Introduction to income inequalities and redistribution in china

This special section presents the main findings about long-run trends in inequality in China and its driving factors as they emerge from a country case study carried out under a UNU-WIDER supported project.¹ Special focus in the umbrella project were on three issues: (i) the role of earnings inequality and its determinants; (ii) the role of top incomes when administrative records or other sources can be combined with household surveys; and (iii) the redistributive impact of public policies. Main findings of the project including those for China results were presented in a special panel during the UNU-WIDER Think Development – Think WIDER development conference held in Helsinki in September 2018.²

1. Motivation

Inequality has once again emerged as a major issue in economic development across the developed and developing world, and addressing this challenge is key in the UN Sustainable Development Agenda. The UNU-WIDER conference on Mapping the Future of Development Economics held in Helsinki in September 2016³ led to the formulation of a project to study inequality in five major developing countries accounting for more than 40 per cent of the world’s population. UNU-WIDER implemented these studies under its Inequality in the Giants project,⁴ designed as part of a broader international effort to shed light on a set of new questions on between-country and within-country inequalities, by generating integrated datasets and applying a consistent methodology to investigate the determinants of inequality dynamics in some of the world’s largest economies. China was included among the five case countries, and the effort included both a series of papers on China, produced under the coordination of Professor Shi Li and various workshops and meetings. Coming to grips with inequality in China is an obvious priority for anyone interested in trends in global inequality; and the present special section contains five key papers produced in the context of the UNU-WIDER project and subsequently accepted for publication by the China Economic Review.

2. Content of the special section

The five papers on inequality in China presented in this special section cover different topics and jointly illustrate a key set of important themes in the recent evolution of China’s income distribution.The opening study by Luo, Li, and Sicular (LLS) provides an overview and analysis of the long-term evolution of inequality in China, while the next three papers — on urban wage inequality, public transfers, and top incomes — each illustrates and delves more deeply into important aspects of the broader trends in inequality.What are the main findings of these papers? The core finding is that inequality in China rose markedly from the 1980s through the early 2000s; only since 2008 has the upward trend stopped or reversed. LLS report and examine the underpinnings of this core finding, using the five waves of the China Household Income Project surveys conducted during 1988-2013. This paper also finds a considerable, ongoing reduction in rural poverty, and a poverty decomposition analysis indicates that this poverty reduction was mostly due to income growth rather than redistribution in rural areas.The second paper by Gustafsson and Wan (GW) is on urban wage inequality from 1988 to 2013 and it sheds further light on the changes in the distribution of wage earnings. The authors highlight that average wages have grown rapidly and that wage inequality increased until 2007. Moreover, age has become weaker and education stronger related with wage. Importantly, the gender wage gap once small widened rapidly between 1995 and 2007, and workers in foreign owned firm and the state sector enjoy a wage premium.While wages are the most important component of income, it is only part of the inequality story. One important additional question is the role of government taxes and transfers. Since the early 2000s, China has embarked on a major effort to put in place a universal social safety net. The study by Cai and Yue (CY), which is the third paper, assess the consequences of these efforts. Their key conclusions include that the same public policy may produce different redistributive implications. Moreover, if the government keeps increasing the social security transfer scale without changing its distribution, then inequality will increase in China. In addition, formal-sector pension takes up the biggest share and is the most un-equalizing sub-item of all social security transfers; and related to the first paper in the special section they argue that the government should spend more on Dibao and rural residents pension to reduce inequality.Arguably, income inequality measured using household survey data understates actual inequality because surveys have difficulty in capturing top incomes. In the Chinese case, concerns about such bias have increased in the past ten years due to the expansion of private wealth and growing numbers of super-rich. The fourth paper by Li, Li, and Wan (LLW) is on top incomes in China and it attempts to correct for this bias using income information for the Chinese super-rich from various sources. They conclude that the Gini coefficient of income inequality increases substantially when samples of top incomes are incorporated.Finally, Gradín and Wu (GW) analyse in the fifth and final study the distribution of income and expenditure in China in a telling comparative perspective with India. Both countries represent two extreme cases in the relationship of inequality using both wellbeing indicators. It emerges that the joint distribution of income and expenditure differs between China and India because there is a higher prevalence of people with a large mismatch between their ranks in income and consumption in India, especially in rural areas, and particularly amongst those reporting low income and high expenditure. The main compositional effects identified are the different demographic and geographical composition of the countries’ populations, mostly the smaller households (especially in rural areas) and the higher level of urbanization in China than in India. The lack of consistency of cross-country comparisons based on income or expenditure calls for the use of hybrid inequality measures combining data on both provided they are available in the same survey.

3. Concluding remarks

The studies brought together in this special section provide telling insights about the trends in inequality in China from which scholars and policy makers can learn a great deal. In a global perspective, further increases in China’s mean income and wealth, both now above the global means, will begin to raise global between-country inequality. This is important in and of itself. Moreover, while we cannot expect that all the world’s poorest countries will follow the same path as China considering that the initial conditions and the international context they face will be very different, the experiences from China do reinforce the observation that much can be done by policy to influence inequality outcomes. In particular, and as argued by Gradin, Leibbrandt, & Tarp, 2020 (forthcoming):“well-functioning labour markets that promote job-creation, decent pay and social inclusion, removing any legal or de facto discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity or place of origin, providing equal access to human and physical capital, and empowering the most disadvantaged population groups, are a key driver of increased equality”.These insights also emerge clearly from the five China studies in this special section.