EQUIVALENCE SCALE SENSITIVITY OF POVERTY STATISTICS FOR THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Using microdata from Household Budget Surveys of the Member States of the European Community, this paper examines the sensitivity of poverty statistics with respect to the choice of the equivalence scale. The results show that the ranking of the countries with respect to the overall poverty incidence is hardly affected when different equivalence scales are used. However, the composition of the poor population shows considerable changes when e.g. subjective equivalence scales are used instead of the OECD equivalence scale. The poverty incidence among specific household groups, such as single elderly and households with children, is particularly sensitive to the choice of the equivalence scale.     

Income Inequality in Australia in an International Comparative Perspective

Earlier comparative work on income distribution has tended to suggest that Australia is characterised by less income inequality than other industrialised economies. Concerns about the quality of the Australian data used in such comparisons have led to the need for more detailed assessment of the situation. The Luxembourg Income Study has been a focus for this work by bringing together microdata sets for a range of countries and reorganising them to conform to standardised concepts and definitions. This paper builds on earlier work undertaken as part of the Luxembourg Income Study by including Australia in an international comparative analysis of income distribution and redistribution. The Australian data are those from the 1981–82 Income and Housing Survey, with income tax imputed onto the data file. Results are presented for the gross and net income distributions between both families and individuals in seven countries. A common set of equivalence scales is also used to adjust for differing family needs. The results indicate that, using several summary measures of inequality, the distribution of income in Australia is less equal than in four of the other six countries studied. Earlier research which placed Australia high on the international league table of income equality is thus not confirmed by the results.     

A CROSS-COUNTRY STUDY OF EQUIVALENCE SCALES AND EXPENDITURE INEQUALITY ON UNIT RECORD HOUSEHOLD BUDGET DATA

Inequality comparisons require equivalence scales to account for differences in household size and composition. The multiplicity of equivalence scale models makes the sensitivity of the inequality calculations to the scale used a significant policy issue. Such an investigation based on unit records of two adult households from Italy, Australia, South Africa, Thailand, Peru, Philippines, India and Tanzania was our principal motivation. The equivalence scale varies across countries and between different types of children. Inequality rankings of countries, though not the inequality decomposition between households of different composition, are robust to the equivalence scale used.     

RELATIVE INEQUALITY AND POVERTY IN GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES USING ALTERNATIVE EQUIVALENCE SCALES

We use data from the Luxembourg Income Study to show the sensitivity of measures of relative economic well-being of persons in the U.S. and Germany using official equivalence scales and consumption-based country-specific equivalence scales developed for the two countries. Overall inequality and poverty levels are found not to be sensitive to the equivalence scale used. However, the official German equivalence scale yields quite different results from the others with respect to the relative income and poverty levels of vulnerable groups within the population, especially older single people.     

HOUSEHOLD NEEDS AND POVERTY: WITH APPLICATION TO SPAIN AND THE U.K.

We examine the sensitivity of U.K.-Spanish poverty comparisons to variations in the dependence of equivalence scales on household size and composition, using evidence from national household budget surveys. We sum up these comparisons using subjective confidence levels. Taking into account the dissimilarities in the distribution of incomes and needs across countries, we find, inter alia , that although the poor are typically more numerous in Spain than in Britain, the actual headcount differences may vary by up to 10 percent of the population when needs allowances are altered, even when kept the same across the two countries. Comparisons of poverty composition across the two countries are also very sensitive to the choice of equivalence scale parameters. Generally, however, the proportion of single adults among the poor is much less important in Spain than in Britain, the reverse being true for households with three or more adults.     

THE SENSITIVITY OF INCOME INEQUALITY TO CHOICE OF EQUIVALENCE SCALES

To account for the fact that a household's needs depend on its size and composition most studies on income inequality adjust the observed household incomes by equivalence scales. However, since the rationale for choosing a specific scale is rather vague the importance of testing the sensitivity of income inequality estimates to choice of equivalence scales has long been acknowledged. The sensitivity studies in the literature are restricted to equivalence scales that do not depend on the income level of the reference household which means that the effect of a rise in the household size on the scale rate does not depend on whether the household is poor or rich. By using Norwegian micro-data it is shown that the introduction of an income-dependent scale produces results that are in conflict with the widespread view of robustness of results to choice of equivalence scales.     

INCOME DISTRIBUTION AND REDISTRIBUTION: A MICRODATA ANALYSIS FOR SEVEN COUNTRIES

This paper reports the detailed results of a comparison of the distribution and redistribution of income in seven countries using the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) database. Use of LIS facilitates comparisons of inequality in respect to similarly-defined variables, permits methodological alternatives to be used, and allows the countries to be compared on aspects of income ranking and policy equity in ways not otherwise possible.
The results indicate a pattern of inequality in which Sweden is the most equal, followed by Norway, the U.K. and Canada, while among the less equal countries Israel is generally more equal than Germany-or the USA., whose relative inequality depends on the measure chosen. Use of the LIS database also allows a more detailed explanation of these results, noting, for example, the role of cash benefits in increasing equality in Sweden and the U.K., and in aiding the bottom quintile in Germany; and the important part played by self-employment income in contributing to the high top quintile shares in Germany and Israel, and in rendering the Norwegian distribution less equal than that of its Scandinavian neighbour.
The wealth of the database, however, means that methodological issues need to be treated both more explicitly and more carefully than is possible with more restrictive data. To interpret the data also requires a considerable degree of knowledge about the institutional features of tax and social provisions in each country, so that an income microdatabase could usefully be completed by one focused on the details of such provisions.     

POVERTY, TNEQUALTTY, AND FAMTLY LIVING STANDARDS IMPACTS ACROSS SEVEN NATIONS: THE EFFECT OF NONCASH SUBSIDIES FOR HEALTH, EDUCATION AND HOUSING

The main aim of this paper has been to summarize the impact of noncash income–health and health education benefits, and imputed rent-on living standards, income distribution and poverty in seven nations at the beginning of the 1980s using the Luxembourg Income Study database. Our results do not give rise to a pattern of national differences in poverty rates or income inequality which are markedly different from that which emerges from previous LIS research based on cash income alone. While these results may be sensitive to the techniques used to measure and value noncash benefits in this paper, it appears that noncash income reinforces the redistributive impact or conventional (cash) tax-transfer mechanisms rather than acting to offset them in any major way.     

The distributional impact of public services when needs differ

Despite a broad consensus on the need to take into account the value of public services in distributional analysis, there is little reliable evidence on how inclusion of such non-cash income actually affects poverty and inequality estimates. In particular, the equivalence scales applied to cash income are not necessarily appropriate when including non-cash income, because the receipt of public services is likely to be associated with particular needs. In this paper, we propose a theory-based framework designed to provide a coherent evaluation of the distributional impact of local public services. The valuation of public services, identification of target groups, allocation of expenditures to target groups, and adjustment for differences in needs are derived from a model of local government spending behaviour. Using Norwegian data from municipal accounts and administrative registers we find that the inclusion of non-cash income reduces income inequality by about 15% and poverty rates by almost one-third. However, adjusting for differences in needs for public services across population subgroups offsets about half the inequality reduction and some of the poverty decrease.     

THE NON-CONSTANCY OF EQUIVALENCE SCALES

Comparisons of households of differing composition are usually achieved through the use of equivalence scales. It is well known that the choice of scales can have considerable impact on the conclusions drawn from studies of welfare and poverty. There is a considerable literature on the theoretical issues relating to equivalence scales, but applied work on income distribution and related areas almost invariably takes scales to be constant irrespective of income. This paper focuses on the relation of scale to income, by applying theoretical analysis to some simple household types. The conclusion is that scales are not constant and that current practice should be changed.     

SEQUENTIAL STOCHASTIC DOMINANCE AND THE ROBUSTNESS OF POVERTY ORDERINGS

When comparing poverty across distributions, an analyst must select a poverty line to identify the poor, an equivalence scale to compare individuals from households of different compositions and sizes, and a poverty index to aggregate individual deprivation into an index of total poverty. A different choice of poverty line, poverty index or equivalence scale can of course reverse an initial poverty ordering. This paper develops easily-checked sequential stochastic dominance conditions that throw light on the robustness of poverty comparisons to these important measurement issues. These general conditions extend well-known results to any order of dominance, to the choice of individual versus family based aggregation, and to the estimation of "critical sets" of measurement assumptions. Our theoretical results are briefly illustrated using data for four countries drawn from the Luxembourg Income Study databases.     

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS OF EARNINGS INEQUALITY FOR MEN IN THE 1980s

In this paper we present a comparative analysis of earnings inequality during the 1980s among prime age men who headed households and worked year-round, full-time from five industrialized countries-Canada, Sweden, Australia, West Germany, and the United States. The data were obtained from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) database, a multinational collection of microdata sets from various countries which have been assembled for the primary purpose of making cross-national comparisons of economic and social well-being. The results of the comparison indicated that during the mid-1980s, the United States had the most unequal distribution of earnings and Sweden the least unequal. Between the early 1980s and mid-1980s, however, the earnings distributions in all five countries showed evidence of becoming more unequal, especially in the United States, Canada, and Sweden.     

Growth,inequality, and poverty reduction in developing countries: Recent global evidence

The study presents comparative global evidence on the transformation of economic growth to poverty reduction in developing countries, with emphasis on the role of income inequality. The focus is on the period since the early-mid-1990s when growth in these countries as a group has been relatively strong, surpassing that of the advanced economies. Both regional and country-specific data are analyzed for the $1.25 and $2.50-level poverty headcount ratios using World Bank Povcalnet data. The study finds that on average income growth has been the major driving force behind both the declines and increases in poverty. The study, however, documents substantial regional and country differences that are masked by this ‘average’ dominant-growth story. While in the majority of countries, growth was the major factor behind falling or increasing poverty, inequality, nevertheless, played the crucial role in poverty behavior in a large number of countries. And, even in those countries where growth has been the main driver of poverty-reduction, further progress could have occurred under relatively favorable income distribution. For more efficient policymaking, therefore, idiosyncratic attributes of countries should be emphasized. In general, high initial levels of inequality limit the effectiveness of growth in reducing poverty while growing inequality increases poverty directly for a given level of growth. It would seem judicious, therefore, to accord special attention to reducing inequality in certain countries where income distribution is especially unfavorable. Unfortunately, the present study also points to the limited effects of growth and inequality-reducing policies in low-income countries.     

Estimating inequality in the distribution of welfare using demand models

In this paper two demand models with general household equivalence scales (GES) are estimated. These GES are identifiable, since they have the independence of base utility (IB) or equivalence scales exactness (ESE) property. Estimates of household characteristics adjusted income can then be calculated relative to a specific household type. This “individual equivalent income (IEI) is then used to calculate measures of inequality in the distribution of welfare. As more than one model is estimated, the sensitivity of these estimates to model specification changes can be considered. Comparisons are also made to estimates of inequality based on household income. It is found that absolute inequality is sensitive to model specification, but relative inequality is not. This is true using indices of inequality of the Atkinson (1970), Kolm (1976a,b) and Sen (1973) type, or more general measures of inequality based on estimates of Lorenz curve decile ordinates, constructed using methods introduced by Beach and Davidson (1983). Thus, if absolute measures of inequality are required, these results suggest some further research is required to determine a class of models which is less sensitive to model specification error. However, if only relative measures of inequality are needed, then estimates of inequality appear to be very robust to the choice of model specification.     

THE SENSITIVITY OF INTERNATIONAL POVERTY COMPARISONS

Using data from the Luxembourg Income Study, I study the sensitivity of cross-national income poverty comparisons to the method in which poverty is measured. Absolute poverty comparisons that keep the purchasing power at the poverty line constant across countries lead to conclusions that differ from relative poverty comparisons in which the real value of the poverty line varies with average income. The absolute poverty ranking of countries also varies as the real value of the poverty line is lowered. Cross-national differences in household characteristics are largely irrelevant in explaining poverty differences.     

A SYNTHESIS OF POVERTY LINE DEFINITIONS*

A fundamental point of discussion in poverty research is whether poverty is an absolute or a relative concept. If poverty is seen to be a situation of absolute deprivation, a poverty line will usually be defined to be independent of the general style of living in society. If poverty is considered to be a situation of relative deprivation, a poverty line will be defined in relation to the general style of living in society. The choice for one of these two approaches has important consequences for social policy, as absolute poverty may be reduced by economic growth, while relative poverty will only decrease when income inequality decreases. This paper suggests a poverty line definition that is not a priori meant to be either absolute or relative, but depends on the perception of poverty in society. If the poverty line is higher in countries with higher median income (as an indicator of “general style of living”) the poverty line is said to be relative; if the poverty line does not vary with median income, it is said to be absolute. The poverty line definition suggested appears to be a generalization of almost all well-known poverty line definitions. Poverty lines thus defined are estimated for eight European countries on the basis of a 1979 survey. The resulting lines appear to have an elasticity with respect to median income of 0.51, and hence can be said to be halfway on the scale between absolute and relative.     

GROWTH, POVERTY, AND INEQUALITY IN LATIN AMERICA: A CAUSAL ANALYSIS, 1970–94

Taking advantage of consistent poverty and income inequality data for 12 Latin American countries between 1970 and 1994, we analyze the determinants of changes in the incidence of urban and rural poverty and in Gini coefficients over spells of years, stressing in particular the role of aggregate income growth. We find that income growth reduces urban and rural poverty but not inequality. We also find that income growth is more effective in reducing urban poverty if the levels of inequality and poverty are lower, and the levels of secondary education higher. We show that there is an asymmetry in the impact of growth on poverty and inequality, with recession having strong negative effects on both poverty and inequality. Since growth does not reduce inequality, economic cycles create ratchet effects on the level of inequality. However, post-structural adjustment growth is quite effective at reducing poverty, particularly if inequality is low.     

Absolute and Relative Deprivation and the Measurement of Poverty

This paper develops the link between poverty and inequality by focussing on a class of poverty indices (some of them well–known) which aggregate normative concerns for absolute and relative deprivation. The indices are distinguished by a parameter value that captures the ethical sensitivity of poverty measurement to "exclusion" or "relative–deprivation" aversion. The indices can be readily used to predict the impact of growth on poverty. An illustration using LIS data finds that the United States show more relative deprivation than Denmark and Belgium whatever the percentiles considered, but that overall deprivation comparisons of the four countries considered will generally depend on the intensity of the ethical concern for relative deprivation. The impact of growth on poverty also depends on the presence of and on the attention granted to concerns over relative deprivation.     

The Intensity and Shape of Inequality: The ABG Method of Distributional Analysis

Inequality is anisotropic: its intensity varies by income level. We here develop a new tool, the isograph, to focus on local inequality and illustrate these variations. This method yields three coefficients which summarize the shape of inequality: a main coefficient, α, which measures inequality at the median; and two correction coefficients, β and γ, which pick up any differential curvature at the top and bottom of the distribution. The analysis of a set of 232 microdata samples from 41 different countries in the LIS datacenter archive allows us to provide a systematic overview of the properties of the ABG (α β γ) coefficients, which are compared to a set of standard indices including Atkinson indices, generalized entropy, Wolfson polarization, and the GB2 distribution. This method also provides a smoothing tool that reveals the differences in the shape of distributions (the strobiloid) and how these have changed over time.     

PRICES,INEQUALITY, AND POVERTY: METHODOLOGY AND INDIAN EVIDENCE

This paper uses a methodology for evaluating the distributional implications of price movement for inequality and poverty measurement. The methodology is based on a distinction between inequalities in nominal and real expenditure. The conversion of nominal to real expenditure takes into account the varying household preferences. The empirical application to the Indian budget datasets from NSS rounds 50, 55, and 61 shows the usefulness of the proposed procedures. The relative price changes in India have tended to be inequality and poverty reducing as confirmed by formal statistical tests. The result is robust to expenditure dependent equivalence scales. The progressivity of the relative price changes weakened in the second half of our time period as Fuel and Light overtook the composite group called “Miscellaneous” in recording the largest price increase. While the poverty rates registered a decline, which was marginal in the urban areas, there was a sharp increase in inequality.