ALERT: This system is being upgraded on Tuesday December 12. It will not be available
for use for several hours that day while the upgrade is in progress. Deposits to DukeSpace
will be disabled on Monday December 11, so no new items are to be added to the repository
while the upgrade is in progress. Everything should be back to normal by the end of
day, December 12.
Institutions and inequality in single-party regimes a comparative analysis of vietnam and China
Abstract
Despite the fact that China and Vietnam have been the world's two fastest growing
economies over the past two decades,their income inequality patterns are very different.
An examination of the political institutions in the two countries shows that profound
differences between these polities influence distributional choices. In particular,as
compared to China,elite institutions in Vietnam encourage the construction of broader
policymaking coalitions,have more competitive selection processes,and place more constraints
on executive decision making. As a result,stronger political motivations exist for
Vietnamese leaders to provide equalizing transfers that limit inequality growth among
provinces than for Chinese leaders.
Type
Journal articlePermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/17755Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
Edmund Malesky
Professor of Political Science
Malesky is a specialist on Southeast Asia, particularly Vietnam. Currently, Malesky's
research agenda is very much at the intersection of Comparative and International
Political Economy, falling into three major categories: 1) Authoritarian political
institutions and their consequences; 2) The political influence of foreign direct
investment and multinational corporations; and 3) Political institutions, private
business development, and formalization.

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info