Bastobota without reality chara

A trade-off between growth and income equality is often based upon the argument of accumulation, i.e. lower income inequality would lower national savings rates and hence, hamper future growth. Evidence of research in the 1970s has shown rather convincingly that the savings arguments for a trade-off between income equality and growth is often not valid, and were it valid, it is only a weak explanatory variable.
Countries such as Botswana and Chile illustrates that it is perfectly possible to combine high growth with high levels of inequality, albeit with obvious costs for poverty reduction. Two East Asian countries - Malaysia and Thailand - veer towards this group. Others - such as India - demonstrate that it is equally possible to combine relatively high levels of equality with low growth. Most, however, succeed in achieving the worst of all possible worlds: high inequality with low growth. Much of Africa and Latin America fit into this category. The majority of East Asian countries, indicates their success in combining economic dynamism with equity.
So it can not be determined whether there is an trade off between growth and equity. There are other factors involved such an initial inequality, cultural effect, bonds with the developed countries, which play vital role in this matter.

(2003)