Fecha de recepción: 17 de noviembre de 2025
Fecha de aceptación: 15 de febrero de 2026
Disponible en línea: 22 de julio de 2026
Vol. 13 N.° 2
Julio - Diciembre del 2026
pp. 1- 17
HISTORIA ECONÓMICA,EMPRESARIAL Y DEL PENSAMIENTO
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Sugerencia de citación:
Benmecheri,
A-Y.
(2026). The Macroeconomic
Impacts of Expanding Social Benefit
Programs: Evidence from Post-Soviet
Economies.
tiempo&economia, 13(2), 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.21789/24222704.2225
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21789/
24222704.2225
The Macroeconomic Impacts of
Expanding Social Benefit
Programs: Evidence from Post-
Soviet Economies
Impactos macroeconómicos de la
expansión de los programas de
prestaciones sociales: evidencia de las
economías postsoviéticas
Aya-Marihane Benmecheri
Postgraduate Student in Economic Theory,
Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1635-8222
tutormary99@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Since the early 1990s, the expansion of social benefit programs has
been one of the principal policy instruments used to address poverty,
inequality, and social instability in post-Soviet economies. However, the
macroeconomy effects of these programs are still the subject of
considerable debate, with scholars divided over whether the expansion of
welfare promotes inclusive growth or undermines fiscal sustainability. This
paper empirically examines the economic effects of the expansion of social
benefits in selected Post-Soviet countries in the period from 2000 to 2023.
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
2
Using panel data from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), and national statistical agencies, the study employs fixed-effects and
dynamic generalized method of moments (GMM) estimations to evaluate
the impact of social spending on GDP growth, unemployment, inflation,
and income inequality. The results suggest that a moderate and targeted
expansion of social benefits can promote economic growth, support job
creation, and reduce income inequality. On the contrary, excessively high
levels of spending—particularly when financed through budgets deficit—
are associated with rising inflation and increased fiscal pressures. According
to these findings, the role of social benefits in society depends on factors
such as the structure of the welfare system, targeting efficiency, and fiscal
discipline. This article bridges the existing literature by providing new
comparative evidence from transitional economies and highlighting the
importance of balanced welfare development that promotes economic
efficiency and social cohesion.
Keywords: social benefits; economic growth; inequality; fiscal policy;
post-soviet economies; welfare state; economic history.
JEL Codes: B20, F43, O49, D60
RESUMEN
Desde principios de la década de 1990, la expansión de los programas
de prestaciones sociales ha sido uno de los principales instrumentos de
política utilizados para abordar la pobreza, la desigualdad y la inestabilidad
social en las economías postsoviéticas. Sin embargo, los efectos
macroeconómicos de estos programas siguen siendo objeto de debate, con
opiniones divididas entre los académicos sobre si la expansión del bienestar
social promueve un crecimiento inclusivo o socava la sostenibilidad fiscal.
Este artículo examina empíricamente los efectos económicos de la
expansión de las prestaciones sociales en determinados países
postsoviéticos durante el período 2000-2023. Utilizando datos de panel del
Banco Mundial, el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) y las agencias
estadísticas nacionales, el estudio emplea estimaciones de efectos fijos y
del método generalizado de momentos (GMM) dinámico para evaluar el
impacto del gasto social en el crecimiento del PIB, el desempleo, la inflación
y la desigualdad de ingresos. Los resultados sugieren que una expansión
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
3
moderada y focalizada de las prestaciones sociales puede promover el
crecimiento económico, apoyar la creación de empleo y reducir la
desigualdad de ingresos. Por el contrario, niveles de gasto excesivamente
altos, especialmente cuando se financian mediante déficits
presupuestarios, se asocian con un aumento de la inflación y mayores
presiones fiscales. Según estos hallazgos, el papel de las prestaciones
sociales en la sociedad depende de factores como la estructura del sistema
de bienestar, la eficiencia en la focalización y la disciplina fiscal. Este
artículo complementa la literatura existente al proporcionar nuevas
evidencias comparativas de economías en transición y al destacar la
importancia de un desarrollo equilibrado del bienestar que promueva la
eficiencia económica y la cohesión social.
Palabras clave: prestaciones sociales; crecimiento económico;
desigualdad; política fiscal; economías postsoviéticas; estado de
bienestar; historia económica.
Códigos JEL: B20, F43, O49, D60
Introduction
The impact of social benefits on macroeconomic performance has
long been the subject of theoretical and policy debates across different
schools of economic thought. While classical and neoliberal approaches
primarily emphasize the challenges that welfare programs pose to labor
markets and fiscal stability, Keynesian and institutional perspectives view
social transfers as automatic stabilizers, mechanisms for increasing
aggregate demand, and drivers of long-term human capital development.
This debate is particularly relevant in post-Soviet economies. Following the
dissolution of the USSR, the countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia
underwent profound institutional and structural transformations, including
the dismantling of centralized social protection systems and the gradual
reintroduction of welfare programs under market-oriented reforms
(Popova & Murphy, 2019).
Over the last twenty years, these nations have significantly expanded
both the scope and number of social welfare programs, including pensions,
unemployment benefits, family allowances, disability payments, and social
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
4
assistance for low-income groups. According to the World Bank (2023),
public social expenditure in many post-Soviet countries increased from less
than 10% of GDP in the early 2000s to approximately 18–20% by the early
2020s. This trend reflects a growing role of the state in promoting social
inclusion; however, concerns regarding fiscal sustainability and policy
efficiency remain central, particularly in the context of commodity price
volatility, population aging, and recurring financial crises.
The economic literature offers differing perspectives on these
developments. On the one hand, some scholars argue that social benefits
stimulate aggregate demand and reduce inequality, thereby serving as key
drivers of inclusive growth (Korpi & Palme, 1998; Esping-Andersen, 2017).
On the other hand, critics contend that the expansion of the welfare state
may discourage labor market participation, increase dependency, and
contribute to fiscal imbalances (Barro, 2013; Tanzi & Schuknecht, 2000).
Empirical evidence from transition economies, however, remains limited,
fragmented, and often inconsistent.
This article attempts to address this gap in the literature by conducting
a comprehensive econometric analysis of the relationship between social
benefits and key macroeconomic variables in post-Soviet economies. More
specifically, the study examines whether higher levels of social spending
promote or constrain economic growth, job creation, and income
distribution. The analysis draws on data from a balanced panel of twelve
post-Soviet countries—Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and
Turkmenistan—covering the period from 2000 to 2023.
The principal hypothesis behind this study is that moderate, well-
targeted social benefits promote sustainable economic growth and reduce
social inequality, whereas inefficient or excessive welfare expansion funded
through fiscal deficits may generate inflationary pressures and fiscal risks.
To test this hypothesis, the study combines, initially, macroeconomic and
fiscal data and applies fixed-effects models to account for country-specific
heterogeneity, as well as dynamic GMM estimators to address the problem
of endogeneity between welfare spending and economic growth.
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
5
The rest of the study is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the
theoretical and empirical literature on the economic effects of social
benefits. Section 3 presents the analytical framework and research
hypotheses. Section 4 describes the data and econometric methods
employed in the study. Section 5 presents and discusses the empirical
findings. Section 6 examines the policy implications and, Section 7
concludes with recommendations for the design of welfare policies in post-
Soviet economies.
Literature Review
Theoretical Foundations of Welfare and Economic Growth
The interaction between social benefits and macroeconomic
performance has been interpreted differently across competing schools of
economic thought. In the Keynesian tradition, welfare expenditure is viewed
as a stabilizing mechanism, particularly during economic downturns, as it
helps sustain aggregate demand through transfer payments and social
programs (Keynes, 1936). This perspective is consistent with the concept of
automatic stabilizers, which reduce volatility in consumption and output
(Blanchard & Perotti, 2002). In addition, expenditures on social protection,
education, and health are widely regarded as investments that enhance
human capital and productivity (Sen, 1999).
On the other hand, neoclassical and public choice theories emphasize
the potential inefficiencies of welfare systems. High levels of social
expenditures may distort labor markets by weakening work incentives,
reducing savings rates, and generating fiscal burdens that can crowd out
private sector investment (Friedman, 1962; Barro, 2013). From this
perspective, excessive redistribution of resources to disadvantaged groups
may weaken economic efficiency and reduce long term growth potential.
Endogenous growth theory offers a different interpretation, arguing that the
impact of welfare policies on economic growth depends largely on whether
such policies are designed to foster human capital development or merely
provides income transfers without enhancing productivity (Romer, 1990).
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
6
Empirical Evidence from Advanced Economies
Empirical studies in advanced economies offer mixed findings. Alesina
and Rodrik (1994) found that redistributive policies may slow economic
growth when financed through distortionary taxation, whereas Atkinson
(2015) argued that progressive welfare systems can coexist with strong
economic performance when designed efficiently. Lindert (2004) identified
the so-called “free lunch” paradox, according to which certain forms of
social spending—such as education and health expenditures—may
enhance productivity and economic growth rather than hinder them. More
recent analysis by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD, 2019) suggests that reducing inequality through
well-targeted social benefits can support inclusive growth.
Welfare and Macroeconomic Stability in Transitional
Economies
In transitional and post-Soviet economies, the relationship between
welfare and economic growth is more complex. Kornai (1992) highlighted
the fiscal pressures associated with transforming socialist welfare systems
under market conditions, while Commander and Coricelli (1995)
emphasized the social costs of reform-induced unemployment. Empirical
studies on Russia and neighboring countries indicate that social protection
plays a crucial role in mitigating poverty and stabilizing consumption during
periods of economic shocks (Cook, 2010; Popova & Murphy, 2019).
However, fiscal constraints often limit the effectiveness of social
spending. Gatskova and Lehmann (2016) found that targeted benefits in
Russia improved income security without discouraging labor force
participation, whereas untargeted transfers tended to reinforce
dependency. Similarly, Bogomolova et al. (2021) observed that the
expansion of pensions and family allowances reduced inequality, albeit at
the expense of rising fiscal deficits.
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
7
Research Gap
While a substantial body of research examines the relationship
between welfare and economic in advanced and developing economies,
comparative empirical analysis across post-Soviet countries remains
limited. Much of the existing literature focuses on single-country case
studies—most often Russia—or on specific social programs rather than on
the broader macroeconomic implications of welfare systems. In addition,
relatively few studies employ dynamic econometric models capable of
accounting for feedback effects between economic growth and social
spending. This study seeks to address these gaps by providing cross-
country panel evidence and examining both the short- and long-term
effects of expanding social benefit.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
The economic effects of social benefits can be understood through
three complementary theoretical perspectives: the Keynesian demand-
side mechanism, the human-capital channel on the supply-side, and the
constraint of fiscal sustainability.
Keynesian Demand-Side Mechanism
According to Keynesian macroeconomics, public transfers stabilize
aggregate demand by supporting household consumption during
downturns (Keynes, 1936; Blanchard & Perotti, 2002). In post-Soviet
economies—where private credit markets are underdeveloped and income
volatility remains high—social benefits can play an important counter-
cyclical role. Increased transfer payments raise disposable income among
liquidity-constrained households, thereby stimulating consumption and
mitigating recessionary pressures (Auerbach & Feenberg, 2000).
Mathematically, aggregate output (Yt) can be expressed as:
Yt = Ct + It + Gt + (Xt - Mt)
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
8
where
Ct = C0 + c(Yt - Tt + Bt
Here, (Bt) represents social benefit payments, and
𝑑𝑌
!
𝑑𝐵!
> 0
provided that the marginal propensity to consume (c) exceeds the
marginal propensity to import. Under these conditions, moderate social
transfers are expected to increase short-run output and employment.
Supply-Side and Human-Capital Channel
Long-run effects depend on the extent to which social benefits
influence productivity and labor supply. Social programs that finance
education, healthcare, and childcare services can enhance human capital
accumulation, thereby increasing potential output (Becker, 1964; Sen,
1999). Conversely, excessively generous or poorly targeted transfers may
weaken work incentives or encourage labor informality (Friedman, 1962;
Heckman, 2011).
Post-Soviet economies exhibit considerable variation in institutional
quality; countries with effective targeting mechanisms and active-labor-
market programs are more likely to realize the positive supply-side effects
of welfare policies (Gatskova & Lehmann, 2016).
Fiscal Sustainability Constraint
Social benefit expansion must be financed through taxation or
borrowing. The government’s intertemporal budget constraint implies that
persistent deficits may generate inflationary pressures or crowd out private
investment (Barro, 2013; Tanzi & Schuknecht, 2000). Consequently, the
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
9
macroeconomic impact of welfare programs depends critically on fiscal
discipline and the composition of public expenditure.
Hypotheses
Drawing on the theoretical considerations outlined above, this study
formulates the following testable hypotheses:
H1: Moderate increases in social benefit expenditures are associated
with higher GDP growth in post-Soviet economies.
H2: The expansion of social benefits reduces income inequality, as
measured by the Gini coefficient.
H3: Excessive welfare expansion financed through fiscal deficits
increase inflationary pressures and public debt levels.
H4: The strength of these relationships varies according to
institutional quality and the efficiency of benefit targeting.
Data and Methodology
Data Sources and Coverage
The empirical analysis is based on an unbalanced panel of 12 post-
Soviet countries—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and
Uzbekistan—covering the period from 2000–2023.
Primary data sources include:
• The World Bank (World Development Indicators, 2024) for GDP
growth, inflation, and fiscal indicators.
• The International Monetary fund Government Finance Statistics
database for social expenditure as a share of GDP.
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
10
• The United Nations Development Program and the World Income
Inequality Database for Gini coefficients.
• National statistical agencies for control variables such as
population, unemployment, and investment rates.
All monetary variables are expressed in constant 2015 U.S. dollars to
remove the effects of inflation.
Variable Definition
Category
Variable
Symbol
Description
Dependent
variables
Economic growth
GDPGit
Annual GDP growth rate
(%)
Inequality
GINIit
Gini coefficient
(0–100)
Inflation
INFit
Consumer price index
annual change (%)
Key independent
variable
Social benefit
expenditure
SBEit
Government social
spending (% of GDP)
Fiscal control
Fiscal balance
DEFit
Budget deficit
(% of GDP)
Structural
controls
Investment rate
INVit
Gross capital formation (%
of GDP)
Trade openness
OPENit
(Exports + Imports)/GDP
Human capital
HCit
Education index (UNDP)
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
11
Econometric Model Specification
The baseline fixed-effects model for country i in year t is:
𝐺𝐷𝑃𝐺"! = 𝛼"+ 𝛽#𝑆𝐵𝐸"! + 𝛽$𝑆𝐵𝐸"!
$+ 𝛽%𝐼𝑁𝑉
"! + 𝛽&𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑁"! + 𝛽'𝐷𝐸𝐹"!
+ 𝜇!+ 𝜀"!
6
where 𝛼" captures unobserved country-specific effects and 𝜇! represents
year fixed effects controlling for global shocks (e.g., 2008 crisis and the
COVID-19 pandemic). The squared term 𝑆𝐵𝐸"!
$ is included to test for
potential non-linear (inverted-U) relationships between social spending
and economic growth.
To address potential endogeneity—given that economic growth may
itself influence welfare spending—the study employs the -Bond dynamic
GMM estimator:
𝐺𝐷𝑃𝐺"! =𝛾𝐺𝐷𝑃𝐺"!(# + 𝛽#𝑆𝐵𝐸"! + 𝛽$𝐷𝐸𝐹"! + 𝛽%𝐼𝑁𝑉
"! + 𝜂"+ 𝜈"!
Lagged levels and differences in the regressors are used as instruments,
thereby ensuring consistent estimates even in the presence of reverse
causality (Arellano & Bond, 1991).
Parallel models are estimated using inequality and inflation as
dependent variables in order to test hypotheses H2 and H3.
Estimation Procedure
1. Stationarity Tests: Levin–Lin–Chu and Im–Pesaran–Shin panel
unit-root tests are employed to verify the stationary of the
variables.
2. Diagnostic Tests: The Breusch–Pagan Lagrange Multiplier (LM)
test and the Hausman tests are used to determine the appropriate
specification between random-effects and fixed-effects models.
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
12
3. Endogeneity Checks: The Hansen J-test and the Arellano-Bond
AR(2) test are conducted to assess the validity of the instruments
used in the GMM estimations.
4. Robustness Checks: Alternative model specifications—including
lagged social spending variables and the exclusion of oil-exporting
countries (Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan)—are estimated to verify
the robustness of the results.
Expected Signs
Variable
Expected Sign (GDPG)
Rationale
𝑆𝐵𝐸₍ᵢₜ₎
+
Stimulates demand and human
capital
𝑆𝐵𝐸₍ᵢₜ₎²
–
Diminishing returns; fiscal
crowding-out
𝐷𝐸𝐹₍ᵢₜ₎
–
Fiscal imbalances hinder growth
𝐼𝑁𝑉
₍ᵢₜ₎
+
Capital accumulation effect
𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑁₍ᵢₜ₎
+
Trade-led growth hypothesis
Empirical Results and Discussion
Descriptive Statistics
Average social benefit expenditure across the sample rose from 9.3 %
of GDP during the 2000–2004 period to 17.5 % in 2019–2023. Average GDP
growth reached 4.1 %, although considerable heterogeneity existed across
countries, with rapid growth in oil-exporting economies and slower
recovery in smaller states. Over the same period, the average Gini
coefficient declined modestly from 38.5 to 34.2, suggesting a moderate
reduction in income inequality.
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
13
Baseline Fixed-Effects Estimates
Regression results (Table 1) indicate that 𝛽#, corresponding to social
benefit expenditure, is positive and statistically significant at the 1 % level,
thereby supporting H1. The squared term, 𝛽$, is negative and statistically
significant, suggesting the presence of an inverted-U relationship: the
positive effects of social spending on economic growth persist up to
approximately 15 % of GDP, after which marginal returns begin to decline.
Investment and trade openness exhibit the expected positive effects on
growth, whereas fiscal deficits are negatively associated with economic
performance.
Dynamic GMM Estimates
Dynamic models specifications corroborate these findings. The
coefficient on the lagged GDP growth term (𝛾 ≈ 0.42) confirms the
presence of persistent effects. Social benefits remain positively associated
with economic growth and statistically significant at the 5% level (𝑝 <
0.05). In addition, diagnostic tests reveal no evidence of second-order serial
correlation (AR(2), 𝑝 > 0.10) and confirm the validity of the instruments
used in the GMM estimations (Hansen test, 𝑝 = 0.28).
Effects on Inequality and Inflation
Estimations for the Gini coefficient indicate that social benefits
significantly reduce inequality, with an estimated elasticity of –0.18,
thereby supporting H2. However, high levels of social spending financed
through fiscal deficits are associated with rising inflation (elasticity ≈ 0.12),
supporting H3.
Institutional Moderation
Interaction terms between social spending and indices of institutional
quality indicate that social benefits are more growth-enhancing and less
inflationary in countries characterized by transparent fiscal management
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
14
and low levels of corruption (Kaufmann et al., 2022). This finding provide
support for H4.
Policy Discussion
The empirical evidence suggests that post-Soviet governments should
pursue a balanced expansion of welfare systems in which social programs
remain fiscally sustainable, effectively targeted, and supportive of
productivity growth. Three main policy implications emerge from the
analysis:
1. Targeting Efficiency: Social benefits directed toward low-income
households generate stronger demand multipliers and greater
reductions in inequality without imposing excessive fiscal costs.
2. Complementary Reforms: Investments in labor-market activation
policies, vocational training, and childcare strengthens the supply-
side effect of welfare programs.
3. Fiscal Prudence: The implementation of fiscal rules aimed at
limiting structural deficits can help prevent welfare-induced
macroeconomic instability.
Overall, welfare systems designed to strengthen human capital rather
than foster dependency may reconcile the objectives of economic growth
and social equity in transition economies.
Conclusion
This study examined the macroeconomic consequences of the
expansion of social benefits in post-Soviet economies during the period
from 2000 to 2023. Empirical analysis based on panel fixed-effects models
and dynamic GMM estimators indicate that moderate welfare expansion
promotes economic growth and reduces income inequality, whereas
excessive spending financed through fiscal deficits generates inflationary
and fiscal pressures. The findings further support the existence of a non-
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
15
linear (inverted-U) relationship between social spending and economic
growth.
Policy implications emphasize the importance of institutional quality,
effective program targeting, and fiscal discipline. To achieve sustainable
welfare development, post-Soviet states must link social protection
policies to productive investment in education, healthcare, and
employment, thereby ensuring that social benefits function as drivers of
inclusive growth rather than fiscal burdens.
References
Alesina, A., & Rodrik, D. (1994). Distributive politics and economic
growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(2), 465–490.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2118470
Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel
data. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2297968
Atkinson, A. B. (2015). Inequality: What can be done? Harvard University
Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674287013
Auerbach, A. J., & Feenberg, D. (2000). The significance of federal taxes as
automatic stabilizers. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 37–56.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.37
Barro, R. J. (2013). Macroeconomics: A modern approach (2nd ed.).
Cengage.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. University of Chicago Press.
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
16
Blanchard, O., & Perotti, R. (2002). An empirical characterization of the
dynamic effects of changes in government spending and taxes on
output. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1329–1368.
https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302320935043
Bogomolova, T., Gatskova, K., & Lehmann, H. (2021). Social transfers and
fiscal sustainability in Russia. Post-Communist Economies, 33(6),
681–703.
Commander, S., & Coricelli, F. (1995). Unemployment, restructuring, and
the role of the state in Russia and Eastern Europe. Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-2988-X
Cook, L. J. (2010). Postcommunist welfare states: Reform politics in Russia
and Eastern Europe. Cornell University Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (2017). The three worlds of welfare
capitalism. Princeton University Press.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press.
Gatskova, K., & Lehmann, H. (2016). Labor market institutions and social
protection in transition economies. Comparative Economic Studies,
58(2), 274–297.
Heckman, J. J. (2011). The economics of inequality: The value of early
childhood education. American Educator, 35(1), 31–47.
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2022). Worldwide Governance
Indicators 2022. World Bank.
Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest, and
money. Macmillan.
TIEMPO & ECONOMÍA
Vol. 13 N.° 2 | Julio - Diciembre del 2026
17
Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies
of equality. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 661–687.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2657333
Lindert, P. H. (2004). Growing public: Social spending and economic growth
since the eighteenth century. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511510717
OECD. (2019). Inclusive growth in the 21st century. OECD Publishing.
Popova, D., & Murphy, A. (2019). Social policy and economic
transformation in post-Soviet states. Routledge.
Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of
Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S102. https://doi.org/10.1086/261725
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
Tanzi, V., & Schuknecht, L. (2000). Public spending in the 20th century: A
global perspective. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625800
World Bank. (2023). World development indicators
2023. https://data.worldbank.org