Extreme Inequality, Democratisation and Class Struggles in Thailand

WID.world Issue Brief 2019-1

March 2019

Thanasak Jenmana & Amory Gethin

Overview

Thailand is finally set to have a general election on 24 March 2019 after five years of military government and a long period of political uncertainty. In this note, we argue that a main source of political instability is brought by Thai- land’s extreme levels of income, wealth and regional inequalities, as well as by the rising politicisation of class conflicts around redistributive issues which followed the Asian Financial Crisis.

New historical series on inequality in Thailand point to very high levels of income concentration. In 2016, top 10% earners received more than half of the national income, which is higher than what can be observed in most world regions. The social policies implemented by successive democratic governments since the 2000s have been successful at promoting a fairer distribution of labour earnings. Inequalities remain high, however, due to the strong concentration of wealth and capital incomes, which are not addressed by existing ﬁscal policies.

The post-1997 party politics successfully put an end to a long period of rising income disparities, but Thailand remains one of the most unequal societies in the world today. Most importantly, class cleavages can be seen in voting behaviours and party identification, but not so in terms of preference for democracy and political ideologies. As a result, the class struggles, both in the streets and in the voting booths, are not a struggle for democratic processes. They are rather conflicts opposing the established middle class and elites, who lost their relative economic and political power, to the poor and the emerging middle class who have benefited from a new and fairer economic era and put strong values on general elections.

Media enquiries: [email protected]. WORLD INEQUALITY LAB

Introduction Thailand: one of the most unequal economies in the world? After eight years since the last election, five years of military rule led by retired Army General Prayuth Chan-Ocha, How extreme is income inequality in Thailand? There and multiple postponements, Thailand is finally set to is a consensus amongst researchers that Thai economic have a general election on March 24 that would decide inequality had worsened rapidly since at least the 1960s who will perhaps sit in power for the next four years. To and up until the 1990s. However, there is still academic be sure, this general election is not entirely democratic: controversy on how it has evolved since the mid-1990s for instance, there is a potentiality of an ‘outsider’ prime and the Asian Financial Crisis. In a recent study, Jenmana minister. The 2017 constitution, Thailand’s 20th, was (2018) has been able to track very precisely the evolu- almost entirely written by the military, and will grant ex- tion of personal income inequality in Thailand between clusive power to the junta to select 250 senators –each 2001 and 2016 by combining surveys, data from adminis- 1 of whom will have a voice equal to that of an elected trative tax returns and data from national accounts. His representative in deciding who is to be the next premier. study reveals that income disparities in Thailand remain substantially higher than what household surveys alone What is clear is that the return of military governments in suggest. Thailand in 2006 and 2014, despite popular supports for stronger democratic institutions in the 1990s, is the ex- In 2016, the richest 10% citizens received 53% act manifestation of the party politics that followed the of Thailand’s national income, with average in- 1997 constitution that was deemed most democratic. comes of about $8,000, and the top 1% alone received 20%, earning over $30,000 per month. By mobilising high-quality data sources from surveys, Meanwhile, the bottom half tax returns and national accounts, our recent working of the population received paper on income inequality in Thailand found that Thai Income inequality in 13% of national income and inequalities, despite having moderately decreased since Thailand is amongst the earned only $400 per month 2001, remain amongst the most pronounced in the world. highest in the world. on average (see table1). 2 Mass political mobilisations of the poor in the poorest In 2016, top 10% This means that an average regions of the country came by the introduction of sys- earners received 53% person in the bottom 50% tematic redistributive policies favouring the low-income of national income. would need to work almost voters, at the expense of the middle and upper classes. 4 months in order to earn This heavily contrasts the uneven development of the the income per day of the richest 1 percent, and one Thai economy of the earlier eras, which had primarily month to earn the income per day of the richest 10 per- benefited the business elites and the Bangkok area. cent. It also means, put differently, that a top 1% earner Declining inequalities in Thailand have concurred with in Thailand needs to use only one day of his personal in- the gradual emergence of strong political divides be- come to hire for several months a low-skilled worker on tween rural and urban voters and, most importantly, be- a full-time basis for his personal needs. tween poorer and richer Thai citizens. These new ten- Figure1 shows the evolution of the top 10 percent’s sions have paradoxically not consolidated the role of national income share over 2001-2016 in comparison elected bodies in mediating social conflicts. They have, to other major economies. Although there is slight re- on the contrary, led to a backlash against democracy.

1Jenmana, Thanasak (2018), “Democratisation and the Emer- gence of Class Conﬂicts: Income Inequality in Thailand, 2001-2016”, WID.world Working Paper n. 2018/15, Version: November 2018. 2These numbers are represented in 2017 dollars, in purchasing power parity terms.

WID.world Issue Brief 2019-1 1 WORLD INEQUALITY LAB

Figure 1. Income inequality in Thailand in comparative perspective: Top10% share, 2000-2016

30 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Thailand Brazil Russia United States China Europe

Source: Jenmana, T. (2018), ‘Democratisation and the Emergence of Class Conﬂict: Income Inequality in Thailand, 2001-2016’ and World Inequality Database. All series can be downloaded from http: //wid.world.

duction of inequality over the period, Thailand remains figures should be interpreted with caution, given the low one of the most unequal societies in the world. Between quality of data sources available to measure wealth, they 2001 and 2016, the Thai richest 10 percent residents are suggestive of the extreme levels of social and eco- earned more than half of the national income every year. nomic inequalities that Thailand is facing today. This is significantly higher than what can be observed in major world regions, including Europe, China, the United The politics of Thailand’s uneven States or Russia. Levels of income inequality in Thailand development since the 1960s today are in fact closer to those observed in Brazil, a country which is well-known for its extreme inequality The levels of income inequality visible today in Thailand legacy. It is all the more striking that income disparities are the result of a long-run political and economic pro- can remain so high in a country with such a small popu- cess which has, until recently, primarily benefited to lation (less than 70 million in Thailand versus more than top incomes living in urban areas and in particular in 200 million in Brazil). Bangkok. The military governments of the post-war era, Thailand is not only one of the most unequal countries in especially between the 1960s up until the 1980s, were the world in terms of income. It is also, according to the highly successful in implementing macroeconomic poli- Credit´ Suisse, one of the countries where the concentra- cies to continuously fuel the economic growth. With the tion of wealth is the highest in the world.3 While such help of globalisation, US financial aid, growing manufac- turing and banking industries, and foreign direct invest-

3The country where wealth inequality is the highest, according to ment, economic growth between the sixties up to the the recently published 2018 Global Wealth Report of the Credit´ Suisse.

WID.world Issue Brief 2019-1 2 WORLD INEQUALITY LAB

Table 1. Thresholds, averages, and national income shares in Thailand, 2016

Threshold (monthly) Average income (monthly) Income groups Number of adults 2017 Thai Baht 2017 Dollar PPP 2017 Thai Baht 2017 Dollar PPP Income share

Full population 51,954,056 0.00 0.00 18,660.62 1,521.12 100% Bottom 50% 25,977,028 0.00 0.00 4,940.92 402.76 13.24% Middle 40% 20,781,622 8,613.06 702.09 15,707.17 1,280.37 33.67% Top 10% 5,195,406 37,782.93 3,079.88 99,072.33 8,075.90 53.09%

incl. Top 1% 519,541 161,489.22 13,163.82 377,426.42 30,765.97 20.23% Top 0.1% 51,954 609,716.13 49,701.11 1,426,473.58 116,279.22 7.64% Top 0.01% 5,195 2,150,996.33 175,338.80 5,668,244.08 462,047.80 3.04% Top 0.001% 520 8,679,363.33 707,499.66 24,329,050.75 1,983,186.37 1.30%

Source: Jenmana, T. (2018), ‘Democratisation and the Emergence of Class Conﬂict: Income Inequality in Thailand, 2001-2016’. All data series can be downloaded from http:/wid.world.

nineties was remarkable. However, much of the prosper- nual growth rate was as low as -10% between 1996 and ity was shared by a small share of the population, mostly 1997, and the five-year average growth between 1996 the economic elites who engaged directly with the ex- and 2000 was -0.3%. The public discontent that arose port industries and commercial banking. In this period, from these shocks, along with the general dissatisfac- the majority of the Thai working population remained tion towards military rule which had grown since the employed in agriculture, while much of the fruits of eco- beginning of the 1990s fuelled the demand for politi- nomic development were concentrated in the secondary cal and economic reforms. The 1997 Constitution intro- and tertiary sectors. Accordingly, there is a general con- duced a number of innovations in the democratic pro- sensus that personal income inequality rose dramatically cess, strengthening the executive, allowing the upper between the 1960s and the early 1990s. house to be fully elected for the first time in Thai history Politically, the worrying voices of the poor were silenced and improving the separation between the executive and during this period, and forms of political participation the legislative bodies. and demonstration were prevented by the government. What followed was the era of Thaksin Shinawatra, the With the US’s cold-war leader of the then Thai-Rak-Thai (TRT) party, who was stance to ‘fight against elected for office in 2001 with more than 40% of popu- Until the 1990s, eco- communism’, a large amount lar votes. At first, he presented himself and the party as nomic growth mainly of economic aid were the ones that would restore economic growth and the benefited to a small, provided, which helped strength of Thai industries and businesses, but the ac- urban economic elite. military governments to cumulation of political scandals led him to adopt more stay in power and to further ‘populist’ stances. Amongst many of the policies imple- suppress dissenting voices. The issue space of the Thai mented in the years that followed were the universal political economy was, until the beginning of the 1990s, healthcare plan, farmers’ debt rescheduling, affordable entirely dominated by commercial bankers, the military, social housings, and massive village microcredit schemes. and the technocrats.4 The years that followed were associated with relative The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis marked a new era for political instability: a 2006 coup d’etat´ sent Thaksin into Thailand. The poverty rate rose by almost 10%, the an- exile, but his sister Yingluck Shinawatra won the 2011 elections with a programme promising to pursue his poli-

4For a detailed account of the Thai state and economic reforms, see cies (such as increasing substantially the minimum wage). Satitniramai, A. (2013). The Rise and Fall of the Bankers’ Capitalism: 60 Years of the Thai Political Economy, Bangkok. SameSkybooks (in Thai).

WID.world Issue Brief 2019-13 WORLD INEQUALITY LAB

Figure 2. Regional inequality in Thailand in comparative perspective, 1960-2016

22 Inequality between Thai provinces 20 Inequality between Brazilian states Inequality between Indian states 18 Inequality between European countries 16 Inequality between US states

2 Top 10% / Bottom 50% average regional products 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Source: authors’ computations combining national and regional accounts statistics from the National Economic and Social Development Board (Thailand), the Brazilian Institute for Geography and Statistics (Brazil), the Bureau of Economic Analysis (United States), the Central Statistics Ofﬁce (India) and the World Inequality Database (Europe). Interpretation: in 2016, the richest 10% Thai provinces’ average domestic products per capita were about 8 times higher than that of the poorest 50%. Meanwhile, the richest 10% US states’ average domestic products per capita were less than 2 times higher than that of the poorest 50%

On 22 May 2014, finally, the Royal Thai Armed Forces ities in Thailand have always been exceptionally high. led by General Prayuth Chan-Ocha launched another coup Thailand’s richest provinces have always earned over 6 d’etat´ . times the average income of the poorest 50% provinces, Changes in economic inequalities in Thailand since while corresponding figures do not exceed 4 in Brazil, the 1960s are fully consistent with these differ- India and Europe, and have always been below 2 in the ent historical phases of the Thai political economy. United States since the end of World War II. This has to Figure2 plots the evolution do with the massive division between the ‘centre’ and of regional inequality in the ‘periphery’ which has been at the heart of the Thai Bangkok accounts Thailand between 1961 late developmental state since the end of World War II. for less than 15% and 2016, focusing on In 2016, the gross provincial product of Bangkok alone of Thailand’s pop- the gap in production per accounted for less than 15% of the Thai population but ulation but more capita between the top for more than 30% of the national GDP. By contrast, the than 30% of its GDP. 10% provinces (essentially Northeastern region concentrated more than a quarter Bangkok and other small of the population but only 10% of GDP. industrial provinces) and the poorest 50% provinces of Spatial inequality in Thailand has followed an inverted the country, and comparing these figures with those U-shaped curve, rising until the mid-1990s and decreas- visible in other world regions. ing since then. This corresponds exactly to the two main Two main results appear clearly. First, spatial inequal- phases of Thailand’s political and economic post-war de-

WID.world Issue Brief 2019-1 4 WORLD INEQUALITY LAB

Figure 3. Income inequality in Thailand, 2001-2015: total income growth by income group

280 Bottom 50% income Top 10% income 260 grew by 135% grew by 30% 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 Total income growth (%) 60 40 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 99 99.9 99.99 99.999 Income group (percentile)

Source: Jenmana, T. (2018), ‘Democratisation and the Emergence of Class Conflict: Income Inequality in Thailand, 2001-2016’. All data series can be downloaded from http:/wid.world. velopments. Between 1961 and 1995, the gap in pro- between 2001 and 2014. These include significant in- duction per capita between the centre and the periphery creases in the national minimum wage, subsidised univer- more than doubled from 6 to 13, following the concentra- sal health care programs and microcredit development tion of foreign direct investments and export-led growth funds which primarily benefited independent farmers policies towards the Bangkok area. After the financial and low-skilled workers. crisis of 1997 and the election of Thaksin in 2001, on the Income inequality in contrary, economic growth was stronger in poorer, agri- Thailand has therefore de- Since 2001, minimum cultural provinces of the North and the Northeast, which creased in the past decade, wage, education and massively benefited from interventions on agricultural but this claim should not healthcare policies prices and improved financial conditions. be over-emphasised. This have been successful Since the beginning of the 2000s, inequalities have not decrease has been almost at improving the living only decreased between regions; they have also declined entirely driven by improve- conditions of the poor. between Thai citizens. Figure3 plots the growth in av- ments in the labour incomes erage income by income group between 2001 and 2015. of the poor, while capital Poorer income earners have benefited much more from income inequality – which is much more pronounced growth than the middle and upper classes in recent years. and accounts for a significant share of overall income During the 2001-2015 period, the bottom 50% earners inequalities – has remained much more stable. Fur- saw their average incomes more than double – increasing thermore, while inequality has decreased in relative by up to 220% – while that of the top 10% increased by terms, the absolute distribution of gains was much more 30%. These rises in incomes at the bottom of the distri- skewed: the top 10% captured more than one third of bution are the direct consequence of the social policies growth, and the top 1% more than one tenth of growth implemented by the Thaksin and Yingluck governments over the 2001-2015 period.

WID.world Issue Brief 2019-1 5 WORLD INEQUALITY LAB

Figure 4. Support for Thaksin-linked parties by income and education, 2001-2011

(a) Low-income voters (b) Lower-educated voters

20% Difference between (% of bottom 90%) and (% of top 10%) 20% Difference between (% of voters with no university degree) and earners voting TRT/PPP/PT 18% 18% (% of university graduates) voting TRT/PPP/PT 16% 16% 14% 14% 12% 12% 10% 10% 8% 8% 6% 6% 4% 4% 2% 2% 0% 0% -2% -2% 2001 2007 2011 2001 2007 2011 Source: authors’ computations based on data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES). The ﬁgure can be interpreted as the differences between share of group 1 and share of group 2 voting for the Thaksin-linked parties. For (a), education, age, gender, and occupation are controlled for. For (b), income, age, gender, and occupation are controlled for.

This is directly due to the come tax rates, are solutions which could be effective at Social policies remain fact that inequalities in Thai- both collecting additional government revenue and truly insufficient to address land are particularly high, enhancing social equity in Thailand. the main causes of so that even major improve- inequality in Thailand, ments in the earnings of Democratisation and the construction namely the extreme low-income citizens can do of class cleavages concentrations of capi- little to reduce overall in- tal incomes and wealth come gaps in the short run. To what extent can the recent decline in income inequal- Poorer households did ben- ity in Thailand be linked to the politicisation of new social efit more from economic de- divides and to the process of democratisation engaged velopment than they used to in previous decades, but since the end of the 1990s? What is interesting about the share of national income accruing to top 10% earn- the current Thai political conflicts is that one must make ers has only decreased from 56% to 53% between 2001 a distinction between class cleavages within electoral pro- and 2016. cesses and attitudes towards democracy and political ideolo- If governments do aim at truly curbing inequalities in gies. More concretely, there is a rising cleavage between the future, they will therefore have to combine exist- poorer and richer Thai citizens if we are to look at voting ing social programs with significant improvements in tax behaviours and party preferences, but the same cannot progressivity. Minimum wage, healthcare and education be said regarding preferences for democracy. policies are key to improve the living conditions of the The 2001 election – the first to follow the 1997 constitu- poor, but they remain insufficient to address the main tion – resulted in a decisive victory for Thaksin Shinawa- causes of inequality in Thailand, namely the extreme con- tra and his Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party. The party won 248 centrations of capital incomes and wealth. Implementing seats out of 500, while the Democrat party won almost a progressive wealth tax, or increasing top marginal in- half of that amount. Most likely due to the effects of

WID.world Issue Brief 2019-1 6 WORLD INEQUALITY LAB

Figure 5. Support for democracy in Thailand, 2002-2014

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

Share of respondents (%) 20%

10%

0% 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Democracy is always better than any other kind of government Under some circumstances, an authoritarian government can be preferable to a democratic one

Source: authors’ computations using the Asian Barometer surveys.

the Asian Financial Crisis and the unpopular IMF deal (PT) Party won the following two elections in 2007 and in which the Democrats were involved in, there was no 2011, respectively. clear divisions between voters in terms of income or ed- If it was not clear yet in 2001, it was self- ucation at the time. The victory was possible, despite evident that there was a rising class-based TRT being a relatively new party, also due to a new elec- cleavage in voting behaviours by 2007 and 2011. toral rule that encouraged a two-party system in place of Figure4 explicitly shows the more fragmented one seen in the pre-1997 elections. that the richest 10 percent Democratisation has With the help of local civil societies and activists, the TRT were less and less likely to been associated with gained massive support within the North and Northeast- vote for the TRT/PPP/PT growing cleavages ern Provinces, the poorest regions in the country. party relative to the rest of opposing poorer Thai Despite its original position that mostly concerned the voting population, and citizens to the middle restoring high economic growth and reviving business the same can be observed and upper classes. conditions, the TRT took a turn towards pro-poor poli- for individuals with tertiary cies. The old middle class and the elites were largely education. This increasing against this, and the term ‘populism’ emerged for the first support for the TRT among poorer, lower-educated Thai time in Thai politics. Nonetheless, these policies proved citizens is directly linked to the social policies imple- critically popular, and TRT was the first democratically- mented by the Thaksin government. It is, in this respect, elected party to stay a full term and to be reelected in noticeably similar to the political changes observable in 2005 with 67% of seats. The support for ‘TRT’ arguably Brazil at the exact same period, when Lula da Silva’s suc- perpetuates until the present day, despite the party be- cess in fighting poverty consolidated the Workers’ Party ing dissolved after the 2006 coup. As reformations of electoral base among the working class.5 TRT, the People’s Power Party (PPP) and the Pheu Thai 5Gethin, A. and Morgan, M. (2018), ‘Brazil Divided: Hindsights on the Growing Politicisation of Inequality’, WID.world Issue Brief 2018/3.

WID.world Issue Brief 2019-1 7 WORLD INEQUALITY LAB

As such, the middle class and the elites that benefited formalisation of these social dissonances. The political most from the pre-1997 economic boom inherently be- mobilisation of the poor in elections that followed guar- came politically ‘marginalised’. The terms ‘populism’ and anteed the party its victories, and the poor that their ‘populist policies’ were used to attack the parties’ focus voices were heard. on pro-poor policies. To them, these moves used to ‘buy This form of party politics could happen largely because votes’ were taken as threats against economic efficiency of pushes for democratisation and the 1997 constitution, – an ideology held dear by the champions of neoliberalism from which poorer Thai citizens clearly benefited. How which were not only the middle and upper class, but also is it then that we do not see cleavages in preference for the technocrats. It was only natural that the economic democracy? Part of the answer lies in the fact that the and political elites would escape the loss of economic poor allocate these successes to the party itself, not to and political power through the 2006 and 2014 coups, the democratic process that brought upon the politicisa- which were both were unmistakably brought fruitful by tion of inequality. For the middle class and elites – as the the mobilisation of the old middle and upper classes. ‘populism’ move was seen as a way for the TRT party to Support for democracy declined from around 80% seek legitimacy in the face of corruption accusations – it in 2002 to just 50% in 2014, and there was almost was democracy on its back. an equal rise in support for an authoritarian government, which peaked at almost 30% in 2014 (figure5). Making sense of the 2019 Thai election This brings us to the sec- ond point: there is no It is therefore understandable that the Thai Raksa Chart The foundations of clear class cleavage in Party, a split-off of the Pheu Thai party, would – in a democracy in Thailand preferences for democracy. historic move – nominate Princess Ubolratana Mahidol, remain weak in the Asian Barometer surveys who is a close friend of the Shinawatra and the sister foreseeable future. indeed show that there is of King Vajiralongkorn, for the Prime Minister position. no significant differences This would have been a move trumping any attempt by between income groups, wealth groups or educational the military to retain its post-election power if it was not groups in support for democracy or authoritarianism. implicitly and publicly annulled by the King. It represents Between 2002 and 2014, strikingly, the share of Thai how disconnected the party’s voting base’s economic citizens in favour of democracy declined across all concerns are to political ideologies and democratic val- social groups in very similar proportions. This goes in ues. Then, the foundations of democracy in Thailand line with Manachotphong (2014), who surveyed red remain weak in the foreseeable future. (pro-Thaksin) and yellow (anti-Thaksin) shirts, and found It is also clear that political parties have realised that that – for political mobilisations outside of elections – they must introduce redistributive policies in order to income did not play any significantly role once education, win a non-negligible share of seats. In this election, even occupation and urban-rural locations were controlled the military party has done so. Then, the biggest issues for. It was also found that both the yellow and red shirts that voters should watch for are not economic ones, but exhibited similar levels of concern about inequality.6 rather party platforms on democratic institutions, con- It is rather clear, then, that the class conflicts, between stitutional reforms, and limits to military power. rural and urban, rich and poor, ‘well-educated’ and not, were largely driven by economic reasons. The platform of the Thai Rak Thai party since 2001 was a successful

6Manachotphong, W. (2014), ‘The shades of Red and Yellow: evi- dence from survey data’, Thailand and The World Economy, 32(3) ,31-68.

WID.world Issue Brief 2019-18 WORLD INEQUALITY LAB

About the authors

Thanasak Jenmana is a research fellow at the World Inequality Lab. In a recent study, he re-examines the evolution of income inequality in Thailand between 2001-2016 using a novel combination of data sources. The main motivation lies in the lack of information on the richest citizens in household surveys, which can lead to a significant underestimation of the inequality level and to an inaccurate representation of historical trends. The study systematically combines household surveys, fiscal data, and national accounts to create a more consistent inequality series. The results indicate that income inequality is much higher than what past surveys have suggested, specifically when looking at the reduction in inequality, which turns to be much more conservative. The top 10% income share went from 56% of national income in 2001 to 53% in 2016, and the bottom 50% share increased from 9% to 13%. The Gini coefficient decreased by 0.06, reaching 0.62 in 2016. Amory Gethin is also a research fellow at the World Inequality Lab. His research focuses on the links between economic inequality and political cleavages in developed and developing democracies. He has in particular worked on the long-run evolution of electoral behaviours in Brazil and India, documenting the historical processes underlying the relative political salience of economic redistribution relative to other ideological identifications. Jenmana, Thanasak (2018), “Democratisation and the Emergence of Class Conflicts: Income Inequality in Thailand, 2001-2016”, WID.world Working Paper n. 2018/15, Version: November 2018. Gethin, Amory and Morgan, Marc (2018), ‘Brazil Divided: Hindsights on the Growing Politicisation of Inequality’, WID.world Issue Brief 2018/3.

The World Inequality Lab The World Inequality Lab aims to promote research on global inequality dynamics. Its core mission is to maintain and expand the World Inequality Database. It also produces inequality reports and working papers addressing substantive and methodological issues. The Lab regroups about twenty research fellows, research assistants and project ofﬁcers based at the Paris School of Economics. It is supervised by an executive committee composed of 5 co-directors. The World Inequality Lab works in close coordination with the large international network (over one hundred researchers covering nearly seventy countries) contributing to the database.

World Inequality Lab 48 bd Jourdan 75014 Paris

Contact: [email protected].

Website: https://wid.world.

WID.world Issue Brief 2019-1 9