Consumer Debt and the Measurement of Poverty and Inequality in the US∗

This paper argues that interest on consumer debt must be taken into account when measuring poverty and inequality. These interest payments cannot be used to support household living standards. This makes middle- and low-income households worse off. Recent increases in consumer debt means that this deterioration in living standards is not captured by conventional government statistics. Using the Survey of Consumer Finances, we make estimates of poverty and inequality that take into account rising interest payments on consumer debt and discuss some of the implications of these estimates.     

Top Income Adjustments and Inequality: An Investigation of the EU-SILC†

This paper provides a novel assessment of how the World Inequality Database (WID) top income adjustment applied by Blanchet, Chancel, and Gethin (2021) to European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) data for 26 countries over 2003–2017 for Distributional National Accounts purposes affects inequality in equivalized gross and disposable household income. On average, the Gini is increased by around 2.4 points for both gross and disposable income, with notable differences across countries but limited impact on trends. EU-SILC countries that rely on administrative register data see relatively small effects on inequality. Comparing with two other recent studies, differences in impacts on measured inequality depend less on the adjustment method and more on whether external data sources are used.     

Do Piketty and Saez Misstate Income Inequality? Critiquing the Critiques

A large body of literature points to sharply growing income inequality over the past half century. The Piketty and Saez dataset that measures income distribution provides empirical support for this claim. Our article evaluates three prominent criticisms of this dataset as well as the responses of Piketty and Saez to these criticisms. One key argument against using their dataset is that Piketty and Saez do not control for income shifting by top income earners in response to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86) and thus overstate income inequality. In evaluating this criticism we find that a segment of their dataset likely understates income inequality; this is just the opposite of what critics assert. This implies that the Piketty–Saez dataset is a valuable resource for income inequality research and that scholars can use it to build more refined, accurate and insightful measures of income inequality.     

Taxing Nothing – Tax Arbitrage and the Vanishing Revenue from Capital Income Taxation

In a one-period model the implications of the German tax code, concerning capital taxation, onto the capital market equilibrium are examined. Therefore, we model a corporation sector subject to the corporation tax and private investors liable to private income taxation. We show that there neither exist any possibilities for local tax arbitrage nor tax clienteles. Extending the model for stocks and derivative financial instruments, the tax base for private capital income taxation vanishes and the tax revenue drops to zero.revised version received September 3, 2003     

Wealth Inequality in Sweden: What can we Learn from Capitalized Income Tax Data?

This paper presents new estimates of wealth inequality in Sweden during 2000–2012, linking wealth register data up to 2007 and individually capitalized wealth based on income and property tax registers for the period thereafter when a repeal of the wealth tax stopped the collection of individual wealth statistics. We find that wealth inequality increased after 2007 and that more unequal bank holdings and housing appear to be important drivers. We also evaluate the performance of the capitalization method by contrasting its estimates and their dispersion with observed stocks in register data up to 2007. The goodness‐of‐fit varies tremendously across assets and we conclude that although capitalized wealth estimates may well approximate overall inequality levels and trends, they are highly sensitive to assumptions and the quality of the underlying data sources.     

Will Inequality Lead China to the Middle Income Trap？

China has departed from the East Asian development model by letting inequality rise to a high level, which is now contributing to China＇s current problems of macroeconomic imbalance, declining efficiency of capital, and rising social tensions. If inequality persists, China may get caught in the ＂inequality-trap,＂ which may then lead to the middle income trap （MIT）. Fortunately, China still has the levers to pull to reduce inequality and avoid the MIT. Measures along both the ＂wage route＂ and the ＂redistributive route＂ can be adopted for this purpose. In addition, China may pursue the ＂cooperative route＂ to more equitable distribution.     

Why is Income Inequality Increasing in the Developed World?

We address empirically the factors affecting the dynamics of income inequality among industrialized economies. Using a panel for 32 developed countries spanning the last four decades, our results indicate that the predictions of the Stolper–Samuelson theorem concerning the effects of international trade on income inequality find support in the data if we concentrate on imports from developing countries as a trade measure, as theory would imply. We find that democratization, the interaction of technology and education, and changes in the relative power of labor unions affect inequality dynamics robustly.     

Income Inequality and Workers’ Powerlessness in Selected OECD Countries

Our goal is to show the effects of “elitization” on income inequality in affluent countries over the last two decades. By applying a robust regression model on a sample of twenty-one OECD countries, we observe that a high concentration of wealth by the richest “1%” of the population results in reducing the impact of trade unions on income redistribution through political institutions. Insufficient redistribution can be interpreted not only as the elites’ control over the resources that influence public policy and opinion, but also as affecting the evolutionary path of the economy. Moreover, this influence emphasizes the importance of traditional institutions and serves as an inspiration to reconsider the established social consensus regarding the welfare state.     

Regional Income Inequality in the United States: 1969–2017

Abstract:

This article contains an analysis of the nation’s 100 lowest and 100 highest per capita income counties in the United States from 1969 to 2017. The low-income counties are very different from the high-income counties. Compared to the high-income counties, the low-income counties are generally small, mainly rural, and geographically concentrated. The people of the low-income counties are also more likely to be from minority groups than the people of either the nation or the high-income counties. Despite major institutional and technological change, both groups of counties exhibit considerable stability over the last half century. A reasonable assertion from the analysis is that the nature of regional income inequality is not likely to change substantially over the next half-century.     

Who Supports Redistribution? Subjective Income Inequality in Japan and China

Governments reduce income inequality with redistribution policies. These policies are often contentious because people who live in the same country have different preferences for redistribution. Some prefer the government to do more while others prefer the government to do less. Hence what explains the difference in preferences? Using the methodologically suitable cases of Japan and China, this paper contributes to the redistributive preference literature by proposing an alternative theory of how a person's subjective evaluation of and experiences with income inequality—subjective income inequality—affect his/her redistributive preferences. Specifically, a person who feels that his/her country's level of income inequality is too high is more likely to support government redistribution. But contrary to extant studies, this paper finds that a spatial locality's level of objective income inequality does not systematically affect its citizens' preference for redistribution. This finding has implications for redistribution policies because government policies in Japan and China—as with other countries—narrowly frame income inequality in the objective dimensions by pegging it to objective income inequality indices(e.g., Gini ratio), thereby ignoring the more important subjective dimensions of income inequality.     

Possibility of a Middle Income Trap in China： Assessment in Terms of the Literature on Innovation,Big Business and Inequality

This paper discusses the possibility of China falling into the so-called middle income trap in terms of three checkpoints： innovation capability, world-class big businesses, and inequality. Based on these criteria, our conclusions are as follows： First, China has increasingly become innovative and thus differs from other middle income countries. Second, China has many successful big businesses, a number disproportionate to its size. Thus, China differs from other middle income countries with few world-class big businesses, and the only qualification is that those big businesses are mostly non- manufacturing firms focused on such areas as finance, energy, and trading. Third, China faces great uncertainty in terms of inequality. Although several signs show that the Kuznets curve will come to represent China, as noted by the gradual reduction of surplus labor and rising wage rates starting in the coastal provinces, the Chinese are now facing new sources of inequality in China, such as wealth （including financial and real estate assets） and non-economic factors （including corruption）.     

Globalization and Income Gap from the Perspective of Developing Countries

Using political economic theory, this paper analyzes the impact of economic globalization on international income distribution, including the income gap between developed countries and developing ones, the income gap among the developing countries. The paper states that because the economic globalization is the globalization of capitalism manufacture style and developed countries dominates the process, the income gap between developing countries and developed one is difficult to be narrowed, and the income gap in developing countries will enlarge.     

Changes in Employment and Hours,and Family Income Inequality in the United.States, 1969–1989

This paper estimates how much changes in employment and hours worked for family heads and spouses contributed to the rise in the family income inequality between 1969 and 1989. Change in labor market activity of family heads accounts for half of the increase in the income gap between the top and bottom 10th families. The effect of change in work effort on the income inequality is considerably weaker where four-fifths of families in the middle of income distribution are considered. This result is robust to changes in the selection of the population. The rise in the inequality of labor market activity occurred largely within families headed by prime-age men. The rise in the percentage of families headed by female and the decline in employment rate for older family heads are relatively minor factors. [J2, E2, N3]     

Policy,Demography, and Market Income Volatility: What Shaped Income Distribution and Inequality in Australia Between 2002 and 2016?

Isolating the impact of policy, demographic shifts, and market volatility on changes in income inequality is of great interest to policymakers. However, such estimation can be difficult due to the complex interactions and evolutions in the social and economic environment. Through an extended decomposition framework, this paper estimates the effect of four main components (policy, demography, market income and other factors) on the year-over-year changes in income inequality in Australia between 2002 and 2016. This was a period marked by substantial policy, population, and economic shifts due to factors such as the mining boom, the global financial crisis and increasing immigration. The framework also incorporates a flexible non-parametric market income model which captures demand-side shock better than a standard parametric model. Our results suggest that market income was the primary driver of income inequality for all segments of the income distribution in Australia over the past 15 years. Policy factors, moreover, have had the largest net impact on reducing inequality overall, especially for lower income earners.     

The Evolution of Income Composition Inequality in Italy, 1989–2016

We study the evolution of inequality in income composition in terms of capital and labor income in Italy between 1989 and 2016. We document a rise in the share of capital income accruing to the bottom of the distribution, while the top of the distribution increases its share of labor income. This implies a falling degree of income composition inequality in the period considered and a weaker relationship between the functional and personal distribution of income in Italy. This result is robust to various specifications of self-employment income; nonetheless, it hinges crucially on the treatment of rental incomes. While the dynamics of imputed rents has brought about a more equitable distribution of capital incomes across the income distribution, that of actual rents has led to higher concentration of capital incomes at the top in the decade preceding the outbreak of the financial crisis. Finally, we conceptualize a rule of thumb for policy makers seeking to reduce income inequality in the long run.