THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE ENLARGED EU

This study examines how personal disposable income is distributed across regions, countries and larger geographical areas in the EU25 and how this distribution changed during the second half of the 1990s. Moreover, it assesses the "statistical" effect resulting from the enlargement of the European Union, and therefore the community of people for which inequality is measured. A three-level spatial decomposition of the overall personal inequality in the EU reveals that a fifth of its amount is attributed to the east–west income gap and that intra-regional inequality accounts for three quarters. The study detects a convergence of both average national income levels and within-country personal income inequality. Inequality is rising primarily in the Scandinavian social-democratic welfare states and decreasing in the Mediterranean countries of the EU15. In Eastern Central Europe, the rapid growth of inequality which had been observable during the first years of transition has come to an end.     

INEQUALITY AND THE MEASUREMENT OF RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION BY INCOME IN AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOODS

American metropolitan areas have experienced rising residential segregation by income since 1970. One potential explanation for this change is growing income inequality. However, measures of residential sorting are typically mechanically related to the income distribution, making it difficult to identify the impact of inequality on residential choice. This paper presents a measure of residential segregation by income, the Centile Gap Index (CGI), which is based on income percentiles. Using the CGI, I find that a one standard deviation increase in income inequality raises residential income segregation by 0.4–0.9 standard deviations. Inequality at the top of the distribution is associated with more segregation of the rich, while inequality at the bottom and declines in labor demand for less-skilled men are associated with residential isolation of the poor. Inequality can fully explain the rise in income segregation between 1970 and 2000.     

VALUE JUDGEMENTS IMPLIED BY THE USE OF VARIOUS MEASURES OF INCOME INEQUALITY*

If a welfare economist wants to express income inequality in a sensible way by a single parameter, he has to make rather strong assumptions regarding the social preferences of his fellow citizens. Formulas are presented with whose aid one is able to test whether or not these assumptions hold. The standard measures used nowadays contradict prevailing preferences. If no common single measure can be found which fits the social preferences of almost all individuals concerned tolerably well, additional parameters measuring poverty and riches separately are necessary.     

THE SENSITIVITY OF INCOME INEQUALITY TO CHOICE OF EQUIVALENCE SCALES

To account for the fact that a household's needs depend on its size and composition most studies on income inequality adjust the observed household incomes by equivalence scales. However, since the rationale for choosing a specific scale is rather vague the importance of testing the sensitivity of income inequality estimates to choice of equivalence scales has long been acknowledged. The sensitivity studies in the literature are restricted to equivalence scales that do not depend on the income level of the reference household which means that the effect of a rise in the household size on the scale rate does not depend on whether the household is poor or rich. By using Norwegian micro-data it is shown that the introduction of an income-dependent scale produces results that are in conflict with the widespread view of robustness of results to choice of equivalence scales.     

THE INCOME UNIT AND THE ANATOMY OF INCOME DISTRIBUTION*

This paper focuses on a neglected aspect of the treatment of the income unit in the construction of size distributions of income. If the size distribution is to be an indicator of the distribution of economic welfare, and if the economic welfare of each individual in society is to count equally, then conventional distributions are inconsistent with individualistic welfare functions. We estimate size distributions with each person's welfare weighted equally, and contrast these results with those weighting each household unit's welfare equally. The choice of weights is shown to affect both the level and the trend in income inequality.     

MULTILEVEL DECOMPOSITION METHODS FOR INCOME INEQUALITY MEASURES*

This paper studies the multilevel decomposability of the respective income inequality measures proposed by Theil, Rao and Bahattacharya–Maharanobis. All the methods can be decomposed into multilevels if and only if each lower level subgroup belongs to only one particular higher level group. We found not only analytically but also empirically that the residual in the decomposed Bahattacharya–Maharanobis measure tends to increase when the decomposition levels increase. We conclude that Theil's and Rao's decompositions have advantages in empirical analysis and that the choice of the decomposition methods depends on the purpose of the analysis.     

ON THE ROLE OF CAPITAL GAINS IN SWEDISH INCOME INEQUALITY

Realized capital gains are typically disregarded in the study of income inequality. We show that in the case of Sweden this severely underestimates the actual increase in inequality and, in particular, top income shares during recent decades. Using micro panel data to average incomes over longer periods and re‐rank individuals according to income excluding capital gains, we show that capital gains indeed are a reoccurring addition to rather than a transitory component in top incomes. Doing the same for lower income groups, however, makes virtually no difference. We also try to find the roots of the recent surge in capital gains‐driven inequality in Sweden since the 1980s. While there are no evident changes in terms of who earns these gains (high wage earners vs. top capital income earners), the primary driver instead seems to be the drastic asset price increases on the post‐1980 deregulated financial markets.     

INCOME STRATIFICATION AND INCOME INEQUALITY

This paper develops a new index of stratification that highlights the distinction between inequality and stratification. The stratification index captures the extent to which population subgroups occupy distinct strata within an overall distribution. The indices are group specific and control for group size. A weighted sum of group stratification indices is the third term that, together with between-group inequality and a weighted sum of within-group inequality adds to the overall Gini index of inequality.     

THE PARETO PRINCIPLE OF OPTIMAL INEQUALITY*

The Pareto principle is often viewed as a mild requirement compatible with a variety of value judgments. In particular, it is generally thought that it can accommodate different degrees of inequality aversion. We show that this is generally not true in time‐consistent intertemporal models where some uncertainty prevails.     

TYPES OF INCOME AND INEQUALITY IN CHINA AT THE END OF THE 1980s

Using a nationwide household income survey, different types of income in the People's Republic of China at the end of the 1980s is analysed. The results show that various income types play quite different roles in rural and urban areas. Subsistence income makes up about half of the total income in rural China. Money income makes up about two-thirds of total income in urban China and is the major contributor to inequality in the entire country. In kind income, of which highly subsidized housing is the single most important category, is highly concentrated in urban areas and contributes greatly to inequality.     

THE IMPORTANCE OF ASSET INCOME AMONG THE ELDERLY*

This paper focuses on the income patterns among the elderly. The life cycle hypothesis suggests that income and assets will decline after retirement. Data from the 1980 U.S. decennial census confirms that total income declines for succeeding elderly cohorts. The census data, however, shows that income from assets for elderly cohorts increases until the cohort aged 85 years and older. This pattern is similar for different sex-marital groups. Recent research that has addressed the issue of savings among the elderly is summarized and four possible explanations for the increase in income from assets found in the decennial census are discussed. We conclude by suggesting the implications of this data for the life cycle theory and public policy.     

CORRUPTION AND INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES

In this study we analyze the effects of corruption on income inequality. Our analysis advances the existing literature in three ways. First, instead of using one of the corruption indices assembled by various investment risk services, we use an objective measure of corruption: the number of public officials convicted in a state for crimes related to corruption. Second, we minimize the problems which are likely to arise because of data incomparability by examining the differences in income inequality across the United States. Finally, we exploit both time series and cross‐sectional variation in the data. We find robust evidence that an increase in corruption increases income inequality. (JEL D31, D73, I32)     

THE EFFECTS OF MACROECONOMIC FLUCTUATIONS ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME*

This study develops a microanalytic simulation model to examine the effects of macroeconomic fluctuations on the distribution on the distribution of income. A representational sample of the population of the United States is linked with equations determining the variability of various types of factor income. Each family's income experience is simulated under alternative aggregate conditions, and the income distributions arising under these conditions are compared. The main results are similar for alternative specifications of the model. The incidence of a downturn in economic activity, whether accompanied by changes in the rate of inflation or not, and measured in terms of the loss of factor income, leaves the upper middle class relatively better off than before and leaves most others relatively worse off. The very rich bear the heaviest burden.     

THE COST OF INCOME REDISTRIBUTION IN AUSTRALIA*

This paper analyses the effect of raising effective marginal tax rates on the income of the representative household in each gross income decile in Australia by one percentage point, and distributing the proceeds of the tax increase either in the form of an equal per capita grant, or as an equal payment to members of households in the lower half of the income distribution. The effectiveness of the program in redistributing income is measured as the ratio of total gains in disposable income to households in target deciles to losses in non-target groups, or as the proportional reduction in the poverty gap. The cost is measured as the ratio of the sum of the income-equivalent of changes in the welfare of non-target groups to those of target groups, or as the ratio of income-equivalent losses to gains.     

DUAL‐INDEX MEASUREMENT OF INCOME INEQUALITY

This study introduces the concept of unequally distributed income and proposes a dual‐index measurement of income inequality that evaluates the magnitude and dispersion of unequally distributed income. We use the Rawlsian index as a magnitude index and employ current income inequality indices as a dispersion index. We describe the properties of the Rawlsian and dispersion indices, and apply these indices to real income data. Further, we show that the Gini dispersion index is a weighted average of Rawlsian indices for the sub‐distributions of the unequally distributed income distribution.