影响居民收入差距扩大的制度性因素

影响乃至决定收入差距变化及变化程度的深层次原因是制度因素。制度变迁和城乡等级制度是居民显性收入差距全方位拉开并快速扩大的基本原因,隐性收入特别是非法或非正常收入是居民收入差距扩大的根本因素。行政垄断、干部任用与考核制度缺陷、司法腐败及向市场经济过渡时期的特殊环境,是非法或非正常收入产生并得以蔓延的制度性根源。     

关于加强非税收入会计管理工作的探索与实践

非税收入是政府收入体系的一个组成部分,但其超常规增长和无序膨胀却是我国在体制转轨时期出现的一种特殊现象。为适应市场经济的要求,加强对非税收入的规范化管理,建立合理的非税收入秩序,近年来,齐齐哈尔市加大非税收入管理改革力度,在实行“收支两条线”管理的基础上．深化部问预算改革,对预算外资金实行统一管理,非税收入征管工作步人规范化的轨道。     

中国居民总体收入差别研究概述

本文对改革开放以来我国经济学界地中国居民总体收入差别变动研究所走过的历程进行了简单的回顾，并对目前国内关于中国居民总体收入差别变动的各种理论观点、各种对差别现状的实际测算结果、差别变动发展趋势、判别变动状况的评价、判别加大的原因和相应的政策建议，进行了系统归纳总结。     

中国农村居民收入差距的研究分析

农村居民收入分配差距是我国体制转轨过程中出现的社会现象之一。本文分析了农村地区内部,地区之间收入差距的原因,并对其产生这些原因的历史变动进行了初步的探讨,从而形成了为适当缩小农村居民收入差距的政策建议。     

中国农村居民收入差距的研究分析

农村居民收入分配差距是我国体制转轨过程中出现的社会现象之一.本文分析了农村地区内部,地区之间收入差距的原因,并对其产生这些原因的历史变动进行了初步的探讨,从而形成了为适当缩小农村居民收入差距的政策建议.     

我国收入分配现状及思考

目前我国正处于传统计划经济向市场经济体制转轨的过程 ,个人收入分配体制发生着激烈而深刻的变革 ,日益成为社会广泛关注的热点问题。文章通过分析我国收入分配制度存在的问题 ,提出借鉴国外经验 ,积极探讨完善我国收入分配的途径     

中国转型期收入分配研究回顾与展望

改革意味着利益在不同主体之间的调整和重新分配，在我国经济体制转轨时期，对收入分配的研究，探讨始终是理论界，改革者和广大人民关心的重要问题。本文旨在对我国改革开放以来经济学界有关收入分配的理论研究作一简要回顾与展望。     

我国非法性收入差别的类型及对需求的影响

非法性收入差别的内涵和范围在不同国家或同一国家的不同时期是不同的。这是与一个国家当前的法律制度相关的,而当一个国家法律制度不健全,监督和执行缺乏力度的时候,各种非法获得收入的活动就会变得猖獗,非法性的收入差别也将不断扩大,最终会对整个社会的收入分配格局产生重大影响,甚至超过合法性收入差别的影响。目前,中国正处于一个经济转型时期,各     

请不要再拿0．4说事——再论我国收入分配“警戒线”

一、固守0．4的国际标准“缺乏科学性” 萨缪尔森曾言：“收入分配问题在全部经济学中是最具有争论性的”。进入新世纪以来，我国学术界关于收入差距的论争也进行得如火如荼。围绕我国收入差距是否已超过合理界限的探讨，认为合理有之、认为失当亦有之。各派论争可谓公说公有理、婆说婆有理。细细品味却“个个在理，而又各失其理”。“在理”是因为各位专家都是依据自己测算的基尼系数对比国际0．4的标准做出评判，他们测算的基尼系数高于0．4当然要说“过分悬殊”，[第一段]     

不同所有制部门的代际收入流动性研究——基于劳动力市场分割的视角

代际收入流动性反映父代收入对子代收入的影响程度,是衡量机会公平的重要指标。研究结果显示,我国不同所有制部门的代际收入流动性存在显著差别。在党政机关、事业单位和国有企业等体制内部门工作的父代对子代收入的影响最大,其次为私营企业、外资企业和自我雇佣者等体制外部门,而来自集体经济部门的父代对子代收入的影响最小。子代个人特征差异对体制外部门和集体经济部门的子代收入差距的贡献超过65%,而对体制内部门与其他两个部门间子代收入差距的贡献只有不到50%。同时,代际收入流动性的程度差别和个人特征对收入差距的贡献在子代收入分布的不同位置上有不同表现。     

Inequality aversion and voting on redistribution

Some people have a concern for a fair distribution of incomes while others do not. Does such a concern matter for majority voting on redistribution? Fairness preferences are relevant for redistribution outcomes only if fair-minded voters are pivotal. Pivotality, in turn, depends on the structure of income classes. We experimentally study voting on redistribution between two income classes and show that the effect of inequality aversion is asymmetric. Inequality aversion is more likely to matter if the “rich” are in majority. With a “poor” majority, we find that redistribution outcomes look as if all voters were exclusively motivated by self-interest.     

The Inequality of Incomes in the UK: an essay in memory of Professor Sir Henry Phelps Brown

Using Henry Phelps Brown's distinction between discrimination before and within the labour market, this paper first reviews the inequality of achievements and incomes of an imaginary cohort of people passing through the life cycle of birth, infancy, schooling, further education and into the labour market. At each stage appropriate policies for reducing inequality by “levelling up"” are examined. Secondly, it summarises the unprecedented increase in income inequality in the 1980s and 1990s (after the period studied so extensively by Henry Phelps Brown) and discusses the role of a progressive taxation policy in the “leveling up” process.     

Can the link between functional and personal income distribution enhance the analysis of inequality?

The aim of this paper is to present a framework which links functional and personal income distribution. In the first part of the paper, Piketty’s book “Capital in the XXI Century” is briefly reviewed. Piketty’s framework is discussed arguing that it can only partially explain levels and changes within personal income distribution. Piketty links the returns from capital r to the rate of growth of national income g in a very innovative way comparing them within a macroeconomic framework. He claims that when returns on capital rise more quickly than the overall economy and taxes on capital remain low, a vicious circle of ever-growing dynastic wealth and growing concentration of wealth takes place. However, the rise in the inequality of personal income distribution cannot only be explained by the rise of capital incomes. An analysis of the generation of personal incomes, and consequently of inequality, requires a suitable framework that links incomes at the macroeconomic level (national accounts) and incomes at the level of the individual/household. It is possible to set up this framework starting from individual endowments and their link to the productive structure: that is to what can be called the “generating function of personal income.” This function transforms personal endowments into personal earnings, given the productive structure, the technologies, and the market rules that determine the functional distribution. Personal income distribution and its inequality are linked to the functional one through the shares of capital and labor owned by each individual. The framework introduced here seems to be a suitable tool to account for the fact that personal income distribution is inextricably tied up to different sources of inequality in the distribution of national income. Sources come from institutional and productive structures (matrix Y), but also from the distribution of endowments and of individual/household entitlements (matrix S). This approach, we argue, allows for the assessment and evaluation of the effects of “ambitious new policies,” aimed at reducing poverty and inequality ex-ante, as suggested by Atkinson in his last book.     

Perceptions of inequality

Individual perceptions of (income or wealth) inequality have strong effects on their decisions as economic agents or voters. It is therefore important to know more about the relation between perceived and measured inequality. We present a novel formal framework that is based on the assumption that people typically do not observe the entire income (wealth) distribution and that their guesses about the extent of inequality are based on “self-centered” reference groups. This framework predicts that perceptions of inequality will change along positions in the income distribution and that for a specific position various dimensions of inequality perception are related to each other. First, low (high) income individuals overestimate (underestimate) their own position. Second, subjective estimates of average earnings increase with the own income position. Third, high or low income people have different perceptions about the skewness and the “shape” of the income distribution (e.g. pyramid or diamond). Fourth, the subjective perception of inequality is lower for high-income individuals. Survey data from 40 countries provide strong support for the framework.     

Caste, Inequality, and Poverty in India

This paper analyses inequality and poverty in India within the context of caste‐based discrimination. It does so by decomposing the difference between (caste) Hindu and Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) households in: their average household incomes; their probabilities of being in different income percentiles; their probabilities of being at different levels of poverty into: a “discrimination effect”, which stems from the fact that a household's income level, into which its (income‐generating) profile translates, depends on whether it is SC/ST; an “attributes (or residual) effect” which stems from the fact that there are systematic differences between SC/ST and Hindu households in their (income‐generating) profiles. The results, based on unit record data for 28,922 households, showed that at least one‐third of the average income/probability differences between Hindu and SC/ST households was due to the “unequal treatment” of the latter.     

United States income inequality: The concept of countervailing power revisited

This article uses some of the conceptual infrastructure associated with J.K. Galbraith’s “countervailing power” argument to explore the deep history of U.S. income inequality. Two explanatory variables—institutional power and distributive conflict—have played an integral role in the shifting patterns of U.S. income inequality since the late nineteenth century. The “commodified” power of large firms, manifested in aggregate concentration and the markup, exacerbates inequality while the “countervailing” power of organized labor, manifested in union density and strike activity, mitigates inequality. One implication of this research is that U.S. income inequality is unlikely to diminish unless the labor movement (or a comparable social movement) is strengthened.     

影响我国农村居民收入差距的主要因素:从收入构成角度的分解分析

This paper attempts to explore the causes behind the change of the inequality in China rural areas at the very beginning of this century by decomposing the inequality of the total per capita income into the contributions from different income components. Furthermore, we develop the decomposition method of Gini coefficients from the income components and use it not only in the static analysis but also in comparative static analysis. Namely it can be used to explore the change of the overall inequality by decomposing the change of Gini Coefficient from income components. The empirical results show that the wage from local employment, the income from agricultural household business and the incomes from non-agricultural household business are the three income components that made the largest contributions to the inequality of the total per capita income. The total contribution to the overall inequality of non-agricultural incomes was much more than that of agricultural incomes. The incomes from agricultural household business, the incomes from non-agricultural household business and the wages from migration made the positive impact on the increase of the overall inequality. The incomes donated by relatives and friends made the most important negative impact on the increase of the overall inequality.     

Trade and Rural-Urban Income Inequality: Evidence from China

Using the provincial panel data from 1978 to 2007, this paper makes an empirical analysis of the relationship between international trade and rural-urban income inequality in China. The results show that international trade has a fundamental impact on rural-urban income inequality. For the whole country, the development of international trade from 1978 to 2007 enlarged the rural-urban income gap. During the three different periods (defined in section 3.3), the impact was also noticeable in terms of extent, direction and significance respectively at the national and regional levels. During the three periods, the relationship has an inverted “U” shape for China as a whole, central China and western China, but for eastern China the relationship has a “U” shape. At the same time, exports and imports have different influences on the rural-urban income gap in China, the influences were also different across regions; and the imports has had a more significant influence on these regions than exports has had.     

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.     

Income mobility of individuals in China and the United States

Although much has been written about annual income inequality in China, little research has been conducted on longer‐run measures of income inequality and on income mobility. This paper compares income mobility of urban individuals in China and the United States in the 1990s. The following questions are taken up: To what extent are measures of annual income inequality misleading indicators of long‐run income inequality? How much income mobility was there in China in the first half of the 1990s and how did this compare with mobility in other countries? Have real income increases been greater for the poor or the rich? How important is the variation in permanent incomes in China and how has this changed?