Factor Components of Inequality: A Cross‐Country Study

This paper uses data from the Luxembourg Income Study to examine some of the forces that have driven changes in household income inequality over the last three decades of the twentieth century. We decompose inequality for six countries (Canada, Germany, Norway, Sweden, the U.K., and the U.S.) into the three sources of market income (earnings, property income, and income from self‐employment) and taxes and transfers. Our findings indicate that although changes in the distribution of earnings are an important force behind recent trends, they are not the only one. Greater earnings dispersion has in some cases been accompanied by a reduction in the share of earnings which dampened its impact on overall household income inequality. In some countries the contribution of self‐employment income to inequality has been on the rise, while in others, increases in inequality in capital income account for a substantial fraction of the observed distributional changes.     

On the Evaluation of Economic Mobility

This paper presents a framework for the evaluation and measurement of "reversal" and "origin independence" as separate aspects of economic mobility. We show that evaluation depends on aversion to multi-period inequality, aversion to inter-temporal fluctuations, and aversion to future risk. We construct "extended Atkinson indices" that allow us to quantify the relative impact of reversal and origin independence on welfare. We apply our approach to the comparison of income mobility in Germany and in the U.S.. When aversion to inequality is the only consideration, the U.S. gains more from mobility than Germany. This reflects similar gains from reversal in the two countries but greater gains in the U.S. from origin independence. The introduction of aversion to intertemporal fluctuations and aversion to future risk makes the impact of mobility in the two countries more similar.     

AN EXPLORATORY COMPARISON OF INCOME RISK IN GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES

Using longitudinal data, 1 estimate the impact of redistribution on the welfare cost of income risk in Germany and the United States. The estimates account fully for behavior because individuals in each country have responded optimally to that country's policy. The results indicate that the welfare cost of income risk is 5.4 percent of disposable income in Germany, 8.5 percent in the U.S. Redistribution has reduced these risks from their pre-tax, pre-transfer levels by 43 percent in Germany, 21 percent in the U.S. The political importance of income security is evident in both countries, as risk relief often eliminates the net burden of redistributive taxes among middle-class households. The conclusions are robust across several models of income expectations.     

MICROECONOMIC REFORM AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION: THE CASE OF AUSTRALIAN PORTS AND RAIL FREIGHT

We analyze structural changes in the Australian ports and rail freight industries that were driven by microeconomic reform; we find such reforms may generate welfare gains with reduced inequality. We estimate the effects on household income groups of these industry changes by applying a computable general equilibrium model incorporating microsimulation behavior. The structural changes lead to a small increase in household welfare in most regions, with an overall increase of 0.18%, and a small decrease in inequality. Our analysis suggests that policy makers in Australia and other high‐income nations should give serious consideration to microeconomic reform of infrastructure industries. (JEL C68, C69, D31, L92)     

CAN HOUSEHOLDS AND WELFARE STATES MITIGATE RISING EARNINGS INSTABILITY?

We compare the evolution of earnings instability in Germany and the United Kingdom, two countries which stand for different types of welfare states. Deploying data from the German Socio‐Economic Panel (SOEP) and the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), we estimate permanent and transitory variances of male income over the period 1984–2009 and 1991–2006, respectively. Studies in this literature generally use individual labor earnings. To uncover the role of welfare state and households in smoothening earnings shocks, we compute different income concepts ranging from gross earnings to net equivalent household income. We find evidence that the overall inequality of earnings in Germany and the United Kingdom has been rising throughout the period due to both higher permanent earnings inequality and higher earnings volatility. However, taking institutions of the welfare state and risk‐sharing households into account, we find that the volatility of net household income has remained fairly stable. Furthermore, redistribution and risk insurance provided by the welfare state is more pronounced in Germany than in the United Kingdom.     

DOES SIZE MATTER? THE IMPACT OF CHANGES IN HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN GERMANY

Income inequality in Germany has been continually increasing during the past 20 years. One cause of this development, among others, could be structural shifts in household formation due to long‐term societal trends. These affect per capita incomes, which has repercussions for the income distribution even if wages remain constant. The aim of this paper is to quantify the proportion of changing household structures in the increase in inequality. We find that the growth of the income gap in Germany (for both East and West from 1991 to 2007) is indeed strongly related to changes in household structure and employment behavior, and a large part of this increase is compensated by the welfare state.     

Inequality of Income and Consumption in the U.S.: Measuring the Trends in Inequality from 1984 to 2011 for the Same Individuals

This paper examines the distribution of income and consumption in the U.S. using one dataset that obtains measures of both income and consumption from the same set of individuals. We develop a set of inequality measures that show the increase in inequality during the past 27 years using the 1984–2011 Consumer Expenditure Survey. We find that the trends in income and consumption inequality are similar between 1984 and 2006, and diverge during and after the Great Recession. For the entire 27‐year period we find that consumption inequality increases almost as much as does income inequality.     

ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND INCOME INEQUALITY REVISITED: EVIDENCE FROM A PANEL ERROR CORRECTION MODEL

We investigate the causal relationship between income inequality and economic freedom using data from U.S. states over the period 1981 to 2004 within a panel error correction model framework. The results indicate bidirectional causality between income inequality and economic freedom in both the short and the long run. These results suggest that high income inequality may cause states to implement redistributive policies causing economic freedom to decline. As economic freedom declines, income inequality rises even more. In other words, it is quite possible for a state to get caught in a vicious circle of high income inequality and heavy redistribution. (JEL D63, H11)     

Income Distribution,Econophysics and Piketty

Piketty, Atkinson and Saez have put the analysis of income distribution back on center stage. The distinction between property income and labor income plays a central role in this framework. Property income derives from the rate of return on stocks of income-earning wealth and is more unequally distributed than labor income. Piketty argues that, because the rate of return (r) is generally greater than the rate of growth of the economy (g), property income tends to grow more rapidly than labor income, so that rising income inequality is an intrinsic tendency of capitalism despite interruptions due to world wars and great depressions. This article argues the exact opposite. The rise of unions and the welfare state were the fruits of long-term historical gains made by labor, and the postwar constraints on real and financial capital arose in sensible reaction to the Great Depression. The ‘neoliberal’ era beginning in the 1980s significantly rolled back all of these. The article uses the econophysics two-class argument of Yakovenko to show that we can explain the empirical degree of inequality using two factors alone: the profit share and the degree of financialization of income. The rise of inequality in the neoliberal era then derives from a reduction in the wage share (rise in the profit share) in the face of assaults on labor and the welfare state, and a sharp increase in the financialization of incomes as financial controls are weakened. These are inherently socio-political outcomes, and what was lost can be regained. Hence, there is no inevitable return to Piketty’s ‘patrimonial capitalism’.     

Relative Income and Indebtedness: Evidence from Panel Data

We examine patterns of indebtedness in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, focusing on the period surrounding the housing bubble and its aftermath (i.e., 1999–2009). Leverage increased across households, but most quickly among lower income households during this period. We find additionally that leverage grew faster for households with lower relative income compared to other households in similar demographic groups or within a state controlling for own income. Together, these findings provide evidence for the thesis that the rising indebtedness of households in the U.S. is related to high levels of inequality, and that “Veblen effects,” whereby relative income matters for individual well‐being and decisions, may contribute to rising household indebtedness.     

A Case for Bundling Public Goods Contributions

We extend the model of voluntary contributions to multiple public goods by allowing for bundling of the public goods. Specifically, we study the case where agents contribute into a common pool which is then allocated toward the financing of two pure public goods. We explore the welfare implications of allowing for such bundling vis‐à‐vis a separate contributions scheme. We show that for high income inequality or for identical preferences among agents bundling leads to higher joint welfare. Interestingly, a welfare improvement can in some cases occur despite a decrease in total contributions. On the contrary, when agents are heterogenous, for low income inequality bundling can lead to lower total contributions and may decrease welfare compared to a separate contribution scheme. Our findings have implications for the design of charitable institutions and international aid agencies.     

DEPRIVATION,INEQUALITY AND WELFARE*

Welfare ranking of income distributions involves a trade‐off between equity and efficiency. A person's feeling of deprivation about higher incomes may be of a relative or absolute type. We consider an intermediate notion of deprivation, a convex mix of relative and absolute deprivations. We then look at the problem of welfare ranking of income distributions when welfare increases under a globally equitable redistribution and under an income increase that keeps intermediate deprivation fixed. All deprivation indices can be regarded as inequality indices but the converse is not true. We also provide a numerical illustration of our results.     

INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY: EVIDENCE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Drawing on the author's work, this lecture presents evidence on U.S. income and wealth inequality. It presents series for top income and wealth shares, and the distribution of economic growth by income groups. It discusses the mechanisms behind the evolution of U.S. income and wealth inequality from historical and comparative perspectives. It analyzes the role of public policy and in particular taxation in the evolution of inequality. (JEL D31, F66, J24)     

INEQUALITY COMPARISONS IN A MULTI‐PERIOD FRAMEWORK: THE ROLE OF ALTERNATIVE WELFARE METRICS

This paper considers the use of alternative welfare metrics in evaluations of income inequality in a multi‐period context. Using Norwegian longitudinal income data, it is found, as in many studies, that inequality is lower when each individual's annual average income is used as welfare metric, compared with the use of a single‐period accounting framework. However, this result does not necessarily hold when aversion to income fluctuations is introduced. Furthermore, when actual incomes are replaced by expected incomes (conditional on an initial period), using a model of income dynamics, higher values of inequality over longer periods are typically found, although comparisons depend on inequality and variability aversion parameters. The results are strongly influenced by the observed high degree of systematic regression toward the (geometric) mean, combined with a large extent of individual unexpected effects.     

GROWTH,INEQUALITY, AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM: EVIDENCE FROM THE U.S. STATES

This article returns to the discussion of how income inequality affects economic growth. The main argument of the article is that economic freedom is likely to mediate the association between inequality and growth. In a panel of 300 observations from six 5‐year periods across the 50 U.S. states, I employ five different measures of inequality. The results show that across measures, the growth effects of inequality turn more positive with more economic freedom. The moderating effects are mainly driven by measures of public sector consumption. (JEL O11, O38, O43, P48)     

ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND GROWTH IN U.S. STATE‐LEVEL MARKET INCOMES AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM

This paper investigates the relationship between economic freedom and income growth and inequality across U.S. states over the period 1979–2011. The focus is on market income at the top and bottom of the income distribution. Results show that increases in overall freedom are associated with average income growth. When viewed separately, an increase in overall freedom is associated with larger income growth rates for income earners in the bottom 90% relative to the top 10%. Interestingly, results show that increases in overall economic freedom are related to larger relative growth rates for the top 10% incomes within high‐income states and larger relative growth rates for the bottom 90% incomes within low‐income states. Top‐to‐bottom income ratio regressions suggest a negative and statistically significant relationship between economic freedom and income inequality. (JEL D63, P16, R11)     

Are Public and Private Social Expenditures Complementary?

Most analyses of social protection are focussed on public arrangements. However, social effort is not restricted to the public domain; all kinds of private arrangements can be substitutes to public programs. OECD data indicate that accounting for private social benefits has an equalising effect on levels of social effort across a number of countries. This suggests complementarity between public and private social expenditures. But their distributional effects differ. Using cross-country data, we find a negative relationship between net public social expenditures and income inequality, but a positive relationship between net private social expenditures and income inequality. We conclude that changes in the public/private mix in the provision of social protection may affect the redistributive impact of the welfare state.Part of Leiden Social Security Incidence Project. Revised version of a paper presented at the 57th International Atlantic Economic Conference, Lisbon, Portugal (March 10–14, 2004), and at the 60th Congress of the International Institute of Public Finance, Milan, Italy (August 23–26, 2004). The usual disclaimer applies.     

The role of financial systems for cross-country differences in the link between income and consumption inequality

This article discusses why consumption inequality stays low despite high income inequality in the U.S; but income inequality is closely followed by consumption inequality in China. We show that different financial systems can play a critical role in shaping the cross-country different links between income and consumption inequality. This phenomenon is consistent with the cross-country different relationships between income inequality and saving rates. Consumer credit expansion in the U.S. makes inequality much less serious for consumption than for income, and this result holds to an even larger extent if more domestic credit can be financed by foreign savings. But this is not the case in China, whose financial system focuses only on investment and trade while neglecting liquidity constraints on consumption. Our assertions accord well with evidence found from the U.S., China, and other related economies.     

Inequality within generation: Evidence from France

Intra-generational inequalities focus on the distributions within age groups. On the basis of French household income surveys carried out from 1996 to 2014, the Gini coefficient and D9/D1 inter-decile ratio were calculated so as to evaluate intra-generational income inequality before and after redistribution by the tax and welfare system. Age-Cohort-Period models were then estimated in order to disentangle age and generation effects. Over a life cycle, intra-generational inequality displays a hump-shaped curve peaking at age 55–59. This inequality is significantly lower among the youngest, whichever inequality indicator is used, and among the oldest, when measured by the inter-decile ratio. Comparison of pre- and post-redistribution income reveals that the tax and welfare system particularly reduces inequality among the young. Intra-generational inequality measured by the Gini coefficient increases significantly from one generation to the next. Measured by the inter-decile ratio, the increase is considerable for the gross income of those generations born from the 1970s on. However, the tax and welfare system has compensated for this increase, because analysis of the inter-decile ratio applied to disposable income shows no significant difference between generations.     

Household inequality, social welfare, and trade

Working with Sen social welfare functions (meaning explicit separability between mean income and income dispersion), we develop a generalized dual approach to tracking household inequality aspects of social welfare in general equilibrium. We highlight how household equity can be examined analytically alongside production efficiency in duality-based models, using our dual framework to explore potential trade-offs between efficiency and equity effects of trade policy. Our results complement the set of standard inequality results in trade theory focused on functional rather than household inequality. We also find that the relative distributional impact of tariffs on welfare is conditional on the initial level of inequality.