Question

Based on the abstract and conclusion, please give comments, insights and key points on the journal article entitled "Reducing inequalities and strengthening social cohesion through inclusive growth: a roadmap for action"

Abstract

The authors propose a policy compact to achieve more inclusive growth in G20 countries so that economic growth regains the ultimate sense of improving all people’s lives. Guiding principles are: 1) prosperity is not just about income but about all relevant outcomes of well-being and capabilities to overcome the initial social disadvantage; 2) it is also about including people in participatory decision-making to enhance their dignity and control over their lives; 3) excluding people from reaping the benefits of growth will thwart social cohesion and well-being; 4) integrated policy approaches are needed to achieve inclusive growth, across policy domains and between national and global actions, including responsible management of migratory movements. Concrete policy actions are described that span education, labor, fiscal instruments, public and private governance.

Discussion and Conclusion

Guided by the well-being, empowerment, and social cohesion pillars, this paper proposes a set of policies tackling economic and social inequalities and disintegration both by improving the mechanisms of redistribution and by improving the mechanisms that create primary incomes and social positions. The vision proposed in this paper is not a utopian depiction of a perfect society, but a set of realistic policies and reforms that would move us toward a more inclusive growth path. In this approach, we follow Atkinson (2015) and Sen (2009) who argue that finding the direction of progress is more constructive than outlining a “transcendental” objective. These considerations explain the important role of national policy in this paper. Given that national governance is substantially more developed than global governance, it is unavoidable to see national objectives as more easily attainable and as such deserving priority over global objectives. Nevertheless, this does not mean that global objectives should be neglected. In some cases, global objectives of great relevance should be given priority over national objectives. An obvious example is climate change. It is obvious that a country may pursue greater growth, possibly accompanied by equality and inclusiveness, disregarding the global objectives of preventing climate change. In such cases, global objectives should be incorporated into the national policy agenda. The same holds for the other relevant global objectives, such as those included in the Sustainable Development Goals. Many of these objectives entail a net transfer of resources from high-income countries toward low-income countries. As such, they imply a cost for high-income countries that, strictly speaking, may hinder the achievement of national objectives, at least in the short run. In the long run, however, there is a strong common interest in achieving convergence of living standards over the world in order to construct a peaceful, cooperative and flourishing global society. Some skeptics of our roadmap to action will question the overall financial viability of the package of reforms we propose. Providing a detailed assessment of the fiscal impact of our proposed measures goes well beyond the scope of this paper, especially considering the necessary and broad-ranging adjustments that are needed when implementing our vision in different countries. We nonetheless want to stress that we have strived to provide ideas for both increased public expenditures and for increased fiscal revenues. Although we cannot guarantee that the overall package will come at no cost for a country, we remain confident that the possible financial costs are less sizable that what is commonly argued. In fact, Atkinson (2015) proposes a package of reforms to reduce inequality in the UK that shares many similarities with those illustrated in the present paper. He provides an estimation of the fiscal impact of his overall package, showing that it could be achieved at no great cost. The question of the political feasibility6 of the package proposed in this paper goes beyond the scope of this analysis. While the whole package may appear ambitious, particular components of it are being implemented or discussed in various countries. Our goal is merely to offer ideas for the public debate and for policy-makers. At a time when exclusionary values of authoritarianism, nationalism, racism, religious conflicts and xenophobia appear on the rise again, many countries and the world itself are at a crossroads. Our responsibility as scholars and experts is to show that there are ways toward inclusion and peace.

Answer 1

The article mostly emphasizes on impacts of G20 agendas which have been redefined for prosperity as follows:

1. Prosperity is simply not income related it depends more on outcoke and overall well being of individuals
2. Including people participation in decisions making to give them ownership
3. Integrated policy for inclusive growth

Some of top inclusion growth policies focus on education,labor, fiscal instruments,public private governance.

The G20 also focusses on world growth rather than just national groeth and focusses on larger than life issues like climatic change which needs collaboration from all nations and members. Income inequality and net transfer of incomes and global peace are some other larger than life issues.

However the political and fiscal feasibility is yet not clear and contributing from each members nations is still inadequate which draws downsides to achieve overall objectives .