The following article is the first in an occasional series introducing new data bases. The series intends to make new development data bases more widely available and to contribute to discussion and further research on economic development issues. The data bases included in the series are selected for their potential usefulness for research and policy analysis on critical issues in developing and transition economies. Some are drawn from micro-level firm or household surveys; others contain country-level data. The authors describe the data contents, criteria for inclusion or exclusion of values, sources, strengths and weaknesses, and any plans for maintenance or updating. Each data base is available from the author, at the address provided in the article.

No abstract

This paper explores the propositions that, income inequality is relatively stable within countries; and that it varies signi®cantly among countries. A new and expanded data set provides broad support for both propositions. Drawing on a political economy and capital market imperfection arguments to explain the intertemporal and international variation in inequality, the empirical analysis shows that the predicted variables associated with the ®rst argument (a measure of civil liberties and the initial level of secondary schooling) and the second argument (a measure of ®nancial depth and the initial distribution of land) are indeed important determinants of inequality.

Research on inequality and growth can be divided into two strands. One, deriving from Kuznets and Lewis, has tried to identify a mechanistic relationship between growth, or level, of income and inequality. The other has tried to find causal explanations of growth and inequality, treating each independently. In this paper, we draw from both strands to test whether growth and inequality are the joint outcomes of other variables and processes. We find that simultaneous examination of growth and inequality yields significantly different results and has different consequences for policy from previous independent studies.

Aggregate indices like UNDP's Human Development Index (HDI) or the Centre for Global Development and Foreign Policy's Commitment to Development Index (CDI) are subject to multiple criticisms. This paper addresses concerns linked to the equal weights used in the HDI and the CDI and evaluates alternative weighting schemes. It relies on an opinion survey conducted electronically among researchers from 60 countries to assess whether or not professional judgment affects the use of equal weights. Results of the opinion survey point to a surprising result for the HDI: despite widespread criticism of equal weights, a simple scheme based on equal weights is not only convenient but also consistent with the views of experts. For some components of the CDI, however, weights derived from the survey do differ from equal weights. Nevertheless, the weights emerging from the survey are not sufficiently different from equal weights to significantly alter country rankings.