THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN URBAN CHINA AND IN CHINA AS A WHOLE IN 1995

The composition, inequality and determinants of wealth among households in urban China in 1995 are studied. In addition, we compare the wealth distribution in urban China with the wealth distribution in rural China and present the first estimates of inequality in the distribution of household wealth in China as a whole. The results show that housing wealth makes up a large part of net worth in urban China. Most urban Chinese households keep a bank account; debts are unusual. A household's net worth is strongly related to its income and location. Net worth is more unequally distributed among urban households than among rural households. However, compared to the situation in most industrialized countries, net worth in urban China and in China as a whole appear to be rather equally distributed.     

Housing investment in urban China

What explains the rapidly increasing housing investment demand in China? To address this question, we develop an analytical framework featuring how expected capital gains impact households' housing investment decisions when subject to financial constraints. Housing demand in China takes place not only through households' owning multiple houses, but also through their owning a larger primary living residence if they are constrained from buying multiple houses. We show that households are more likely to own multiple houses when expecting higher capital gains. As expected capital gain increases, the primary housing demand of those households who are constrained from owning multiple houses increases, while those owing multiple housing units invest in extra ones instead of improving primary housing. Our empirical findings, based on 2010 and 2011 household survey data, are consistent with our theoretical predictions. We also find that the marginal effect of expected capital gains is higher for wealthier households. This links the booming housing market to widening income inequality which is a typical growth pain in a developing country like China. As an extension, we apply the analysis to derive implications of the institutional features (such as purchasing restriction policy and the existence of subsidized housing) for China’s housing markets.     

中国城镇居民的财产分配

本文利用住户调查数据对 1 995年的中国城镇住户的财产分配状况进行了经验分析 ,包括对财产分配的差距进行了测量 ,影响财产分配的主要因素进行了估计 ,并将中国城镇住户的财产分配进行了国际比较。与大部分市场经济国家相比 ,中国城镇居民之间财产分配的差距并不大。但是中国城镇居民的财产分配差距超过了收入分配差距 ,而且从长期趋势上可能会出现加速扩大的势头。中国城镇居民之间财产分配的不均等并非全是经济市场化过程的结果。一些不均等的原因来自于传统计划经济遗留下来的分配模式。本文还发现 ,在户主一生中财产积累出现了两个高峰值。这是与正统的生命周期理论不同的。本文还表明了财产分配和收入分配之间的较强相关性。     

ESTIMATES OF HOUSEHOLD WEALTH INEQUALITY IN THE U.S., 1962–1983

The study has two major objectives. The first is to determine time trends in household wealth inequality in the U.S. over the 1962–83 period. Four concepts of wealth are analyzed: (i) total household wealth, defined as total household assets less liabilities; (ii) fungible wealth, defined as total household wealth less consumer durables and household inventories; (iii) financial wealth, defined as fungible wealth less equity in owner-occupied housing; and (iv) capital wealth, defined as financial wealth less currency, checking accounts, and time deposits. Relying on a variety of data sources, I find that wealth inequality remained relatively constant from about 1962 to 1973, fell sharply from about 1973 to about 1979, and then rose sharply between 1979 and 1983. Concentration in 1983 was greater than that in 1962 for financial and capital wealth but of similar magnitude for total and fungible wealth. The second, methodological in nature, is to analyze the effect on measured inequality of the alignment of raw survey data to national balance sheet totals. I find that the alignment process can significantly affect point estimates of household wealth distribution but does not generally affect the direction of inequality trends.     

贫富差距、供求弹性与房价*

近些年，中国的贫富差距和房价居高不下，但现有文献忽视供求弹性与贫富差距交互作用对房价的影响。据此，本文构建结合贫富差距和供求弹性的住房存量调整模型，使用中国2002—2012年7省份33个城市的UHS数据发现，收入和财富的基尼系数对房价有正影响；供求弹性对房价分别有负影响和正影响；收入和财富基尼系数与供求弹性交互项对房价分别有正影响和负影响。据此，为防止房价泡沫，各级政府一方面应缩小贫富差距，另一方面应增加土地和住房供给。     

THE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD DISPOSABLE WEALTH IN THE UNITED STATES

In this study, new estimates are presented of the size distribution of household wealth in the U.S. in 1969. Compared to previous studies, its major advance is the inclusion of all marketable or discretionary household assets and liabilities and their alignment with national balance sheet totals. Household disposable wealth (HDW) is defined as the sum of all marketable or fungible assets held by households less liabilities. The Gini coefficient for HDW is 0.72, the share held by the richest one percent of households is 31 percent, and the share held by the top five percent is 49 percent. There is, however, a large variation in the concentration of different household assets. The Gini coefficient is 0.30 for household durables and inventories, 0.69 for equity in owner-occupied housing, 0.94 for bonds and securities, and 0.98 for corporate stock. HDW is then divided into two mutually exclusive components. The first, called "life-cycle wealth," is defined as the sum of equity in owner-occupied housing, durables, household inventory, demand deposits and currency, and the cash value of life insurance and pensions less consumer debt. This form of wealth tends to be accumulated over the life-cycle for either consumption, liquidity, or retirement purposes. The second, called "capital wealth," is the sum of time and savings deposits, bonds and securities, corporate stock, business and investment real estate equity, and trust fund equity. Life-cycle wealth is substantially less concentrated than capital wealth. The Gini coefficient for it is 0.59, while that for capital wealth is 0.88. Moreover, among the lower wealth groups, over 80 percent of household wealth takes the form of life-cycle wealth, whereas among the top wealth groups the proportion is under 20 percent. The results suggest substantially different savings motivations between the two groups.     

On The Distributional Effects Of Reducing Capital Taxes*

This article asks whether household heterogeneity and market incompleteness have quantitatively important implications for the welfare effects of tax changes. We compare a representative‐agent economy to an economy in which households face idiosyncratic uninsurable income risk. The income process is consistent with empirical estimates and implies a realistic wealth distribution. We find that capital tax cuts imply large welfare gains in the representative‐agent economy. However, when households are heterogeneous, substantial redistribution during transition means that only a minority will support capital tax cuts, whereas most households can expect large welfare losses.     

Stochastic dominance and thick-tailed wealth distributions

Right-skewed and thick-tailed wealth distributions have been documented as an empirical regularity across space and time. A key mechanism for explaining these distributional features is proportional random growth. We investigate the comparative statics of a well-defined class of random growth models when allowing for stochastically ordered shifts in the wealth return process. An order-contingent monotone comparative statics property is identified, according to which pure increases in risk (e.g. higher volatility of capital returns) foster top wealth concentration whereas first-order stochastically dominated shifts in the return process (induced by e.g. proportional capital income taxation) rather lower inequality at the upper end of the distribution. Our analysis points to the potentially ambiguous effects on top wealth inequality of introducing or modifying capital income tax treatments in the presence of stochastic returns.     

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.     

Capital Gains and Income Arising from Nonrenewable Resources

Should capital gains be included in income arising from nonrenewable resources? In the present paper, I show that capital gains from a nonrenewable resource can be divided into two terms: real price change effects and real interest rate change effects. By application of sectoral income theory developed by Asheim and Wei (Environ Res Econ 42:65–87, 2009), only the former term is part of real income of the resource and the latter term should not be included. This result is significant in the sense that all change in real resource wealth can be included as part of real income only if future real interest rates are assumed to be constant. Hotelling rule always implies that capital gains from nonrenewable resources coincide with real interests on resource wealth; net investment generated from the resource cancels out current cash flow from the resource; and real income comes from price change effects.     

Financial market and housing wealth effects on consumption: a permanent income approach

The objective of this study is to examine the financial market and housing wealth effects on consumption. Housing has the dual functions as both a commodity yielding a flow of housing services and an investment asset yielding a flow of capital income. With the construction of an empirical framework based on the vector autoregression approach, the findings from this study suggest that a rise in housing price has both a positive wealth effect and a negative price effect on consumption. While the positive wealth effect is caused by an increase in capital income, the negative price effect is caused by an increase in the cost of housing services. In addition, the housing market wealth effect increases, at the expense of the price effect, with the level of housing-market leverage. These findings imply that the government policy of land supply aiming to stimulate the economy should strike a balance between the possible wealth and price effects of the housing market.     

Fuel for inequality: Distributional effects of environmental reforms on private transport

This paper provides the first empirical evidence of the distributional effects of subsidies for the purchase of alternative vehicles based on an extended version of Hausman's exact consumer surplus. In consistence with economic theory, we estimate changes in household welfare, inequality, and social welfare resulting from different reforms. First, we find that an additional tax on conventional fuel is regressive. However, returning the additional tax revenue via lump-sum transfers can alleviate this effect. Second, when the additional revenue is also used to finance subsidies for electrical and compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, households that own such vehicles experience welfare gains. However, this policy also increases income inequality and decreases social welfare.     

收入差距、家庭可支配收入与商品房价格：基于广州市的实证研究

论文使用1998—2009年广州市商品房价格和城镇居民不同收入家庭可支配收入来分析房价与收入差距和家庭可支配收入之间的关系。实证检验发现,收入差距扩大为房价上涨的Granger原因,但是房价并不是收入差距的Granger原因。房价对低、中低收入户的家庭可支配收入有较大影响,而中、中高收入户的家庭可支配收入是房价上涨的主要推动力量,高收入家庭既促进了房价上涨同时也从中受益最大。政策制定应该依据房价与不同收入户的家庭可支配收入之间的关系而具体实施,不能一概而论。     

Tax treatment of owner occupied housing and wealth inequality

We construct a quantitative general equilibrium lifecycle model with housing tenure decisions to investigate the degree to which wealth inequality in the United States is affected by the preferential tax treatment of home-ownership. Favorable tax treatment of owner occupied housing in the form of home mortgage interest and property tax deductibility, and the untaxed nature of imputed rents, provides a financial incentive for home-ownership over renting as well as an incentive to “over-consume” housing since houses are not fungible. Since the favorable tax treatment of housing disproportionately creates tax savings for the upper quantiles of the income distribution, we quantify how it contributes to the heavily right skewed distribution of wealth in the United States using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances. We consider a revenue-neutral government response to the counter factual experiments of removing the current tax structure on housing. Our quantitative analysis shows that, in terms of distributional effects, removing all of the preferential tax treatments results in an aggregate increase in welfare. However, we do not find any reduction in inequality. We also find that while some re-allocation toward financial assets occurs, households primarily increase their consumption when imputed housing rents are taxed and the property tax deduction is removed. Thus housing tax policy may be effective at encouraging more overall saving through housing assets.     

Does wealth inequality affect the transmission of monetary policy?

We provide evidence that higher wealth inequality between households is associated with stronger real effects of monetary policy. First, we use state-dependent local projections to show that the US and the UK exhibited stronger real effects of monetary policy in times of higher wealth inequality. Second, we measure wealth inequality within US states and document that economic activity responds more strongly to interest rate changes in states where wealth is distributed more unequally. Third, we show that ECB monetary policy has stronger real effects in Euro Area countries with higher wealth inequality.     

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.     

THE REDISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS OF THE INFLATIONARY PROCESS IN JAPAN, 1955–75*

It is often discussed that inflation introduces a substantial, arbitrary and regressive redistribution of income and wealth under even mild inflation. But after a quarter century of experience with inflation in postwar Japan, very little is known about these costs of inflation on an empirical basis. Due to the complexity of the evaluation of the redistributional impact on Japan, the present paper analyzes the effects of inflation on individuals or groups as wage earners, debtors and creditors, taxpayers, and holders of real estate. The main results of the present investigation suggest that the Japanese inflation for 1955–75 did not seem to introduce much inequality in the income (flow) account in the economy, but that the inequality between households has appeared more in the wealth (stock) account, especially between the house-owner groups and non-house-owner groups. These observations are mainly derived from the following investigations; (i) the wage lag hypothesis about inflation, even if not wrong, does not seem acceptable when applied to the entire period (1955–75) as well as to each of the five sub-periods; (ii) there has been a substantial transfer of real purchasing power from households to non-financial corporations, and, to a lesser extent, to government entities in the debtor-creditor redistribution; (iii) among households, the most substantial redistribution takes place from the non-houseowners to houseowners with land, because of the huge amount of capital gains from the rapid increase in the price of real estate relative to the prices of other assets or the consumer price index, except for the last three years of rampaging inflation.     

股权关联性、增发认购选择权与上市公司财富效应——基于会计新规的分析视角

增发是证券市场再融资的重要方式,增发不仅对证券市场产生短期的财富效应,也会对证券市场中长期的绩效产生重要影响。本文以会计新规为研究视角,分析了上市公司股权关联性与增发认购选择权的内在逻辑,构建了会计新规下上市公司财富效应的测度模型,在此基础上,揭示了上市公司财富效应的演进机理,并以此为依据,设计了基于财富效应的上市公司增发认购策略。研究表明,在两种增发模式下,均存在唯一的临界增发价格,其决定了净资产增值带来的潜在收益与股份稀释引发的潜在损失之间的动态对冲状态,从而决定了上市公司财富效应的动态分布规律;此外,在财富效应驱动下,上市公司将实施差别化的增发认购选择权。