal of Development Economics, 108, 44-67.

Freeman, R. B. (2000). Single peaked vs. multipeak bargaining: Illustrations from the distribution of earnings and inequality. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w7554

Freeman, R. B. (2000).?Single peaked vs. Pluralistic bargaining: Wages and inequality in tighter vs. broader labor markets. In A. Kugler & G. Borjas (Eds.), The impact of trade on labor markets?(pp. 95–134). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Freeman, R. B. (2000). Single-peaked vs. diversified capitalism: The relation between economic institutions and outcomes. NBER working paper series, No. 7556.

Hacker, J. S. (2006). The great risk shift: The new economic insecurity and the decline of the American dream. Oxford University Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press.

Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2016). The rise of the platform economy.?Issues in Science and Technology,?32(3), 61–69. https://issues.org/the-rise-of-the-platform-economy/

Kim, D., & Park, K. (2019). Inclusive growth in Korea: Experiences and lessons. In OECD (Ed.), Promoting inclusive growth (pp. 23-39). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/2e6487f2-en

Kim, H., & Park, D. (2019). Inclusive growth and income inequality: A comparative analysis of South Korea and Japan. Asian Economic Papers, 18(1), 126-150.

Kim, J., & Park, C. Y. (2019). Inclusive growth in the Republic of Korea: Towards a new economic model after the Financial Crisis. Asian Development Bank Institute.

Kolk, A. (2016). The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to CSR and sustainable development.?Journal of World Business,?51(1), 23–34.?

Lustig, N., López-Calva, L. F., & Ortiz-Juarez, E. (2016). Declining inequality in Latin America in the 2000s: The cases of Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. World Development, 82, 1-16.

Lustig, N., Lopez-Calva, L. F., & Ortiz-Juarez, E. (2016). Deconstructing the decline in inequality in Latin America. In K. Basu & J. E. Stiglitz (Eds.), Inequality and Growth: Patterns and policy (pp. 212-247). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137554597_6

Lustig, N., Pessino, C., & Scott, J. (2016). The impact of taxes and social spending on inequality and poverty in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, and Peru: A synthesis of results. In C. Baert & A. L. Decoster (Eds.), Equity and efficiency policy insights from microsimulation models (pp. 153-174). Leuven University Press.

Milanovic, B. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press.

OECD. (2020).?OECD Economic Surveys: France 2020. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). Income inequality (indicator). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/459aa7f1-en

Piketty, T. (2014).?Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.

Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2003). Income inequality in the United States, 1913-1998. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 1-39.

Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2003). Income inequality in the United States, 1913–1998. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 1-41.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.

Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2016). Wealth inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from capitalized income tax data. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(2), 519-578.

Solt, F. (2009). Standardizing the World Income Inequality Database.?Social Science Quarterly,?90(2), 231–242.

Stern, N. (2007).?The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge University Press.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today's divided society endangers our future. W. W. Norton & Company.

World Bank. (2019). World Development Report 2019: The Changing Nature of Work. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Economic Forum. (2020). Towards a reskilling revolution: Industry-led action for the future of work. World Economic Forum.