Reform,Growth, and Inequality in China*

This paper provides a survey of the literature on inequality in China – level, change, causes, and consequences. It attempts to answer six main questions. How much has inequality risen? What is its relation to poverty alleviation? What has happened to wealth inequality? What are the main dimensions of rising income inequality? The dimensions examined are: the rural–urban divide; urban labor market reform; regional divergence; rural–urban migration; and entrepreneurship, rent‐seeking, and corruption. Was it inevitable that inequality should rise so much? Does it matter that inequality has risen? Income distribution in China is bound up with both economic reform and economic growth. This paper concludes by considering the countervailing forces that will determine the path of inequality in future years.     

Market Integration and Economic Development: A Long-run Comparison

How much of China’s recent economic performance can be attributed to market‐oriented reforms introduced in the last two decades? A long‐run perspective may be important for understanding the process of economic development occurring today. This paper compares the integration of rice markets in China today and 270 years ago. In the eighteenth century, transport technology was non‐mechanized, but markets were close to being free. We distinguish local harvest and weather from aggregate sources of price variation in a historical sample and in a similarly constructed contemporary sample. Findings indicate the degree of market integration in the 1720s is a very good predictor of per capita income in the 1990s. Moreover, the current pattern of interregional income in China is strongly linked to persistent geographic factors that were already apparent several centuries ago, well before the enactment of modern reform programs.     

Intergenerational Mobility under Private vs. Public Education*

Intergenerational earnings mobility is analyzed in a model where human capital is produced using schooling and parental time. In steady states more mobile societies have less inequality, but in the short run higher mobility may result from an increase in inequality. Starting from the same inequality, mobility is higher under public than under private education. A rise in income shocks, for example due to increased returns to ability, or a switch from public to private schooling both increase inequality. However, increased shocks raise mobility in the short run and do not affect it in the long run, whereas an increased role for private schooling reduces mobility in both the short and long run. That these differences may help to identify the source of changes in inequality, and other real‐world implications, are illustrated in a brief discussion of time trends and cross‐country differences.     

中国农村收入流动分析

本文利用农业部1986—2001年间六省农村固定观察点数据,对农村家庭收入流动进行了经验分析,发现:第一,分析期内农户呈现出收入流动程度随时间先增大后逐渐稳定的趋势,这使得持久收入不均等程度显著小于年度不均等,1995年以后虽然有较大的年度收入不均等,但持久收入不均等较小;第二,分析期内农村收入流动始终大于同期城市收入流动;第三,在1986—1990年间,农民平均收入较高省份的收入流动程度较大,而在1995—2001年间,各省收入流动差异并不明显;第四,农民收入水平有条件收敛的趋势,同时,教育水平提高、外出打工,都对农民收入增长有显著的推进作用。     

Household Income Inequality and Income Mobility: Implications Towards Equalizing Longer-Term Incomes in India

This paper addresses three important questions. First, what are the trends, levels and sources of income inequality in India? Second, how have been the patterns of income mobility? And finally, exploring the relationship between income mobility and income inequality in the context of India. Results, based on recent India Human Development Survey (IHDS) longitudinal data, advocate that not only is income inequality very high, nonetheless, it has increased – mainly attributable to different income sources – in India. The paper also focused on whether or not this income mobility equalizes longer-term incomes. Results suggest income mobility has resulted in-albeit not robust- equalizing longer-term incomes. Thus, based on imperative findings, the paper suggests, the nature of longer-term well-being is crucial to designing policy interventions to effectively tackle inequality and in this context, economic mobility can be seen as an avenue to long-term equality.     

Income Mobility, Inequality and Social Welfare

It is often argued that an observation of rising annual income inequality need not have negative normative implications. The argument is that if there has been a sufficiently large simultaneous increase in mobility, the inequality of income measured over a longer time period can be lower despite the rise in annual inequality. In this paper, it is shown by example that if normative implications are drawn from a standard social welfare function, the set of circumstances put forward in the above argument are not sufficient to guarantee that social welfare will improve. The reason is that even though rising mobility does reduce longer term inequality, it also increases the variability of income profiles over time and the latter has a detrimental social welfare effect. Hence, there are two types of mobility: one which reduces inequality (regression to the mean), but another that increases inequality (relative movements uncorrelated with incomes). Further, if individuals' aversion to income variabiltiy is sufficiently larger than the social welfare judge's aversion to inequality, then an increase in mobility, no matter how large, cannot offset the negative normative effect of rising annual inequality.     

Changing Contours of Income Stratification and Decomposition of Income Inequality: Evidence from Recent Longitudinal Survey in India

The paper, based on India Human Development Survey (IHDS) data, tries to address the question- how unequal is India in terms of income distribution? Accordingly, the paper examines the trends, levels, sources and factors of income inequality in India between 2005 and 2012. Three important results stemmed from our analysis. First, in this paper we use Gini as a measure of inequality and find that income inequality in rural India has increased from 0.50 to 0.54 between 2005 and 2012, whereas, in urban India income inequality has increased from 0.48 to 0.49 during the same period. Next and most importantly, we decompose income inequality by income sources and find that amongst different sources of income inequality; the contribution of farm income in total inequality has decreased from 35 percent in 2005 to 21 percent in 2012 in rural India. On the other hand, the contribution of salaried income in total inequality has plummeted drastically from 65 percent in 2005 to 16 percent in 2012 in urban India. Finally, we use Theil’s T index from the class of Generalized Entropy (GE) inequality measures, while decomposing income by four most important factors; namely, place of residence, social, educational and occupational groups. It is irrespective of these factors; the relative share of within-group inequality is not only much higher than that of between-group inequality, also its share has increased between these two periods. Thus, our paper suggests that these mutually reinforcing inequalities, in the long run, if not addressed effectively, will create a hard-hitting division between the privileged and the rest in Indian society.

     

Income Mobility and Income Inequality in Rural China

The economic literature has argued for a long time that income mobility could attenuate the degree of cross-sectional inequality by offering people opportunities to improve their socio-economic position. Using the longitudinal data from the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS) from 1989 to 2011, we measure income mobility as the degree to which longer-term incomes are distributed more or less equally than yearly income. Five main results are emphasized. First, there is strong income mobility in rural China that partly offsets yearly income inequality. Second, income mobility has decreased since the 2000s, indicating that income distribution is becoming more rigid. Third, mobility is mainly associated with transitory income fluctuations, particularly in the two tails of the distribution. Fourth, income mobility has an equalizing effect on income distribution. Fifth, we show that non-agricultural income mobility has substantially increased over the period and that its equalizing nature has also recently increased. While the development of the non-agriculture sector in rural China was a crucial factor in explaining the increase in rural inequality until the mid-2000s, we suggest that the large-scale generalisation of such non-agricultural opportunities partly accounts for the decline in rural inequality observed since the mid-2000s.     

A COMPARISON OF DISTRIBUTIONS OF ANNUAL AND LIFETIME INCOME: SWEDEN AROUND 1970.

The concern with income distribution has always mainly existed because of a concern with individuals' economic welfare. In recent years, the question has arisen whether the distribution of annual income—the distribution most often studied—is the best proxy for the distribution of economic welfare. Other measures, such as lifetime income, have been proposed instead.
The paper starts with a discussion of how to define and measure the distribution of lifetime income. By using a simulation model, which partly consists of estimated functions and partly of tax functions taken directly from tax laws, distributions of lifetime income, variously defined, are then constructed. These distributions are compared with each other, and with distributions of annual income. The simulations indicate that the distribution of lifetime income is considerably less unequal than the distribution of annual income. Whether inheritances are included or not seems to be of no importance for the inequality of lifetime income. If, on the other hand, we include the value of leisure time in lifetime income, inequality increases by about 10–15 percent. Distributions of income after tax have Gini coefficients which are approximately 25 percent less than the Ginis for the before-tax distributions. We thus find that the picture of inequality we get is very much dependent on which income concept we use.     

INEQUALITY OF WAGE RATES,EARNINGS AND FAMILY INCOME IN THE UNITED STATES, 1975–2002

This paper analyzes distributional changes over the last quarter of the twentieth century. We focus on four distinct distributions: the distribution of hourly wage rates, the distribution of annual earnings of individuals, the distribution of annual earnings of families, and the distribution of total family income adjusted for family size. Both male wage rate inequality and family income inequality accelerated during the early 1980s, increased at a slower rate through the early 1990s and then stabilized at a high level through the early 2000s. The similarity in the timing of changes in these two distributions has been used as evidence that increased family income inequality primarily reflects increased inequality of wage rates. We show that other important factors were also at work.     

Social mobility and inequality in urban China: understanding the role of intergenerational transmission of education

China’s rapid economic growth since the late 1980s has been accompanied by great economic and social transformations, which have resulted in a sharp increase in income inequality. This article contributes to the literature of social mobility in China by examining the impact of parental education on the education of their children. Using the 1990 and 2000 Chinese Population Censuses, we employ nonparametric estimation strategies to provide a systematic investigation of intergenerational transmission of education in urban China. We find evidence of increasing parents–children educational correlations. Our results raise concerns regarding economic inequality in urban China as high intergenerational persistence of education is expected to be a barrier to equal opportunities in children’s education attainments and their future labour market outcomes.     

Income inequality in China: causes and policy responses

The phenomenal economic growth in China has been accompanied by a rapid increase in income inequality. This paper reviews the historical trends and patterns of income inequality in China, discusses the potential causes underlying rising income inequality, and applies the functional distribution of income approach in understanding China’s income inequality. This analytical approach highlights how rising return to capital relative to wage incomes can be an important source for increasing income inequality in China. The paper provides the evidence which shows that the rapid economic growth in China has been relying on a model that pays high returns to various kinds of capital including financial capital and real estate, while the ownership of capital is very unequal. This finding prompts us to rethink about the causes of China’s income inequality and to formulate appropriate policies based on the new way of understanding this pressing issue of income distribution in China.     

Twenty Years of Rising Inequality in U.S. Lifetime Labour Income Values

In this paper we study the evolution of lifetime labour income inequality by constructing present value life cycle measures that incorporate both earnings and employment risk. We find that, even though lifetime income inequality is 40% less than earnings inequality, the total increase in lifetime income inequality over the past 20 years is the same as earnings inequality. While the total increase is the same, the pathways there differ with earnings inequality experiencing a steady increase and lifetime income inequality increasing in spurts particularly in the latter half of the 1990s. Finally, we find the changes in lifetime income inequality are primarily driven by changes in earnings mobility and changes in the earnings distribution itself, changes in employment risk and the composition of the sample, such as the shift toward attaining more education and the ageing population, do not play a large role.     

LABOR EARNINGS AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME MOBILITY IN REUNIFIED GERMANY: A COMPARISON OF THE EASTERN AND WESTERN STATES

Using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, we compare income mobility of persons from the eastern and western states of Germany between 1990 and 1995. We consider income mobility between consecutive years and between the first and the final year of this time period. We find that gross individual labor income mobility was much higher in the east than in the west during the first years after reunification, but that this difference has become much smaller until 1995. Changing to measures that reflect economic well-being more accurately, we observe that gross equivalent labor income mobility and net equivalent income mobility initially were also much higher in the eastern states than in the western states, but converged over time as well. This convergence has been particularly strong for net equivalent income mobility, suggesting that the social protection system has greatly reduced mobility risks associated with the transformation process in the eastern states of Germany.     

Financialization of the Economy and Income Inequality in China

The income gap between the financial sector and other sectors has been widening since the mid-1990s. Why do financiers in China earn more than others? We analyze this issue against the background of financialization of the economy. The year 1993 was a watershed year, in which China began the process of rapid financialization. Since 1993, the financial sector has become increasingly powerful, overshadowing other sectors. Evidence shows that the high income levels that exist in the financial sector are related to this process of financialization in China. Financialization influences income distribution in China through two channels: money issuance and liquidation of social capital. The labor market equilibrium of the financial sector and wage level determination are not naturally formed but constructed. The increasing income inequality between the financial sector and other sectors is a consequence of financialization of the economy in China.     

U.S. INCOME MOBILITY IN THE SEVENTIES AND EIGHTIES

This paper focuses on three questions: (1) Was mobility within the income distribution in the 1980s different from the 1970s? (2) Is there as much mobility when some measure of permanent income is used? and (3) Does movement within the income distribution imply real income changes'? Income mobility between 1969 and 1976, and between 1979 and 1986 is examined using real family income from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. The results show that there is considerable movement within the income distribution when both annual and permanent income is used. This movement, however is generally not very great in either direction.     

Mobility of Top Incomes in Germany

I analyze German top income mobility using micro‐level panel data of personal income tax returns which are highly representative for top income taxpayers for the years 2001–06. Top income mobility is assessed in three dimensions: (i) persistence in top income fractiles and its stability over time, (ii) measures of individual mobility that are not dependent on the fractile size: the degree of mobility between equally sized groups and mobility in ranks, and (iii) mobility's impact on top income shares. Persistence in top income fractiles is comparatively high and fairly stable across the analyzed period. Top income recipients are less prone to downward mobility and see less variation in annual ranks than less rich tax units. Mobility's impact on income concentration is moderate. The top percentile's share is reduced by roughly 5 percent over six years.     

The relationship between income inequality and aggregate saving: an empirical analysis using cross-country panel data

If the rich save more than the poor, an increase in income inequality raises aggregate saving. We investigate whether income inequality is positively related to aggregate saving ratio by estimating a fixed-effect model based on a panel data of 48 countries for the period 1991–2010. We find evidence that aggregate saving ratio increases with income inequality using various inequality measures. In particular, the effect of income distribution on saving is greater and statistically more significant with in financially developed, rich and OECD countries. It suggests that the rich save much more than the poor under advanced financial system and in a rich country. We also find that the relationship between income inequality and saving ratio is closer in the 2000s than the 1990s. This finding may result from financial development and the high income level in the 2000s.     

What are the Policy Lessons from Sweden? On the Rise,Fall and Revival of a Capitalist Welfare State

This paper discusses a number of questions with regard to Sweden's economic and political development:

? How did Sweden become rich?

? What explains Sweden's high level of income equality?

? What were the causes of Sweden's problems from 1970 to 1995?

? How is it possible that Sweden, since the crisis of the early 1990s, is growing faster than most EU countries despite its high taxes and generous welfare state?

These questions are analysed using recent insights from institutional economics, as well as studies of inequality and economic growth. The main conclusion is that there is little, if any, Swedish exceptionalism: Sweden became rich because of well-functioning capitalist institutions, and inequality was low before the expansion of the welfare state. The recent favourable growth record of Sweden, including the period of financial stress (2008–10), is a likely outcome of a number of far-reaching structural reforms implemented in the 1980s and 1990s.     

A Constructivist Learning Approach to Income Inequality, Poverty and the “American Dream”

In the constructivist approach to economic education, an understanding of economic reality is built on the student’s own economic experiences. The process results in active and engaged learning. This paper reports on in-class experiments aimed at developing a learning module focused on income inequality and poverty. How much income is required to maintain a modest, middle income, poverty line or “American Dream” living standard?