scholarly journals The impact of different data sources on the level and structure of income inequality

SERIEs ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Ayala ◽  
Ana Pérez ◽  
Mercedes Prieto-Alaiz

AbstractThis paper aims to analyze the effect on measured inequality and its structure of using administrative data instead of survey data. Different analyses are carried out based on the Spanish Survey on Income and Living Conditions (ECV) that continued to ask households for their income despite assigning their income data as provided by the Tax Agency and the Social Security Administration. Our main finding is that the largest discrepancies between administrative and survey data are in the tails of the distribution. In addition to that, there are clear differences in the level and structure of inequality across data sources. These differences matter, and our results should be a wake-up call to interpret the results based on only one source of income data with caution.

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara A. Smith

The Social Security Statement is one of the most important outreach efforts of the Social Security Administration (SSA). In October 1999, SSA began sending out the Statement to inform Americans aged 25 or older about their estimated benefits and their earnings records. This article reviews the Statement's history, discusses how the public uses the Statement in retirement planning, and highlights how the Statement has increased the public's knowledge of Social Security. The article describes SSA tools and publications that the public can use in retirement planning. It concludes with suggestions for how financial educators, counselors, planners, and researchers might use the Statement and related survey data to inform the public about Social Security programs, benefits, and services.


2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-187
Author(s):  
Laura Diliuvienė ◽  
Zita Tamašauskienė

Recently income inequality has been growing in many countries, and it is one of the biggest economic and social problems. The International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and other organizations stress the importance of this issue. According to Atkinson, Brandolini (2009), changes in income inequality show whether a particular society becomes more egalitarian over time or not, in which socio-economic direction it progresses.Even countries with similar economic structures differ in the level of income inequality and, according to Stiglitz (2015), differences in income inequality are related to policy decisions. The decisions of countries may depend on the prevailing view if markets are efficient or inefficient. In the first case, countries tend to rely more on neoliberal economic doctrine, and in the second, on the welfare state, where the role of government is more active (Stiglitz, 2017). However, it is observed that the growing income inequality is related to the growing role of the financial market, i.e. the phenomenon of financialization, which weakens the role of government. Thus, assessing the impact of financialization on income inequality is an actual topic of scientific debate.The results of studies, assessing the impact of financialization on income inequality, are mixed. Some financialization dimensions, such as financial liberalization, banking / financial crises increase income inequality, but microfinance intensity reduces income inequality. The contradictory results can be explained by the fact that research samples differ, various indicators reflecting the financialization are used, different independent variables are included in the regression equations.Studies have also been conducted in groups of countries that belong to different welfare state regimes (Josifidis, Mitrović, Supić, Glavaški, 2016; Dafermos, Papatheodorou, 2013). These studies emphasize that the level of income inequality is related to the efficiency of the social security system, i.e. income inequality is lower in Social–democratic welfare state regime (inherent universal social services and benefits) and Conservative–corporatist welfare state regime (social security model related to employment status) groups of countries than in the Mediterranean welfare state regime (characterized by the fragmentation of the social security model) and Liberal welfare state regime (inherent the specificity of the social security model, there is no universality) groups of countries. However, there is a lack of research that assesses the impact of financialization on income inequality in different welfare state regime groups of countries. The research problem: what is the impact of financialization on income inequality, is this impact the same in different EU welfare state regime groups? The object of the research - the impact of financialization on income inequality. The aim of the research is to assess the impact of financialization on income inequality in EU country groups.Research methods: analysis of scientific literature, grouping, generalization, regression analysis of panel data.When assessing the impact of financialization on income inequality in different welfare regimes EU country groups during the period 1998-2017, the least-squares regression analysis method of the panel data was used. The conducted research confirms the hypothesis and clearly shows that financialization, measured both by financial development index and domestic credit to the private sector, increases income inequality in all groups of countries. Thus, it shows that the role of the financial market is growing and financialization processes are contributing to the growth of income inequality in all groups of welfare regime countries and may reduce the role of government. These results are in line with Stiglitz, 2012; Razgūnė, 2017; Dünhaupt, 2014; Golebiowski, Szczepankowski, Wisniewska, 2016; Palley, 2008) who analyzed the relationship between financialization and growing income inequality. However, the study of Dabla-Norris et al. (2015), by contrast, find that the ratio of domestic credit to GDP in developed countries reduces income inequality.


Author(s):  
Kim Fridkin ◽  
Patrick Kenney

This book develops and tests the “tolerance and tactics theory of negativity.” The theory argues that citizens differ in their tolerance of negative campaigning. Also, candidates vary in the tactics used to attack their opponents, with negative messages varying in their relevance to voters and in the civility of their tone. The interplay between citizens’ tolerance of negativity and candidates’ negative messages helps clarify when negative campaigning will influence citizens’ evaluations of candidates and their likelihood of voting. A diverse set of data sources was collected from U.S. Senate elections (e.g., survey data, experiments, content analysis, focus groups) across several years to test the theory. The tolerance and tactics theory of negativity receives strong empirical validation. First, people differ systematically in their tolerance for negativity, and their tolerance changes over the course of the campaign. Second, people’s levels of tolerance consistently and powerfully influence how they assess negative messages. Third, the relevance and civility of negative messages consistently influence citizens’ assessments of candidates competing for office. That is, negative messages focusing on relevant topics and utilizing an uncivil tone produce significant changes in people’s impressions of the candidates. Furthermore, people’s tolerance of negativity influences their susceptibility to negative campaigning. Specifically, relevant and uncivil messages are most influential for people who are least tolerant of negative campaigning. The relevance and civility of campaign messages also alter people’s likelihood of voting, and the impact of negative messages on turnout is more consequential for people with less tolerance of negativity.


Author(s):  
David E. Emenheiser ◽  
Corinne Weidenthal ◽  
Selete Avoke ◽  
Marlene Simon-Burroughs

Promoting the Readiness of Minors in Supplemental Security Income (PROMISE), a study of 13,444 randomly assigned youth and their families, includes six model demonstration projects and a technical assistance center funded through the U.S. Department of Education and a national evaluation of the model demonstration projects funded through the Social Security Administration. The Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services and the Executive Office of the President partnered with the Department of Education and Social Security Administration to develop and monitor the PROMISE initiative. This article provides an overview of PROMISE as the introduction to this special issue of Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals.


2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-236
Author(s):  
Stephan Seiwerth

AbstractSocial partners have played a privileged role in German social security administration since Bismarckian times. In 2014, a new legislation empowered the social partners to set the level of the statutory minimum wage and to demand the extension of collective agreements. This article examines the interdependence of the trade unions’ and employer organisations’ membership numbers and their involvement in state regulation of labour and social security law. In case the interest in autonomous regulations is not going to increase, the state will have to step in with more heteronomous regulation. This would incrementally lead to a system change.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document