Study Of Economic Inequality Research Articles

Економічна нерівність: концепт та підходи до вимірювання

The study of economic inequality has evolved from the classical works of S. Kuznets and A. Atkinson to the modern approaches of A. Sen, J. Foster, A. Shorrocks, G. Palma, and T. Piketty, which take into account the impact of globalization, technological changes, and political decisions. Economic inequality is understood as the uneven distribution of economic opportunities and resources, including income and wealth, among individuals and population groups. Two primary forms of economic inequality are distinguished: income inequality (which reflects differences in current income) and wealth inequality (which focuses on disparities in already accumulated income). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of inequality are identified. The key factors include global factors (globalization, technological progress) and specific ones (macroeconomic conditions, labor market regulation, demographic changes, and redistribution policies). The specific mechanisms for measuring wealth and income inequality are presented. By analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of methodological approaches to measuring economic inequality, it is established that, due to the absence of a universal methodological approach, using a combination of survey data, tax statistics, and national accounts allows for a more comprehensive analysis of inequality. The assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the Gini index, mean log deviation, Theil index, Palma ratio, and quantile ratios demonstrates that combining simple percentile ratios with complex indices fosters a deeper understanding of the structure and dynamics of inequality. Quintile ratios or the Palm ratio estimate the income gap between the richest and poorest groups, and the Gini ratio and the Theil index reflect changes in income across all segments of the population. It is emphasized on the need to adapt existing inequality indicators in Ukraine to international practices, particularly regarding wealth inequality.

A study of agro-economic development and its impact on socio-economic inequality in Ukraine

In today’s world, the problem of inequality is gaining global significance, and numerous international institutions set among their main tasks the fight against its manifestations – economic, social, etc. The study of economic inequality during martial law is extremely relevant, as it primarily negatively affects people’s lives and well-being, provokes crises and additional social tensions, and, as a result, destabilizes the state system and the national economy, which are already in a state of crisis due to military operations. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the causes of social and financial stratification of Ukrainian society in the context of agro-economic development. The dynamics of salary in Ukraine, in particular, in the agricultural sector, was studied using the method of statistical analysis, and the index of general economic stratification was calculated using the Gini coefficient method. Statistical data on the development of the agricultural land market was analysed, starting from the end of the moratorium in July 2021 and until June 2023. As a result, the current key indicators of the land market in Ukraine, and information on salary in various sectors of the economy in the period from 2014 to 2022 were obtained, and the incomes of agricultural employees were analysed, which turned out to be below average. For a more objective assessment, statistics on the largest agricultural countries of the European Union were used and compared with their inequality indicators. The calculation of the Gini coefficient showed a 10% increase in the inequality of income distribution of Ukrainian households between 2014 and 2022, but it was still lower than the current indicators of such European countries as Germany, Sweden, and Poland. The practical significance of the work lies in the development of recommendations for reducing the gap between rich and poor in Ukraine, in particular in the agricultural sector, which can be used by the relevant authorities to redistribute the agricultural market and optimize tax legislation

Directional distance functions and social welfare: Some axiomatic and dual properties

The paper introduces in social choice theory a directional distance function (DDF) that quantifies the level of inefficiency of a given allocation with respect to the utility possibilities frontier. The paper shows that the DDF has a simple geometric interpretation and involves a complete transitive preference relation. If the uility possibilities set is not convex, it is shown that the Rawls welfare function is dual (in a certain sense) to the DDF. Finally a more general class of distance functions is introduced that is shown to be closely related to a large class of welfare functions widely used in the study of economic inequality.

The hyperopia of wealth: the cultural legitimation of economic inequalities by top earners

Abstract The article explores the attitudes and perceptions of those at the top of the income scale toward economic inequalities. Through a qualitative case study, it presents how a group of top 0.1% of earners in Finland—one of the most equal countries in the world—perceive and legitimize economic disparities in an era of rising inequalities. By drawing together studies of economic inequality with the sociology of elites, the article analyzes the cultural repertoires through which the top earners make sense of inequality. As its key finding, it introduces the concept of hyperopia of wealth to describe the discursive blindness that the wealthy respondents have toward the structural conditions of economic disparities. The results indicate that top earners have a tendency to either ignore or approve the existing inequalities while disregarding the role of the wealthy and wealth in the dynamics. This blindness is named as hyperopia of wealth, analogous to a condition in which one cannot see things that are close clearly.

Sustainable Development Goals and the Study of Economic Inequality

This paper is an introduction to a special issue of the Journal of Economic Inequality which contains a selection of articles published in the Journal which bring economic perspectives and methods to bear on dimensions of inequality highlighted in the Sustainable Development Goals. The papers show that the study of economic inequality has much to contribute to the global policy discourse which is underpinned by the SDGs.

Estimating the marginal propensity to consume using the distributions of income, consumption, and wealth

Studies of economic inequality almost always separately examine income, consumption, and wealth inequality, and hence, miss the important synergy amongst the three measures explicit in the life-cycle budget constraint. These joint distributions, however, are important in evaluating macroeconomic impacts of changes in income because the response may differ across the wealth distribution. This heterogeneity in the response to income changes can have significant impact on the effectiveness of government fiscal policy. Using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics from 1999–2013, we examine how the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) differs across the wealth distribution. We find that the MPC is lower at higher wealth quintiles, indicating that low wealth households cannot smooth consumption as much as other households. This implies that increasing wealth inequality likely reduces aggregate consumption, which, in turn, could limit economic growth.

Home Ownership Differences between Hispanics and Anglos in the United States

While recent work points to home ownership as a key factor in the exacerbation and perpetuation of racial/ethnic inequality, no research has studied Hispanic/Anglo differences in home ownership. I use data from the 1981 Annual Housing Survey to examine Hispanic/Anglo differences in home ownership net of socioeconomic characteristics, life-cycle factors, and geographic location. I also assess the differential effects of these determinants on the probability of home ownership between Anglos and each of the five major Hispanic subpopulations. The results demonstrate that Hispanics are significantly less likely to own homes than comparable Anglos. Moreover, Cubans, Central or South Americans, and Puerto Ricans experience much greater inequality in the probability of home ownership than Mexican Americans, Other Hispanics, or blacks. These findings point to the importance of incorporating home ownership into the study of economic inequality.

Inequality in Late Colonial Philadelphia: A Note on Its Nature and Growth

H T ISTORIANS have been interested in the study of economic inequality in British America because of the subject's political implications, particularly for the Revolutionary period, and also because the idea of equality is central to the democratic mythology of American society. During the past two decades, social and economic historians have measured the structure of wealth in selected areas of the colonies, reaching sometimes contradictory conclusions. The subtleties of individual arguments aside, two competing hypotheses have emerged to explain the overall trend in the distribution of wealth for the whole colonial period. The first avers that frontier influences created a rough material equality among the early settlers, but that, as the frontier receded, a smaller proportion of persons gained control of a larger proportion of the wealth. The Revolution only temporarily retarded this growing stratification. Proponents of this theory of progressive inequality rely heavily on evidence not only from older agrarian areas in the northern colonies but, especially, from the cities of Philadelphia, Boston, and New York.1

Economic Inequality in the Arkansas Territory

Economic Inequality in the Arkansas Territory One of the more promising recent developments in American historical scholarship has been an increasing focus on the study of economic inequality in the United States based on detailed distributions of wealth. Jones' analysis of sample estate records for 1774, for example, has provided estimates for the wealth of all colonists on the eve of the American Revolution, and the spin samples of Soltow drawn from the censuses of I850, I860, and 1870 have given us reliable data on inequality for the middle years of the nation. Recently, Williamson and Lindert have attempted to integrate existing data and develop a picture of economic inequality throughout American history. It is their view that modern inequality is similar to that of the late colonial period, but that there have been intervening periods of significant fluctuation, in particular a long-term trend toward greater inequality between the American Revolution and the Civil War.1

Differentiation within the United States Capitalist Class: Workforce Size and Income Differences

A particularly important but neglected source of differentiation in the capitalist class in the United States is the amount of economic resources capitalists control, especially the number of workers they employ. Workforce size is a major dimension of stratification within the U.S. business population and in the capitalist class. Analysis of income determination among 468 small business owners demonstrates the usefulness of a continuous rather than a categorical conceptualization offractions within the capitalist class. Workforce size is a more powerful predictor of income than other variables traditionally used in studies of economic inequality.

Earnings Capacity, Economic Status, and Poverty

Whether or not a household is counted among the poor depends upon its annual money income. As a measure of economic status, however, annual money income has serious limitations. In this paper an alternative indicator of economic status, called earnings capacity, is developed. Earnings capacity is designed to measure the ability of a living unit to generate an income stream if it were to use its physical and human capital at capacity. Using this measure, the composition of the poverty population is estimated and compared to the composition of the poverty population according to the official definition. In addition, the socioeconomic and demographic determinants of poverty as measured by earnings capacity and by annual money income are compared and contrasted. The problem of accurately measuring the economic status of family units and individuals is of long standing in both poverty research and analyses of horizontal and vertical inequality. The standard indicator of economic status-annual family money income-is the basis both for the official definition of poverty in the United States and for nearly all studies of economic inequality. Yet the limitations of the money income measure as an indicator of both the command over goods and services and relative economic status are often noted. Annual money income fails to incorporate the value of human and nonhuman capital into the measure of economic status; it neglects the benefits of in-kind public Garfinkel is Professor of Social Work and Director, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin, Haveman is Professor of Economics, University of Wisconsin. * The research reported here was supported by funds granted to the Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison, by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare pursuant to the provisions of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The opinions expressed are those of the authors. [Manuscript received August 1975; accepted January 1976.] The Journal of Human Resources ' XII ? I This content downloaded from 157.55.39.59 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 04:15:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 50 1 THE JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES transfers and public services and the tax costs required to finance them; it does not account for intrafamily flows of income and services or for differences in leisure time; and, for many units, it is dominated in any given year by transitory influences. In short, annual money income is a seriously inadequate indicator of the potential real consumption of a living unit; yet it is the indicator most widely used. In this paper, an alternative indicator of economic status is suggested and estimated empirically for the national population. This indicator-earnings capacity-is designed to measure the ability of a living unit to generate an income stream if it were to use its physical and human capital at capacity.' Using this measure, the composition of the poverty population is estimated and compared with the composition of the poverty population according to the official definition. Because of the characteristics of the concept, the poverty population defined by earnings capacity will be relatively more heavily populated by those with a low permanent income than will the poverty population defined by the intertemporally unstable concept of annual money income.2 Moreover, living units will not be included in the poverty population simply because they have relatively strong preferences for leisure rather than for money income.