In countries where shocks from world markets predictably will bring severe social costs, country analysts and international agencies advising them should actively seek options to reduce vulnerability to risk in their design of growth strategies. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on diversification in countries that depend on one or a few exports prone to sharp price fluctuations. Perhaps the speed and sequencing of import liberalization should take greater account of potential social costs. More broadly, just as economic analysts and policymakers have begun to place more emphasis on the distribution, and not simply the speed of economic growth, they should now also weigh the implications of proposed policies and strategies for reducing the risks of shock. It was once widely assumed that rapid growth and reduced inequality were incompatible, at least for long periods in a country's development.
More recent research suggests that marked inequality is often an obstacle to growth.
Instead of a conflict between growth and equity, the two goals can be complementary. A similar point may apply regarding growth and avoiding shock. Somewhat lower but steady growth may be preferable to rapid but interrupted growth, not only because there is less pain along the way, but also because cumulative growth is greater. The global financial crisis has spurred a rethinking of conventional wisdom on aspects of national and international financial management. Controls on short-run capital flows, for instance, are no longer viewed as always undesirable.