Income or Consumption: Which Better Predicts Subjective Well‐Being?

The positive relationship between income and subjective well‐being has been well documented. However, work assessing the relationship of alternative material well‐being metrics to subjective well‐being (SWB) is limited. Consistent with the permanent income hypothesis, we find that a consumption‐based measure out‐performs (surveyed) income in predicting subjective well‐being. When objective measures of consumption are combined with self‐assessments of a household’s standard of living, income becomes insignificant altogether. We obtain our result utilizing household‐level data from Statistics New Zealand’s New Zealand General Social Survey which contains measures of income, SWB and a measure of material well‐being called the Economic Living Standard Index that combines measures of consumption flows and self‐assessments of material well‐being.     

MEASURING POVERTY USING BOTH INCOME AND WEALTH: A CROSS‐COUNTRY COMPARISON BETWEEN THE U.S. AND SPAIN

We study the correspondence between a household's income and its vulnerability to income shocks in two developed countries: the U.S. and Spain. Vulnerability is measured by the availability of wealth to smooth consumption in a multidimensional approach to poverty, which allows us to identify three groups of households: the twice‐poor group, which includes income‐poor households who lack an adequate stock of wealth; the group of protected‐poor households, which are all those income‐poor families with a buffer stock of wealth they can rely on; and the vulnerable‐non‐poor group, including households above the income‐poverty line that do not hold any stock of wealth. Interestingly, the risk of belonging to these groups changes over the life‐cycle in both countries while the size of the groups differs significantly between Spain and the U.S., although this result is quite sensitive to whether the housing wealth component is included in the wealth measure or not.     

The basic income guarantee and social economics

This article introduces the Review of Social Economy symposium on the basic income guarantee (BIG). It argues that there are several ways in which the BIG is consistent with social economics. First, the BIG is an attempt to meet the minimum material needs of US citizens and contribute to the common good. Second, important arguments for a BIG move beyond the positive-normative dichotomy. Finally, the BIG would help individuals function as social citizens.     

Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital

Economic valuation of natural and environmental assets is now a well established practice. Economic analysis provides several methods for discovering the impact on social welfare associated with changes in the ability of these assets to provide different goods and services. In general terms, these valuation exercises have been performed in the framework of Environmental Impact Assessment or, more generally, Cost Benefit Analysis. There is, however, an increasing demand nowadays to go beyond this framework and to value natural capital (natural resource stocks, land and ecosystems) as such. There are two main reasons for this new demand. On the one hand, sustainability requires that proper account should be taken of capital depreciation and, therefore, there is a need to value natural capital changes. This valuation process, nevertheless, only makes sense when some kind of substitution between natural and other forms of capital is allowed. On the other hand, there is also an increasing tendency to demand that the stock of natural capital present in a given territory be valued, either to discover one of the main components of social wealth or to help adequately plan changes in land use. Yet, whereas conventional valuation methods are probably adequate to fulfill the first task, this is less true in the case of the second, while even more difficulties arise in connection with the third one. Even if at first sight the process appears conceptually identical, these tasks are of a different order of magnitude, as the experience of both the World Bank and the Statistics Division of the United Nations in this respect clearly shows.     

Basic income in the United States: Redefining citizenship in the liberal state

This paper examines citizenship-based arguments for work-conditioned welfare and basic income. I argue that the most common citizenship-based justifications for work requirements—the paternalistic and civic republican arguments—are flawed because of their selectivity, and that the only defensible citizenship-based justification for work requirements is the socialist model, which enforces work requirements universally on all. I offer as a liberal alternative a radically pluralist notion of citizenship, with a kind of universal economic suffrage at its core, to justify an unconditional basic income in the US.     

A Post-Keynesian Response to Piketty's ‘Fundamental Contradiction of Capitalism’

In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty presents a rich set of data that deals with income and wealth distribution, output-wealth dynamics and rates of return. He also proposes some ‘laws of capitalism’. At the core of his argument lies the ‘fundamental inequality of capitalism’, an empirical regularity stating that the rate of return on wealth is greater than the growth rate of the economy. This simple construct allows him to conclude that increasing wealth (and income) inequality is an inevitable outcome of capitalism. While we share some of his conclusions, we will highlight some shortcomings of his approach based on a Cambridge post-Keynesian growth-and-distribution model. The paper makes four points. First, r?>?g is not necessarily associated with increasing inequality in functional distribution. Second, Piketty succumbs to a fallacy of composition when he claims that a necessary condition for r?>?g is that capitalists save a large share of their capital income. Third, post-Keynesians can learn from Piketty's insights about personal income distribution and incorporate them into their models. Fourth, we reiterate the post-Keynesian argument that a well-behaved aggregate production function does not exist and cannot explain income distribution.     

An explicit solution to an optimal tax problem

Under specific but perhaps not over-restrictive assumptions on social welfare and consumer preferences, an explicit closed-form solution for an optimal linear income tax is derived. Specifically, given linear income supply functions and a rank-order social welfare function, the optimal tax rate and benefit level are characterized by four parameters: I, a measure of pre-tax inequality in the ability (wage) distribution; r, the fraction of potential total income required for (non-redistributed) government revenue; σ, the fraction of potential total income required for consumer subsistence expenditures; and a disincentive parameter, δ, the marginal propensity to spend on leisure or the amount by which earned income is reduced in response to a unit increase in unearned benefit. Defining , the ratio I/(1 - σ - r), the optimal tax rate τ is given by: The formula is used to fully characterize τ in terms of the parameters. Results include the following: τ = 0 if I = 0; τ = 1 if δ = 0; τ is increasing in I, σ and r; τ may be increasing or decreasing in δ depending on the value of ; when disincentive effects are large, τ becomes close to so that, in such economies, if σ and r are small, the optimal tax rate is equal to the measure of pre-tax inequality. Formulae for the deadweight loss associated with the tax are derived and some observations are offered on the empirical issues associated with the model.     

农村公共管理服务变化影响农户收入吗?—基于中国健康与养老调查数据的经验分析

在农村市场化进程中农村的公共管理服务发生了深刻变化。基于2011年中国健康与养老调查数据构建计量经济模型,通过控制实验方法解决模型中可能存在的内生性问题,验证了政府经济发展服务、社会管理服务影响农户收入的机制。分析结果表明:以乡镇企业、村办企业数量衡量的政府经济管理服务显著影响农户收入,企业数量越多的村庄农户收入也越高;以村基层组织干部素质衡量的政府社会管理服务也是影响农户收入的重要因素;与经济管理服务相比,政府社会管理服务能力对农户收入的影响力较弱。政府应当通过公共服务购买改革等方式提高农村社会管理服务水平,充分发挥市场在农村经济领域中的决定性作用。     

家族企业收益构成分析

家族拥有企业的控制权使得家族企业的收益函数有着其特定的内涵,分析发现家族企业收益由企业收益和家族收益两部分组成,家族收益是难以度量的非货币形态的收益,包括:为家族成员提供就业机会、创业者中兴家业、光宗耀祖的成就感、在企业中指挥调拨他人的满足感、附随于企业家头衔上的荣誉感以及一系列有形或无形的社会网络资本等。家族收益依附控制权而存在,是影响家族企业控制权转移的主要原因。     

A Common Base Answer to the Question “Which Country Is Most Redistributive?”*

We believe that what most authors have in mind when referring to the “most redistributive country” is a tax and transfer schedule that is most redistributive across all pre-tax and transfer income distributions. In order to measure each country's tax and transfer redistribution according to the same baseline, we suggest using the transplant-and-compare method of Dardanoni and Lambert (2002, Journal of Public Economics 86, 99–122) to establish a common base. The redistributive effects of countries’ tax and transfer schedules are illustrated by employing microdata on eight countries from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS). Of these eight countries, Finland is found to be the most redistributive country, according to the common base method.     

An Operative Framework for Total Hicksian Income Measurement: Application to a Multiple-Use Forest

A methodology for estimating total hicksian income in multiple-use forests is presented. The approach consistently incorporates commercial as well as non-commercial economic values and enables the measurement of national accounting aggregates taking into account variation in man-made and natural capital. Innovative solutions are developed (i) for the estimation of non-market values, such as recreation, where an attempt to determine exchange values has been made simulating markets, (ii) for timber, where standing timber valuation methods have been extended to cover uneven stands, and (iii) for carbon fixation valuation, where only permanently fixed carbon after 1990 has been taken into account. The methodology is applied to a multiple-use pinewood in the Guadarrama mountains, near Madrid (Spain). Timber, cattle grazing, hunting, recreation, carbon fixation and conservation values are measured and integrated in the accounting system, using primary microeconomic data from the case study. Results indicate the importance of non-commercial income, which accounts for 51% of the total income, and the social relevance of the analysed forest, implying that only 31% of the total income generated is appropriated by the forest owner.     

对缩小收入差距问题的远近期思考

国际上通常使用基尼系数作为衡量一个国家或地区收入差距的重要标志。我国居民收入基尼系数不仅高于国际通行标准，也高于发达国家。收入差距扩大已经成为影响消费规模扩大、社会安定的重要因素之一。一般认为，经济发展会进一步扩大收入差距。治理并缩小收入差距应标本兼治：短期内可以依靠收入转移、完善社会保障系统等手段；从长期看，深化经济体制改革、促进经济健康稳定发展才是缩小乃至逐步消除收入差距的根本途径。     

Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?

We estimated the income elasticity of environmental improvements for a number of European data-sets. The value of this parameter is consistently found to be less than one, with few exceptions. Our findings are compared with state-of-the-art contingent valuation studies from other countries. We also compared our findings with those reported in the literature on charitable donations and corporate donations. These studies show a similar pattern; donations decrease as a percentage of income, as income increases.     

Testing the permanent-income hypothesis: new evidence from West-German states (Länder)

This paper investigates whether time-series data from 11 West-German states (L?nder) provide evidence in accord with the implication of the permanent-income hypothesis (PIH) for the stochastic relationship between consumption and income innovations. The empirical results do not support this hypothesis, in the sense that the response of consumption to income innovations is found to be much weaker than is predicted by the PIH. Moreover, for each individual state as well as for Germany as a whole, the response was found to be asymmetric, being stronger for negative than positive income innovations. This evidence of asymmetry is consistent with a model in which consumers are liquidity constrained.

The effects of economic freedom,regulatory quality and taxation on the level of per capita real income: a preliminary analysis for OECD nations and non-G8 OECD nations

This study of the impact of economic freedom, regulatory quality and the relative burden of taxation on the level of per capita real income/GDP among OECD nations over the period 2003 to 2007 adopts a modified version of the overall economic freedom index computed by the Heritage Foundation (2013), one with the fiscal freedom and business freedom indices removed. This study then provides panel least squares fixed-effects estimates for five linear specifications/models. Each nation during this time frame can be regarded either as a nation per se or as a de facto ‘economic region’ within the OECD. The analysis first focuses upon all of the OECD nations and then, as a robustness test, subsequently focuses only on non-G8 OECD member nations. The estimations in this study all provide strong empirical support for the three central hypotheses proffered here, namely: (1) the higher the overall degree of economic freedom, the higher the per capita real income (GDP) level; (2) the higher the level of regulatory quality, the higher the level of per capita real income (GDP) and (3) the higher the overall tax burden, expressed as a per cent of GDP, the lower is the level of per capita real income (GDP).     

INEQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITIES VS. INEQUALITY OF OUTCOMES: ARE WESTERN SOCIETIES ALL ALIKE?

This paper analyzes the relationship between income inequality and inequality of opportunities for income acquisition in nine developed countries during the 1990s. Equality of opportunity is defined as the situation where income distributions conditional on social origin cannot be ranked according to stochastic dominance criteria. We measure social origin by parental education and occupation and use the database built by Roemer et al. (2003 ). Stochastic dominance is assessed using nonparametric statistical tests. Our results indicate strong disparities in the degree of equality of opportunity across countries and a strong correlation between inequality of outcomes and inequality of opportunity. The U.S. and Italy show up as the most unequal countries in terms of both outcome and opportunity. At the opposite extreme, income distributions conditional on social origin are almost the same in Scandinavian countries even before any redistributive policy. We complement the ordinal comparison by resorting to an original scalar “Gini” index of opportunities, which can be decomposed into a risk and a return component. In our sample, inequality of opportunity is mostly driven by differences in mean income conditional on social origin, and differences in risk compensate the return element in most countries.     

投资者情绪、股票错误估值与上市公司投资简

以剩余收益估值模型衡量股票错误估值程度,基于公司层面测度投资者情绪,利用非平衡面板数据模型检验投资投资者情绪如何通过证券市场传导到上市公司从而影响其实际投资行为。实证研究发现,投资者情绪主要通过直接的迎合渠道而非间接的股权融资渠道影响上市公司投资行为,且公司投资在迎合渠道上表现出对投资者情绪的“反迎合机制”,此外不同特征的公司其投资对投资者情绪的敏感度存在横截面差异。     

Income Distribution,Econophysics and Piketty

Piketty, Atkinson and Saez have put the analysis of income distribution back on center stage. The distinction between property income and labor income plays a central role in this framework. Property income derives from the rate of return on stocks of income-earning wealth and is more unequally distributed than labor income. Piketty argues that, because the rate of return (r) is generally greater than the rate of growth of the economy (g), property income tends to grow more rapidly than labor income, so that rising income inequality is an intrinsic tendency of capitalism despite interruptions due to world wars and great depressions. This article argues the exact opposite. The rise of unions and the welfare state were the fruits of long-term historical gains made by labor, and the postwar constraints on real and financial capital arose in sensible reaction to the Great Depression. The ‘neoliberal’ era beginning in the 1980s significantly rolled back all of these. The article uses the econophysics two-class argument of Yakovenko to show that we can explain the empirical degree of inequality using two factors alone: the profit share and the degree of financialization of income. The rise of inequality in the neoliberal era then derives from a reduction in the wage share (rise in the profit share) in the face of assaults on labor and the welfare state, and a sharp increase in the financialization of incomes as financial controls are weakened. These are inherently socio-political outcomes, and what was lost can be regained. Hence, there is no inevitable return to Piketty’s ‘patrimonial capitalism’.     

A new approach to the decomposition of the Gini income inequality ratio

The purpose of this research is to introduce a new approach to the decomposition of the Gini ratio into three components, supporting them with economic and statistical rigorous interpretations. The three components are: (i) the Gini inequalitywithin subpopulations; (ii) thenet contribution of the extended Gini inequalitybetween subpopulations; and (iii) the contribution of theintensity of transvariation between subpopulations. These components are weighted by the product of the population shares times the income shares of the corresponding subpopulations where the weights add to one.The decomposition introduced in this research is applied to the 1990 U.S. family income distribution. The population of families is disaggregated by types into the following subpopulations: (a) married-couple families; (b) male householder, no wife present; and (c) female householder, no husband present.     

Wealth,Capital and the Theory of Distribution: Some Implications for Piketty’s Analysis

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014) has been spectacularly successful. One reason for this is that while it often challenges received views and supports a non-apologetic interpretation of capitalism, at the same time it relies on mainstream economics. This theoretical framework, however, is not always conducive to consistency and interpretative accuracy. This paper points out some of the book’s analytical weaknesses and shows that some empirical evidence, a clearer distinction between wealth and capital, and a different theoretical perspective, could lead to questioning some of the book’s claims. In particular, it argues that the increase in the wealth-to-output ratio (but not the capital-to-output ratio) cannot explain the observed changes in income shares. It also contends that non-mainstream perspectives on income distribution and growth suggest that changes in income distribution are due more to policy and power relations than to the factors Piketty identifies.