بررسی تأثیر عدم قطعیت فناوری، نوآوری و جهانی سازی بر نابرابری دهک‌های درآمدی در ایران : کاربرد مدل رگرسیون فازی

نوع مقاله : مورد کاوی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار اقتصاد، دانشکده اقتصاد و علوم اداری، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان، زاهدان، ایران

2 دانش آموخته دکتری اقتصاد بخش عمومی، دانشکده اقتصاد و علوم اداری، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان، زاهدان، ایران.

چکیده

نابرابری درآمدی از چالش‌های اساسی اقتصاد ایران است که توزیع ناعادلانة ثروت و فرصت‌ها را در پی دارد. بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر این نابرابری، به‌ویژه در دهک‌های مختلف درآمدی، برای طراحی سیاست‌های کارآمد ضروری است. این پژوهش با هدف تحلیل تأثیر عدم قطعیت فنّاوری و نوآوری و جهانی‌سازی بر نابرابری درآمدی در ایران انجام شده است. داده‌های لازم به‌صورت سالانه از سال ۱۳۸۷ تا ۱۴۰۰ از مرکز آمار ایران، کنفرانس تجارت و توسعة سازمان ملل (آنکتاد) و مؤسسة تحقیقاتی KOF جمع‌آوری شد. برای برآورد روابط بین متغیرها از روش رگرسیون فازی با استفاده از نرم‌افزار MATLAB بهره گرفته شد. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که فنّاوری و نوآوری در دهک‌های پایین درآمدی (۱ تا ۴) بیشترین تأثیر را بر کاهش نابرابری دارد، درحالی‌که متغیرهایی مانند فنّاوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات و مهارت‌های فنّاوری اثرگذاری کمتری داشته‌اند. در دهک‌های میانی (۵ تا ۸)، فنّاوری و نوآوری همچنان نقش اصلی را ایفا می‌کند، اما جهانی‌سازی تجاری کم‌اثرترین عامل است. در دهک‌های بالای درآمدی (۹ و ۱۰)، علاوه‌بر فنّاوری و نوآوری، دسترسی به منابع مالی و جهانی‌سازی اقتصادی نیز تأثیر قابل‌توجهی در کاهش نابرابری دارند. همچنین، مشخص شد که جهانی‌سازی اقتصادی در دهک‌های پایین اثر ناچیزی دارد، اما در دهک دهم به اوج تأثیر خود می‌رسد. در مقابل، فنّاوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات در تمام دهک‌ها کمترین نقش را در کاهش نابرابری داشته است. این مطالعه پیشنهاد می‌کند که سیاست‌گذاران برای کاهش نابرابری، برنامه‌های توسعة فنّاوری و نوآوری را در دهک‌های پایین در اولویت قرار دهند، در دهک‌های میانی بر تقویت نهادهای حامی فنّاوری تمرکز کنند و در دهک‌های بالا، ترکیب سیاست‌های فنّاورانه با تسهیل دسترسی به منابع مالی و پیوندهای جهانی را مدنظر قرار دهند. نتایج این پژوهش همچنین حاکی از آن است که سیاست‌های یکسان‌سازی فنّاوری بدون توجه به تفاوت‌های ساختاری بین دهک‌های درآمدی ممکن است اثربخشی محدودی داشته باشد. بنابراین، اتخاذ رویکردهای هدفمند و اختصاصی برای هر گروه درآمدی، ضروری به نظر می‌رسد. علاوه‌براین، تقویت نظام آموزشی و مهارت‌آموزی متناسب با نیازهای بازار کار می‌تواند به کاهش شکاف دیجیتالی و افزایش بهره‌وری در دهک‌های کم‌درآمد کمک کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating the Impact of Uncertainty in Technology, Innovation, and Globalization on Income Decile Inequality in Iran: Fuzzy Regression Approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • Reza Ashraf Ganjoei 1
  • Masoud Cheshmaghil 2
1 Assistant Professor of Economics. Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences.University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran
2 PhD in Public Sector Economics, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran
چکیده [English]

Income inequality remains a critical socioeconomic challenge in Iran. This study examines how technological advancement and globalization interact to shape income distribution within Iran's unique context of sanctions, oil dependence, and complex regulations. It investigates technological innovation's labor market uncertainties, the multidimensional impacts of globalization, and how these factors influence households across the entire income spectrum. Centering on Iran's informal sector, hydrocarbon economy, and youth demographic, the analysis challenges assumptions about the inherently equalizing potential of these forces.
Methodologically, annual time-series data (2008–2021) were gathered from the Iranian Statistical Center, UNCTAD, and the KOF Institute. Technological innovation was measured via R&D expenditure, patents, and high-tech exports; ICT penetration via connectivity stats; and globalization via its economic, social, and political dimensions. The study employs fuzzy regression modeling, implemented in MATLAB, to handle volatility and non-linearities. Households were stratified into ten income deciles, grouped into the vulnerable class (1–4), the middle stratum (5–8), and the economic elite (9–10).
Findings reveal nuanced patterns. For vulnerable households (deciles 1–4), technological innovation shows equalizing potential only when contextually appropriate. Agricultural technologies demonstrated three to five times greater poverty reduction impact than manufacturing innovations. Conversely, digital transformation delivered disappointing results; despite high mobile penetration, ICT's inequality reduction coefficient was negligible (0.12), indicating "empty connectivity" without complementary infrastructure and literacy. Productive low-tech innovations outperformed sophisticated digital solutions. Globalization's impact was paradoxical: economic globalization showed near-zero correlation with improved outcomes, while social globalization exhibited a modest positive effect.
Within the middle stratum (deciles 5–8), technological adoption raises incomes but exacerbates intra-group inequality, with automation creating clear winners and losers. The impact of trade globalization turned negative after sanctions intensified post-2012. Skill-biased technical change partially offset Gini coefficient reductions. This group's reliance on domestic innovation ecosystems became a crucial stabilizing factor during external shocks.
For the economic elite (deciles 9–10), technology and globalization act synergistically to enhance wealth accumulation. Financial globalization enables technology arbitrage, and global knowledge networks complement domestic R&D. For this group, digital tools show a strong positive correlation with wealth accumulation. The study identifies an inverted U-curve relationship: basic technologies reduce disparity, whereas advanced technologies like AI initially widen the gap until institutional adaptations occur.
Cross-cutting insights emerge. First, access to finance doubles the inequality-reduction effects of technology for the middle deciles. Second, policy sequencing is critical; globalization's benefits materialize only after a foundational technological capacity is achieved. Third, sectoral specificities dominate, with agricultural technology showing four times more pro-poor impact than service-sector innovations.
The study concludes that context-aware, sequenced policy packages are essential. A three-tiered set of recommendations is proposed. For low-income groups, focus on foundation-building: prioritizing appropriate, often low-tech solutions, implementing hybrid technology-social protection programs, and developing intermediate technologies. For the middle class, enhance productivity through technology-upgrading funds for SMEs, establishing sanction-resistant innovation networks, and reforming technical education. For high-income groups, foster inclusive globalization by linking elite privileges to developmental conditionalities, channeling remittances into technology funds, and promoting dual-use technologies. A macro-level "technological readiness index for inequality reduction" is proposed to guide policy. This framework offers a pragmatic roadmap for fostering equitable outcomes in Iran and similar economies.
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Technology
  • Innovation
  • Globalization
  • Uncertainty
  • Inequality
Acemoglu, D., & Autor, D. H. (2011). Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. In D. Card & O. Ashenfelter (Eds.) , Handbook of labor economics (pp. 1043-1171). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Akadiri, S. S. & Adebayo, T. S. (2022). Asymmetric nexus among financial globalization, non-renewable energy, renewable energy use, economic growth, and carbon emissions: Impact on environmental sustainability targets in India. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(11), 16311-16323. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-16849-0
Alesina, A., & Perotti, R. (1996). Income distribution, political instability, and investment. European Economic Review, 40(6), 1203-1228. DOI: 10.1016/0014-2921(95)00030-5
Ali, E. B., Shayanmehr, S., Radmehr, R., Amfo, B., Awuni, J. A., Gyamfi, B. A., & Agbozo, E. (2023). Exploring the impact of economic growth on environmental pollution in South American countries: How does renewable energy and globalization matter?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(6), 15505-15522. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-23177-4
Amani, R., & Ahmadzadeh, K. (2022). Investigating the Impact of Technology, Innovation and Globalization on Income Inequality. Journal of Economic Research (Tahghighat-E-Eghtesadi)57(2), 221-257. (Persian) DOI: 10.22059/jte.2023.348637.1008720
Asgari, H., Moridian, A., & Havasbeigi, F. (2024). The impact of economic complexity on income inequality with emphasis on the role of Human Development Index in Iran's economy with ARDL Bootstrap approach. Journal of Development & Capital/Majallah-i tusiah & Sarmāyah9(2), 35-56. (Persian) DOI: 10.22103/jdc.2022.18921.1197
Ashraf Ganjoui, R., Akbari Fard, H., Horri, H. R., & Machin Chi, M. A. (2022). Application of Fuzzy Regression to study the effective factors of Iran's economic growth with emphasis on foreign direct investment and banking. Journal of Economic Research (Tahghighat-E-Eghtesadi), 56(4), 637-672. (Persian) DOI: 10.22059/jte.2022.331438.1008554
Autor, D., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279-1333. DOI:10.1162/003355303322552801
Berman, E., Bound, J., & Machin, S. (1998). Implications of skill-biased technological change: International evidence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(4), 1245-1279. DOI:10.1162/003355398555892
Çelik, O., & Sayın, F. (2025). The technology, innovation, and income inequality nexus: An investigation on G7 countries. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 38(1), 322-344. DOI: 10.1080/13511610.2022.2092077
Chiffi, D., Moroni, S., & Zanetti, L. (2022). Types of technological innovation in the face of uncertainty. Philosophy & Technology, 35(4), 94. DOI:10.1007/s13347-022-00587-3
Chu, L. K., & Hoang, D. P. (2020). How does economic complexity influence income inequality? New evidence from international data. Economic Analysis and Policy68, 44-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.eap.2020.08.004
Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2004). Trade, growth, and poverty. The Economic Journal, 114(493), 22-49. DOI: 10.1111/j.0013-0133.2004.00186.x
Harrison, A. (2007). Globalization and poverty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hasanvand, A., Karimi, M. Sh., Fallahati, A., & Khanzadi, A. (2022). The effect of economic complexity on income inequality in selected developing countries: A dynamic panel approach. Financial Economics, 16(1), 193-214. (Persian)  DOI: 10.30495/fed.2022.691048
Jalayee, S. A., & Sattari, O. (2012). The survey of and forecasting the effect of globalization on urban income distribution in Iran using artificial neural network. Economic Growth and Development Research1(4), 144-117. (Persian)
Khanzadi, A., Tavassoli-Nia, A., Behnia, A., & Soltani, M. (2023). Investigating the impact of economic complexity on income inequality in Iran. Journal of Development and Capital, 7(2), 3-39. (Persian) DOI: 10.22103/jdc.2022.18973.1203
Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.
Le Caous, E., & Huarng, F. (2020). Economic complexity and the mediating effects of income inequality: Reaching sustainable development in developing countries. Sustainability12(5), 2089. DOI: 10.3390/su12052089
Lee, C.C., & Wang, E.Z. (2021). Economic complexity and income inequality: Does country risk matter? Social Indicators Research, 154(1), 35-60. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-020-02543-0
Lewis, W. A. (1954). Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour. The Manchester School, 22, 139-191.
Mirbaluchzehi, S., Zamanian, G., Hossein Abadi, Z., & Ashraf Ganjoei, R. (2024). Investigating factors affecting the trade of cultural and artistic goods, a case study: Selected OPEC countries (Using fuzzy regression). Journal of Econometric Modelling9(2), 161-193. (Persian) DOI: 10.22075/jem.2024.32956.1904
Najafi, Z. (2025). Investigating the Most Important Factors Affecting Income Inequality Among Selected Countries. Governance and Development, 5(1), 157-183. (Persian) DOI: 10.22111/jipaa.2025.470050.1181
Shahabadi, A., & Sarigol, S. (2013). A comparative study of the impact of innovation on income inequality in OPEC and selected developed countries. Technology Growth, Specialized Quarterly of Parks and Growth Centers, 9(35), 9-14. (Persian)
Shahabadi, A., Kheshtmal Nasrani, M., & Moradi, A. (2019). The impact of knowledge components on global wealth inequality. Scientific-Research Quarterly of Planning and Budgeting, 24(4), 75-96. (Persian) DOI:  20.1001.1.22519092.1398.24.4.5.0
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today's divided society endangers our future. New York City: W. W. Norton & Company.
Tabash, M. I., Elsantil, Y., Hamadi, A. & Drachal, K. (2024). Globalization and income inequality in developing economies: A comprehensive analysis. Economies, 12(1), 1-16. DOI: 10.3390/economies12010023
Tanaka, H., Uejima, S., & Asai, K. (1982). Linear regression analysis with Fuzzy Model. IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 12, 903-907. DOI: 10.1109/TSMC.1982.4308925
Tica, J., Globan, T., & Arčabić, V. (2022). Managing the impact of globalization and technology on inequality. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35(1), 1035-1060. DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2021.1952466