CHAPTER SIX. Global Trends in Income Inequality: Theory Versus Reality

2017 ◽  
pp. 143-168
Author(s):  
Venkat Venkatasubramanian

We compare the predictions of our theory with empirical income data from a dozen different countries. We define a new measure of inequality, called the non-ideal inequality coefficient. We show that Norway is close to ideal inequality for the bottom 99% of the population while the U.S. is the most non-ideal at the other extreme. The other countries are in between these two. We find it remarkable that the Scandinavian societies have discovered the near-ideal share by themselves in practice without any prior knowledge of even its existence.


Author(s):  
Venkat Venkatasubramanian

Chapter one provides a summary of the global trends in income inequality and ask what kind income distribution there ought to be, under ideal conditions, in a free market society. The chapter also raises three other fundamental questions regarding the fairness, stability and optimality of such a distribution. Since these questions cannot be answered by mainstream economic theories, or by econophysics, we outline the development of our novel theory to address them.


Challenge ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
pp. 54-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Wade

Author(s):  
James Davies ◽  
Anthony Shorrocks

This chapter is the first to compare global trends in income and wealth inequality this century. It is based on large income and wealth synthetic microdata samples designed to be representative of all countries. Measured by the Gini coefficient, inequality between countries accounts for about two-thirds of global income inequality, but noticeably less—around one half—of wealth inequality. Broadly similar results are found for different years and different inequality indices, bar the share of the top 1 per cent. Over time, changes in countries’ mean income and wealth, and in population sizes, have reduced world inequality. Income inequality has changed little within countries, so the downward trend remains intact. However, within-country wealth inequality has risen, halting the downward shift in global wealth inequality and raising the share of the top 1 per cent since 2007.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7-12) ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS OBST

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the development in income distribution and outlines its major long-term trends of 23 countries worldwide. These countries are clustered in four groups covering the core advanced, the Nordic, the emerging, and the least developed economies of the world. This paper applies different measures to analyse income distribution in three dimensions: national income, functional income distribution, and personal income distribution. Depending on the indicators applied the time period ranges between 1960 and 2012. The empirical analysis shows that increases in national incomes are most pronounced in the advanced economies. The emerging economies also exhibit an upward trend in national income, but it has been less substantial. The least developed economies, however, have been detached from this trend and remain isolated. Moreover, this paper illustrates that there has been an enormous re-distribution of income. During the last three decades, the labour share of income has declined in nearly all countries under study. This development went hand in hand with increased personal income inequality. Disposable income inequality and market income inequality have both increased over the past 30 years. Wage dispersion also rose substantially contributing to greater income inequality. Additionally, the escalation of top income shares as well as the expansion of low paid employment has led to a growing gap between the top and the bottom income earners. This analysis also presents important interlinks between greater income inequality, the fall of the wage share, and increasing wage dispersion.


2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (11/12) ◽  
pp. 771-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heikki Hiilamo ◽  
Olli Kangas

Purpose – In their income inequality theory (IIT), Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett posit that income inequality is at the heart of social “ills”. However, their critics argue that the hypothesis is biased and that “cherry picking” is used and support for the IIT is obtained by selecting a suitable sample of countries. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – With a sample of 127 countries, the authors study to what extent the correlation between income inequality and social “ills” varies among countries sampled by geography, religion and income level. Findings – The results of the analysis show that the strength and sometimes the direction of connections between inequality and social “ills” vary according to countries’ cultural background and historical legacies. The IIT is not a universal law. However, it is on a firmer footing than competing explanations. Originality/value – The results contribute both to material and methodological debate on consequences of income inequality.


2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franz Prante

This paper presents a simple post-Kaleckian model of distribution and growth that incorporates personal income inequality and interdependent social norms. The model shows in an easily accessible manner that macroeconomic effects of changes in personal and functional income distribution can potentially reinforce or dampen each other. The resulting variety of demand and growth regimes is due to different distributional effects on consumption demand. Therefore, the second part of the paper investigates the empirical relevance of the additional demand regimes by estimating aggregate consumption functions with variables for personal and functional income distribution for the United States and Germany. We find similar effects of functional income distribution for both countries. However, for the US, we find positive long-run effects of personal income inequality on consumption. The effect is strongest for the top 10% income share and the Gini index and less strong for the top 5% and 1% income shares. While this is evidence for relative consumption patterns, it also supports the view that the ?super rich? are a relatively distant class for most people - questioning the notion of expenditure cascades from the very top to the very bottom. In contrast, for Germany we fail to find compelling evidence for effects of personal income distribution.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document