Food price hikes, natural disasters, environmental degradation, and financial crises share at least two things in common: They’re on the rise, and they unequally burden the poor. 

Inequality of opportunity provides a helpful way of framing the debate, particularly so as it shows the agreement that circumstances should not prohibit the fulfillment of talent. For children, early inequalities in learning or nutrition have seri…

The debate on a post-2015 inequality target is missing a fundamental point: what inequality would we like to eliminate?

The global development framework for the coming years cannot ignore global inequality if it should constitute a relevant and legitimate set of development goals in a globalised world.

For a national policy maker it is possible to think about raising the income levels of the bottom 10% or 20% toward the middle of the distribution. The poorest can be brought nearer the poverty line through measures like cash transfers.

Given the over-sensitivity of the Gini to the middle of the distribution, and the insensitivity of the Palma, policymakers could consider a choice between the two: which aspect of the distribution are you more concerned with?

On why the post-2015 agenda should include a goal to limit the negative characteristics of inequality and how indicators of income concentration are better suited for this. One proposal that could be used is the Palma index.

The last few months have been a busy time for inequality. And over the last few days the poor thing got busier still. Inequality is now dancing on two stages. It must be really quite dizzy.

Economics follows politics, not the other way around. Until we have a genuine political commitment to resolve global inequality, we will not get the economics we need. 

Inequalities within countries are largely ignored in the UN climate negotiations. This must change, but the global poor should be spared.