Macroeconomic Fluctuations, Inequality, and Human Development

This paper examines the two-way relationship between inequality and economic fluctuations, and the implications for human development. For years, the dominant paradigm in macroeconomics, which assumed that income distribution did not matter, at least for macroeconomic behavior, ignored inequality--both its role in causing crises and the effect of fluctuations in general, and crises in particular, on inequality. But the most recent financial crisis has shown the errors in this thinking, and these views are finally beginning to be questioned. Economists who had looked at the average equity of a homeowner--ignoring the distribution--felt comfortable that the economy could easily withstand a large fall in housing prices. When such a fall occurred, however, it had disastrous effects, because a large fraction of homeowners owed more on their homes than the value of the home, leading to waves of foreclosure and economic stress. Policy-makers and economists alike have begun to take note: inequality can contribute to volatility and the creation of crises, and volatility can contribute to inequality. Here, we explore the variety of channels through which inequality affects fluctuations and fluctuations affect inequality, and explore how some of the changes in our economy may have contributed to increased inequality and volatility both directly and indirectly. After describing the two-way relationship, the paper discusses hysteresis--the fact that the consequences of an economic downturn can be long-lived. Then, it examines how policy can either mitigate or exacerbate the inequality consequences of economic downturns, and shows how well-intentioned policies can sometimes be counterproductive. Finally, it links these issues to human development, especially in developing countries

Favouritism: exploring the 'uncontrolled' spaces of the leadership experience

In this paper, we argue that a focus on favouritism magnifies a central ethical ambiguity in leadership, both conceptually and in practice. The social process of favouritism can even go unnoticed, or misrecognised if it does not manifest in a form in which it can be either included or excluded from what is (collectively interpreted as) leadership. The leadership literature presents a tension between what is an embodied and relational account of the ethical, on the one hand, and a more dispassionate organisational ‘justice’ emphasis, on the other hand. We conducted 23 semi-structured interviews in eight consultancy companies, four multinationals and four internationals. There were ethical issues at play in the way interviewees thought about favouritism in leadership episodes. This emerged in the fact that they were concerned with visibility and conduct before engaging in favouritism. Our findings illustrate a bricolage of ethical justifications for favouritism, namely utilitarian, justice, and relational. Such findings suggest the ethical ambiguity that lies at the heart of leadership as a concept and a practice

How climate change interacts with inequity to affect nutrition

Climate change poses a growing threat to the achievement of optimal nutritional status, both directly through affecting food production and indirectly through altering social and economic influences in people's lives. These adverse nutrition outcomes are not evenly distributed across the world, and vulnerable populations are the most impacted. Understanding how different forms of inequity interact with climate change and adverse nutritional outcomes is a novel area of research in today's challenging environment of increased climate change pressures. This article presents the results of a systematic literature search undertaken to identify the connections, trends and pathways between climate change, inequity and nutrition outcomes. Forty‐six peer‐reviewed studies are identified that explore these complex interactions with a specific focus on the extent to which equity is a fundamental component of climate change and nutrition research. The pathways captured in this body of evidence are mapped to current framework thinking to identify trends and gaps. While there is a trend for studies to acknowledge an unfair distribution of vulnerability to adverse nutrition outcomes, there is less attention given to the (lack of) recognition of the social situations which increase these groups' vulnerability and the absence of representation or inclusion of these groups as vital decision‐makers. Studies that do incorporate these core dimensions of equity take mixed‐method and qualitative approaches. This highlights an inherent value in stepping outside the usual scope of empirical climate change research, one that incorporates the voices of those most affected