Keynote Address Why did Inequality Decline in Latin America? … · • Lustig, N., L. F....
Transcript of Keynote Address Why did Inequality Decline in Latin America? … · • Lustig, N., L. F....
Keynote AddressWhy did Inequality Decline in Latin
America?Nora Lustig
Tulane UniversityNonresident Fellow CGD and IAD
REDI 3X3 WorkshopUnderstanding Inequality in South Africa Pretoria, South Africa, November 4, 2014
• Lustig, N., L. F. Lopez-Calva, E. Ortiz-Juarez. 2014.“Deconstructing the Decline in Inequality in LatinAmerica,” in Basu, Kaushik and Joseph Stiglitz, eds.Proceedings of IEA roundtable on Shared Prosperityand Growth, 2015, Palgrave-Macmillan
2
To cite material in this ppt please refer to:
OUTLINE• The facts
• Inequality, poverty reduction and the middle class
• Why has inequality declined?
– Labor markets
• Zooming in: Brazil
• Zooming in: Mexico
• Transfers and Inequality decline
3
THE FACTS
4
Inequality in Latin America is high…
…but has been declining since around 2000
• Decline is pervasive and significant
• Larger than the rise in inequality in 1990s
• Important contribution to the decline in poverty
• Contributed to the rise of the middle-class
5
LATAM IS THE MOST UNEQUAL REGION IN THE WORLD
Gini Coefficient by Region (in %), 2004
32.233.6
38.9 38.9 39.1
44.7
53.2
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
High Income Europe and
Central Asia
South Asia North Africa
and the
Middle East
East Asia and
the Pacific
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Latin America
and the
Caribbean
Gin
i c
oe
ffic
ien
t
6Ferreira and Ravallion, 2008.
Declining Inequality in 2000’s
• The Gini coefficient for household per capita income fell from a weighted (unweighted) average of 0.550 (0.532) in the early 2000s to 0.496 (0.483) circa 2012.
• On average, the decline equaled .86%/year
• The decline occurred in 16 of the 18 countries.
• The rate of decline ranged from an annual average of -2.64 percent in Nicaragua to -0.28 percent in Venezuela.
7
8
-2.64 -2.08 -1.68 -1.45 -1.28 -1.00 -0.92 -0.79 -0.74 -0.72 -0.70 -0.58 -0.50 -0.42 -0.40 -0.28
0.09 0.61
-0.86
2.61
1.02 0.74 0.69 0.64
-4.00
-3.00 -2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00 2.00
3.00
Nicarag
ua
Bo
livia
Ecu
ad
or
El
Salv
ad
or
Arg
en
tin
a
Brazil
Peru
Do
m.
Rep
.
Pan
am
a
Ch
ile
Mexic
o
Uru
gu
ay
Co
lom
bia
Gu
atem
ala
Parag
uay
Ven
ezu
ela
Co
sta R
ica
Ho
nd
uras
LA
C-18
In
do
nesia
So
uth
Africa
Ch
ina
Ru
ssia
US
A
Average Yearly Change in Gini: 2000 (circa) -
2012 (circa)
9
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58 1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Panel A: Weighted averages of the Gini coefficient; 18 countries
HH per capita income HH equivalized income
10
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58 1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Panel B: Weighted averages of the Gini coefficient, excluding Mexico
HH per capita income HH equivalized income
The decline of income inequality in the 2000s has been higher that the rise in the 1990s(Change in Gini points in %)
8.3
-11.3
4.0
-15.4
3.7
-6.5
0.8
-4.7
2.9
-10.7
2.4
-4.5
1.6
-12.2
1.5
-4.6
0.7
-2.9
0.1
-8.5
4.2
-3.1
6.1
-4.1
3.0
-7.4
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
1992-2
002
2002-2
013
1997-2
000
2000-2
012
1985-2
001
2001-
2012
1992-1
998
1998-2
011
1995-2
001
2001-
2012
1989-2
000
2000-2
012
1993-2
001
2001-
2009
1989-2
001
2001-
2012
1997-2
003
2003-2
011
1997-2
003
2003-2
012
1992-2
000
2000-2
012
1992-2
002
2002-2
006
Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile SLV Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela
Average of increase Average of decrease
Inequality, Poverty and the Middle-Class
12
Decline in Poverty 1992-2012(Ave. Headcount Ratio in %)
13
27.8 25.0
12.3
44.4 42.0
25.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
1992 2000 2012
Incidence of poverty, US$2.50 a day poverty line
Incidence of poverty, US$ 4 a day poverty line
On average, 39 percent of the reduction in poverty was due to the decline in inequality c. 2001-2010
14
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
Nic
ara
gu
a
Mexic
o
El
Salv
ad
or
Arg
en
tin
a
Do
m.
Rep
.
Bo
livi
a
Ch
ile
Ecu
ad
or
Peru
LA
C-1
8
Bra
zil
Pan
am
a
Para
gu
ay
Ven
ezu
ela
Uru
gu
ay
Ho
nd
ura
s
Co
sta R
ica
Gu
ate
mala
Co
lom
bia
Ch
an
ge i
n p
ove
rty (
perc
en
tag
e p
oin
ts)
% c
on
trib
uti
on
of
each
eff
ect
Redistribution effect
Growth effect
Change in poverty ($4 a day) in percentage points
Declining inequality has contributed to the expansion of the “middle-class”
15Ferreira et al., 2012.
16
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mex
ico
Bo
livia
Nic
ara
gu
a
Do
m.
Rep
.
Ecu
ad
or
Ch
ile
Arg
en
tin
a
Bra
zil
LA
C-1
6
Para
gu
ay
Uru
gu
ay
Peru
Co
lom
bia
Pan
am
a
Ho
nd
ura
s
Co
sta
Ric
a
El
Salv
ad
or
Ch
an
ge i
n m
idd
le c
lass (
perc
en
tag
e p
oin
ts)
% c
on
trib
uti
on
of e
ach
eff
ect
Redistribution effect
Growth effect
Change in the size of the middle class (percentage points)
On average, 21 percent of the reduction in poverty was due to the decline in inequality c. 2001-2010
WHY?
17
Inequality in Latin America is high…
…but has been declining since around 2000
• In countries with high growth & low growth
• In countries with left and nonleftgovernments
• In commodity exporters and commodity importers
• In high and low (for Latam standards) inequality countries
18
Determinants of the decline in inequality: candidates
•Declining inequality of hourly labor income
• Larger and more progressive transfers
• Lower dependency ratios
•Higher participation rates of adults19
Proximate Determinants
Depending on the method (Yitzaki and Barros et al., respectively
• On average 62 or 54 percent of the reduction in the Gini coefficient can be attributed to changes in hourly labor income,)
• Changes in government transfers contributed, 17 or 21 percent on average
• Changes in pensions contributed 2 or 9 percent (includes noncontributory pensions)
20
Proximate Determinants
• Changes in demographic indicators, the equalizing effect of the share of adults accounted, on average, for 11 percent of the decline in inequality.
• Remarkably, the increase in the share of occupied adults in the household was unequalizing: its contribution in the inequality-increasing direction was 4 percent
– => Increase in labor force participation of women (the “yuppie couple” effect?)
21
22
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nonparametric Parametric
Labor income Transfers
Other non-labor income Pensions
Capital Adult population
Occupation share
Decomposing Decline in InequalityLabor (red); Transfers (Green); Demog
(Blue) (Azevedo et al. 2012)
23-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Argenna
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
CostaRica
DominicanRep.
Ecuador
ElSalvador
Honduras
Mexico
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Uruguay
LAC-14
What explains the reduction in (hourly) labor income inequality? There are several not mutually exclusive candidates:
• human capital (years of schooling and experience)
• labor market institutions (minimum wages, unionization, informality)
• demographic composition of the labor force (age, gender, race)
• spatial segmentation (rural-urban, regional)
24
Standard labor economics separate out what can be attributed to:
• composition or endowment effect
– changes in the distribution of the observable characteristics of workers (e.g., age, years of schooling, race, gender, working in formal or informal markets, earnings above/below minimum wages, and geographic location)
• pay structure or returns effect
– changes in returns to those characteristics
25
• Estimates of the size of the endowment and pay structure effects for each factor help identify the orders of magnitude of the ‘proximate’ determinants of observed changes in labor income inequality
• The search for the ‘fundamental’ causes requires to assess the role of demand, supply and other factors (e.g., changes in the quality of education) in explaining the changes in returns to human capital
• One may want to push the causal inference process further by, for example, linking the changes to structural changes in the composition of output (led by, for example, a boom in international commodity prices) and changes in education policy
26
• Existing studies do not cover the entire range of potential candidates in each case
• However, available evidence suggests that a fall in the returns to human capital –in particular, in the returns to education– is a common factor to explain the decline in hourly labor income inequality
• In the majority of the sixteen countries where overall inequality declined, the return to primary, secondary and tertiary education versus no schooling or incomplete primary schooling declined.
27
28
• It should be noted that the endowment effect associated with changes in the distribution in education have tended to be unequalizing in spite of the fact that the distribution of educational attainment has become more equal
• This means that, had the pay structure by education level remained unchanged, the more equal distribution of the education endowment would have resulted in an increase in labor income inequality.
• Because this sounds counter-intuitive, this finding is known as the “paradox of progress.”(Bourguignon et al. (2005))
29
Decline in returns to post-secondary education (aka. skill premium)
•Supply
•Demand
•Labor Market Institutions
•Declining “quality” in workers with tertiary degree
30
31
Table 2: Changes in the wage premium and the relative supply and demand
for skilled/unskilled workers (Gasparini et al., 2011)
Annual percent change
Wage premium Relative supply
Relative demand
(σ=2)
Relative demand
(σ=3)
1990s 2000s 1990s 2000s 1990s 2000s 1990s 2000s
Argentina 3.5 -2.4 4.6 2.4 11.5 -2.3 15.0 -4.7
Bolivia 7.9 -4.6 -0.2 5.1 15.6 -4.1 23.5 -8.7
Brazil -0.4 -3.2 1.6 4.4 0.8 -1.9 0.4 -5.1
Chile 0.5 -1.9 3.1 1.1 4.1 -2.7 4.6 -4.7
Colombia 2.5 -2.0 6.4 6.0 11.5 2.1 14.0 0.1
Costa Rica 0.4 -0.2 4.0 3.4 4.9 3.0 5.3 2.8
Ecuador -3.2 3.4 -3.0 -6.3
El Salvador 1.7 -0.1 5.5 -0.3 8.9 -0.4 10.6 -0.5
Honduras 0.0 -1.9 2.6 2.3 2.6 -1.4 2.6 -3.3
Mexico 1.8 -2.8 3.6 2.2 7.2 -3.5 9.0 -6.3
Nicaragua 3.5 -6.9 4.6 6.6 11.6 -7.2 15.0 -14.1
Panama 0.3 -2.3 2.3 2.4 2.9 -2.2 3.1 -4.4
Paraguay 0.8 -5.6 5.3 6.1 6.9 -5.2 7.6 -10.8
Peru 0.6 -2.8 0.2 3.8 1.3 -1.8 1.9 -4.6
Uruguay 2.3 -0.9 2.9 1.1 7.4 -0.6 9.6 -1.4
Venezuela 1.1 -4.8 3.9 4.2 6.2 -5.4 7.3 -10.3
Mean 1.8 -2.8 3.4 3.4 6.9 -2.3 8.6 -5.1
Zooming in
Brazil
32
Brazil: Decline in Inequality (Gini)
33
Wang, Yang. 2013. “Decomposing the Changes in Male Wage Distribution in Brazil.” Tulane University, Ph.D. field paper
Data: SEDLAC
.52
.54
.56
.58
.6.6
2
1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011
Fig.1: Evolution of Household Per Capita Income Gini
Source: Ferreira et al. (2014) 34
Ferreira, F .H. G., S. Firpo, and J. Messina (2014) “A More Level Playing Field? Explaining
the Decline in Earnings Inequality in Brazil, 1995-2012”, IRIBA Working Paper: 12,
The University of Manchester.
Brazil: Decline in Wage Inequality
35
Wang, Yang. 2013. “Decomposing the Changes in Male Wage Distribution in Brazil.” Tulane University, Ph.D. field paper
Source: Ferreira et al. (2014) 36
Ferreira, F .H. G., S. Firpo, and J. Messina (2014) “A More Level Playing Field? Explaining
the Decline in Earnings Inequality in Brazil, 1995-2012”, IRIBA Working Paper: 12,
The University of Manchester.
Brazil: Expansion of Education
37Source: Ferreira et al. (2014)
Brazil: Rising minimum wage
38Source: Ferreira et al. (2014)
Brazil: Formalization
39Source: Ferreira et al. (2014)
Brazil: Race and Gender
40Source: Ferreira et al. (2014)
Brazil: decomposing just for human capital
• Decomposition of change in wage inequality:
• Pay Structure Effect: Change in Relative Wages => Equalizing
• Endowment Effect: Change in Composition for Education and Experience =>Slightly Unequalizing ( “paradox of progress)
41
42
-.1
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 100quantile
Log Wage Difference Composition Effect
Wage Structure Effect
Fig.10: RIF Decomposition: 2002-2011 Male
Brazil (2002-2011):
•Relative Wages=> Equalizing
•Composition Education & Experience =>Slightly Unequalizing
Wang, Yang. 2013. “Decomposing the Changes in Male Wage Distribution in Brazil.” Tulane University, Ph.D. field paper
Brazil: Decomposing: human capital, gender/race, urban/rural, minimum wage,
informality
43Source: Ferreira et al. (2014)
Zooming in: Brazil
• Relative Wages effect:
• Increase in relative supply of skilled workers (educational expansion)
• Increase in relative demand of low-skilled workers (agricultural commodity boom)
• Rising minimum wages
• Declining absolute real wages for workers with tertiary => degraded tertiary or skills obselescence?
44
Brazil: Decline in relative returns to education
45
0.5
11
.52
4-7 8-10 11-14 15+
2002 2011
Fig.8: Relative Return to Education
Wang, Yang. 2013. “Decomposing the Changes in Male Wage Distribution in Brazil.” Tulane University, Ph.D. field paper
46
Wang, Yang. 2013. “Decomposing the Changes in Male Wage Distribution in Brazil.” Tulane University, Ph.D. field paper
Brazil: Decline inskill premium coincides with theexpansion of the relative supply ofworkers with postsecondary education
Brazil: Decline in real wages for workers with tertiary
47
14
15
16
17
18
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Fig. 6: Average Hourly Wage of Tertiary Group: 2002-2011 Male
Wang, Yang. 2013. “Decomposing the Changes in Male Wage Distribution in Brazil.” Tulane University, Ph.D. field paper
Zooming in
Mexico
48
Mexico: Decline in Inequality (Gini)
49
Campos, R., G. Esquivel and N. Lustig. 2014. “The Rise and Fall of Income Inequality in Mexico, 1989–2010,”Chapter 7 in Giovanni Andrea Cornia, ed., Falling Inequality in Latin America: Policy Changes and Lesssons, WIDER Studies in Development Economics, Oxford University Press,
Mexico: Wages by Education LevelDifference in Log Hourly Wage. Base Period 2008:1
50
Figure 4: Difference in Log Hourly Wage. Base Period 2008:1.
-30
-20
-10
01
0
% D
iffe
ren
ce L
og H
ourl
y W
ag
e
200
0q
2
200
1q
2
200
2q
2
200
3q
2
200
4q
2
200
5q
2
200
6q
2
200
7q
2
200
8q
2
200
9q
2
201
0q
2
201
1q
2
201
2q
2
201
3q
2
201
4q
2
Year - Quarter
Primary or Less Junior High School
High School College
Campos, Lopez-Calva and Lustig “Declining wages for college-educated workers in Mexico: disentangling the age, cohort and education effects,” to be presented at Latin American Inequality in the Long-run, Buenos Aires, December 5, 2014
Zooming in: Mexico• Decomposition of change in wage
inequality:
• Pay Structure Effect: Change in Relative Wages => Equalizing
• Endowment Effect: Change in Composition for Education and Experience =>Slightly Unequalizing ( “paradox of progress)
51
52
-.5
-.2
.1.4
.71
Log w
age e
ffects
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100Quantile
Total differential Effects of Characteristics
Effects of Returns
Campos, R., G. Esquivel and N. Lustig. 2014. “The Rise and Fall of Income Inequality in Mexico, 1989–2010,”Chapter 7 in Giovanni Andrea Cornia, ed., Falling Inequality in Latin America: Policy Changes and Lesssons, WIDER Studies in Development Economics, Oxford University Press,
Mexico (1996-2010):
•Relative Wages=> Equalizing
•Composition Education & Experience =>Slightly Unequalizing
Zooming in: MexicoChange in Returns
• Minimum wages and unionization no effect
• Increase in relative supply of skilled workers
• Degraded tertiary?
• Skills obsolescence?
Campos, Lopez-Calva and Lustig (in progress)53
Real Minimum Wage and Unionization: 1988-2010 A. Real Minimum Wage Index (December
2010=100) B. Unionization Rate
10
01
20
14
01
60
18
02
00
Rea
l M
inim
um
Wag
e (D
ecem
ber
20
10
=1
00
)
1988m1 1992m1 1996m1 2000m1 2004m1 2008m1 2010m12Year
.1.1
2.1
4.1
6.1
8.2
Un
ion
izat
ion
Rat
e
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year
ENIGH ENOE
Campos, R., G. Esquivel and N. Lustig. 2014. “The Rise and Fall of Income Inequality in Mexico, 1989–2010,”Chapter 7 in Giovanni Andrea Cornia, ed., Falling Inequality in Latin America: Policy Changes and Lesssons, WIDER Studies in Development Economics, Oxford University Press,
In contrast to Brazil, in Mexico minimum wages did not increase at all…
Mexico: Relative returns and relative supply, 1989-2010 (High school and more vs. secondary or less)
Campos, R., G. Esquivel and N. Lustig. 2014. “The Rise and Fall of Income Inequality in Mexico, 1989–2010,”Chapter 7 in Giovanni Andrea Cornia, ed., Falling Inequality in Latin America: Policy Changes and Lesssons, WIDER Studies in Development Economics, Oxford University Press,
Mexico:Decline inskill premium coincides with theexpansion of the relative supply ofworkers with postsecondary education
Mexico: Average Monthly Earnings for College-Educated Workers
56
8500
1000
011
500
1300
014
500
1600
0
Mon
thly
Lab
or In
com
e
2000
q2
2001
q2
2002
q2
2003
q2
2004
q2
2005
q2
2006
q2
2007
q2
2008
q2
2009
q2
2010
q2
2011
q2
2012
q2
2013
q2
2014
q2
Year - Quarter
Campos, Lopez-Calva and Lustig “Declining wages for college-educated workers in Mexico: disentangling the age, cohort and education effects,” to be presented at Latin American Inequality in the Long-run, Buenos Aires, December 5, 2014
57
Figure 10: Change in Relative Employment by age group. Restricted to workers with college.
1. Age 23-44 2. Age 45-65
51
01
52
02
53
0
% R
ela
tive
Em
plo
ym
en
t
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012Year
Professionals Education Directors Supervisors
Admve Support Retail Rest
51
01
52
02
53
0
% R
ela
tive
Em
plo
ym
en
t
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012Year
Professionals Education Directors Supervisors
Admve Support Retail Rest
Mexico: Employment Structure of College-Educated Workers
Campos, Lopez-Calva and Lustig “Declining wages for college-educated workers in Mexico: disentangling the age, cohort and education effects,” to be presented at Latin American Inequality in the Long-run, Buenos Aires, December 5, 2014
58
Mexico: Earnings by profession of College-Educated Workers
Campos, Lopez-Calva and Lustig “Declining wages for college-educated workers in Mexico: disentangling the age, cohort and education effects,” to be presented at Latin American Inequality in the Long-run, Buenos Aires, December 5, 2014
Transfers and Declining Inequality
59
How redistributive are Latin American governments?
• Decomposition of changes in inequality by income source show that transfers is, on average, the second most important proximate determinant of decline in overall inequality– 17 or 21 percent on average
www.commitmentoequity.org
60
61
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nonparametric Parametric
Labor income Transfers
Other non-labor income Pensions
Capital Adult population
Occupation share
62
124%
58%
-24%
43%
2003-06 2006-09
Argen na-Reduc oninInequality:Market(blue)vs.Redistribu on(red)
Redistribu on
Market
Lustig, N. and C. Pessino. 2014.
Argentina: Rising role of transfers
63
110%
12%
-10%
88%
2003-06 2006-09
Argen na-Reduc oninPoverty:Market(blue)vs.Redistribu on(red)
Redistribu on
Market
Lustig, N. and C. Pessino. 2014.
Campos, R., G. Esquivel and N. Lustig. 2014. “The Rise and Fall of Income Inequality in Mexico, 1989–2010,”Chapter 7 in Giovanni Andrea Cornia, ed., Falling Inequality in Latin America: Policy Changes and Lesssons, WIDER Studies in Development Economics, Oxford University Press,
Mexico: Rising role of transfers
Thank you!
65
References• Azevedo, Joao Pedro, Maria Eugenia Dávalos, Carolina Diaz-Bonilla, Bernardo Atuesta, and Raul Andres Castañeda. 2013.
“Fifteen Years of Inequality in Latin America: How Have Labor Markets Helped?” Policy Research Working Paper 6384, The World Bank.
• Azevedo, J. P., L. F. Lopez-Calva, N. Lustig, E. Ortiz-Juarez (2015) “Inequality, Mobility and Middle Classes in Latin America”, in: Dayton-Johnson, J. (2015) Latin America’s Emerging Middle Class. Palgrave McMillan. Bourguignon, F., F. Ferreira and N. Lustig. 2005. The Microeconomics of Income Distribution Dynamics in East Asia and Latin America, Oxford University Press, Washington, DC.
• Campos, Lopez-Calva and Lustig “Declining wages for college-educated workers in Mexico: disentangling the age, cohort and education effects,” to be presented at Latin American Inequality in the Long-run, Buenos Aires, December 5, 2014
• Campos, R., G. Esquivel and N. Lustig. 2014. “The Rise and Fall of Income Inequality in Mexico, 1989–2010,” Chapter 7 in Giovanni Andrea Cornia, ed., Falling Inequality in Latin America: Policy Changes and Lesssons, WIDER Studies in Development Economics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom .
• Ferreira, F .H. G., S. Firpo, and J. Messina (2014) “A More Level Playing Field? Explaining the Decline in Earnings Inequality in Brazil, 1995-2012”, IRIBA Working Paper: 12, The University of Manchester.
• Ferreira, Francisco H.G, Julian Messina, Jamele Rigolini, Luis F. Lopez-Calva, Maria Ana Lugo and Renos Vakis. 2013. “Economic Mobility and the Rise of the Latin American Middle Class.” Washington, D.C: The World Bank.
• Gasparini, Leonardo, Sebastian Galiani, Guillermo Cruces, and Pablo Acosta. 2011. “Educational Upgrading and Returns to Skills in Latin America. Evidence from a Supply-Demand Framework, 1990–2010.” Policy Research Working Paper 5921, The World Bank.
• Lopez-Calva, L. F. and N. Lustig. 2010. Declining Inequality in Latin America: A Decade of Progress?, Brookings Institution Press and UNDP.
• Lopez-Calva, L.F., N. Lustig, E. Ortiz-Juarez. 2014. “Inequality, Mobility and Middle Classes in Latin America.”
• Lustig, N. and C. Pessino. 2014. “Social Spending and Income Redistribution in Argentina in the 2000s: the Rising Role of Noncontributory Pensions,” in Public Finance Review, May 2014, Volume 42, Issue 3 Lustig, N., C. Pessino and J. Scott. 2014. “The Redistributive Impact of Taxes and Social Spending in Latin America. Special Issue.” Public Finance Review, May, Volume 42, Issue 3.
• Wang, Yang. 2013. “Decomposing the Changes in Male Wage Distribution in Brazil.” Tulane University, Ph.D. field paper.66