Understanding Changes in the Distribution and Redistribution of Income: A Unifying Decomposition Framework

In recent decades income inequality has increased in many developed countries but the role of tax and transfer reforms is often poorly understood. We propose a new method allowing for the decomposition of historical changes in income distribution and redistribution measures into: (i) the immediate effect of tax‐transfer policy reforms in the absence of behavioral responses; (ii) the effect of labor supply responses induced by these reforms; and (iii) a third component allowing us to explore the effect of changes in the distribution of a wide range of determinants, including the effect of employment changes not induced by policy reforms. The application of the decomposition to Australia reveals that the direct effect of tax‐transfer policy reforms accounts for half of the observed increase in income inequality between 1999 and 2008, while the increased dispersion of wages and capital incomes also played an important role.     

Wealth Concentration over the Path of Development: Sweden, 1873–2006*

We study wealth concentration in Sweden over 130 years, from the beginning of industrialization until the present day. Our series are based on new evidence from estate and wealth tax data, foreign and domestic family firm‐wealth, and pension wealth estimates. We find that Swedish wealth concentration was high in the agrarian state, and changed little during early industrialization. From World War I until about 1950, the richest percentile lost ground to high‐income earners in the rest of the top‐wealth decile. This equalization continued postwar; the entire top decile lost‐out relative to the rest of the population. Around 1980, wealth compression stopped and inequality increased. We approximate the effects of international flows and find that the recent increase in wealth inequality is probably larger than what official estimates suggest.     

The Pro‐Poorness,Growth and Inequality Nexus: Some Findings From a Simulation Study

An income growth pattern is pro‐poor if it reduces a (chosen) measure of poverty by more than if all incomes were growing equiproportionately. Inequality reduction is not sufficient for pro‐poorness. In this paper, we explore the nexus between pro‐poorness, growth, and inequality in some detail using simulations involving the displaced lognormal, Singh–Maddala, and Dagum distributions. For empirically relevant parameter estimates, distributional change preserving the functional form of each of these three‐parameter distributions is often either pro‐poor and inequality reducing, or pro‐rich and inequality exacerbating, but it is also possible for pro‐rich growth to be inequality reducing. There is some capacity for each of these distributions to show trickle effects (weak pro‐richness) along with inequality‐reducing growth, but virtually no possibility of pro‐poorness for growth which increases overall inequality. Implications are considered.