rather than income inequality as the key factor hindering growth, aggregate evidence should have been sought in cross-country comparisons using some measure of the inequality of opportunity and growth rates. However, as will be shown later, such an objective is still beyond the present limits of empirical analysis. On the policy side, the main message of the WDR 2006 can be summarized by the following quotes from the Overview of the report: “Public action should focus on the distributions of assets, economic opportunities, and political voice, rather than directly on inequality in incomes.” (p. 3). (The report) “presents evidence that the inequality of opportunity is inimi- cal to sustainable development and poverty reduction (p. 3) (It derives) policy implications that center on the broad concept of level- ing the playing field – both politically and economically (p. 3) “It makes the case for investing in people, expanding access to justice, land, and infrastructure, and promoting fairness in markets (p. 4) The first two quotes convey the idea that it is through the inequality of opportunity that the inequality of income can indirectly be corrected, and that it is mostly through opportunities that inequality has a negative impact on economic growth and poverty reduction. Hence, the recommendation follows in the last two quotes to level the playing field and to guarantee equal access to education of equal quality, credit, and infrastructure for all citizens. This equalizing of opportunities also had to address the economic and political institutions and the danger that they would be captured by a predatory elite. This is how politically must be interpreted in message (iii). Beyond these strong general principles, policy experiences in various parts of the world to level the playing field were explored. Recommendations then fell into three categories (i) policies aimed at tilting the accumulation of human capital or infrastructure or the development of credit towards those groups in the population that had limited access to them (ii) policies intended to correct failures in the functioning of some key markets, such as land, labor, housing, or finance, which are responsible for unequal opportunities and slow growth and (iii) policies that can make institutions, including justice and participation in public decision making, efficient and receptive to the interests of the least favored citizens. The general message of the report meant a clear inflexion of standard macro-oriented development policies towards opportunity-poor people. It was well received and became rather consensual. However, at the same time, it did not really break with the modus operandi of bilateral of multilateral development agencies, despite its intent to deal with inequality, an issue that was most often ignored by these agencies. This was essentially because it did not recommend redistribution policies that would directly diminish income inequality. Instead, it insisted upon policies that would do so indirectly through a process of accumulation directed towards the poor and the correction of market failures that would also benefit aggregate growth. However, somehow, the report has not been explicit enough about the fact that equalizing opportunities also required some substantial income redistribu- tion.