Also, Birdsall and Londono (1997) claimed that, given asset inequality, income inequality does not improve growth outcomes (see World Bank, 2009, p. 6). On the other hand, Dollar and Kraay (2004, originally published in 2002) famously suggested that growth is, on average, distribution-neutral: “growth-enhancing policies and institutions tend to benefit the poor—and everyone else in society—equi-propordonately” (p. 30, for a similar claim, see Ravallion and Chen, 1997). Consequently, attempts to shift the income distribution are largely a diversion, and conventional policies (“private property rights, stability, and openness”, p. 57) lead to optimal outcomes both for the rich and for the poor. Although Dollar and Kraay’s and Raos arguments depart from very different ends of the policy spectrum, they suggest that significant shifts in distribution must be pursued deliberately through public policy, and that a more equal distribution of income does not necessarily impair growth performance.