The name is absent

the progenitors, the higherthe long-run share ofthe population trapped
in povertyand in nonτ-qμalι...crtιon;;

² a reduction in Ihecostofeducatiori, ceteris paribus> impiies an increase
i n ∈qμi ty and i n aggregate ∈¢ dency al owing the whɔe population to
qualify and implying an increase in the mean wealth and in aggregate
utility. In thatcase the long-run distribution does notdependon initial
conditions;

2 ceteris paribus the mcste3 Qentcynasties would be worse op cUe to
thereduction in thecostofeducationi whichmeans adecreasein human
capitaland a decrease in quali.ed people’s income.

M ultipeec∣ui Hbriaresultingfrom the...rstsG≡narioarethesaιτιeasG abr
andZ eira's andO wɪm andW eH lss andean interpretdiⁿerentcros&countries
cynιaτics in the distribution efineoτe and wealth. I n fact di^π erent cross-
country performances may be explained by di^π erent initial conditions. A
country characterized by a more equal distribution and a higher level of
average wealth may take of and converge to a high long run equi iibrium,
whereas acountrywith averyunequaldistribution and alowlevelofaverage
wealth would inevitably be trapped in poverty and non-quali.cation.

As faras scenarioIII is concerned, descendants from non-quali.ed work-
ers and entrepreneurs remain in the progenitors' educational and occupa-
tional categories. O nly quali.ed entrepreneurs characterized by technical
in∈C dency lower than e = (1 + h) ∣ i^x(1—°)^+h remain in this category En-
q                          q        q ¹ qK (1—°)

treɔreneurs with a degree ofineXaency such thate <° ∙ °_eq decumulate
wealth and cannotaf ord education anymore in the long-run, becomingnon-
quali.ed workers. D ynasties descending from quali.ed workers experience
only downward mobility as faras education is concerned.

The long-run occupationaldistribution is summarized in T able 5.

T able 5: evolution of occupational distribution in scenario II I (progenitors !long-run) .

19

<<   <   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   >   >>