The atlas of inequality aversion: theory and empirical evidence on 55 countries from the Luxembourg Income Study database

• Authors: Stanisław Maciej Kot , Piotr R. Paradowski

Abstracts

EN

Research background: In the distributive analysis, the constant relative inequality aversion utility function is a standard tool for ethical judgements of income distributions. The sole parameter ? of this function expresses a society?s aversion to inequality. However, the profession has not committed to the range of ?. When assessing inequality and other welfare characteristics, analysts assume an arbitrary level of ?, common to all countries and years. This assumption seems unjustified. Purpose of the article: This paper aims to estimate the parameter ? for each country and year individually using datasets from the Luxembourg Income Study Database in all available years, which dates back to the 1970s. Methods: We utilise the method of estimating ?, which assumes the generalised beta of the second kind distribution of incomes. The estimator of ? is derived from the mathematical condition of the existence of the social welfare function.  Findings & value added: We have elaborated an ?atlas? of  388 estimates of ? for 55 countries across time. Inequality aversion is country-year specific, with a minimum of 0.97 and a maximum of 3.8. Ninety per cent of all estimates are less than 2.5. Inequality aversion is negatively correlated with income inequality, but it is independent of economic development. Thus, inequality aversion appears as an additional dimension of the classical inequality-development relationship. This article contributes to solving a fundamental problem of Welfare Economics: directly measuring the social utility of income (welfare) function. The estimates of ? for 55 countries imply a complete knowledge of these countries' constant relative inequality aversion utility functions.

Keywords

EN

inequality aversion; Atkinson Index; income distribution; inequality; utility function

• Publisher: Instytut Badań Gospodarczych
• Journal: Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 261-316

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

Stanisław Maciej Kot

• Gdansk University of Technology

• https://orcid.org/0000000258756498

author

Piotr R. Paradowski

• Luxembourg Income Study (LIS)

• https://orcid.org/0000000252938776

References

• Amiel, Y., Creedy, J., & Hurn, S. (1999). Measuring attitudes towards inequality. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 101, 83?96. doi: 10.1111/1467-9442.001 42.
• Aristei, D., & Perugini, C. (2010). Preferences for redistribution and inequality in well-being across European Countries: a multidimensional approach. Journal of Policy Modeling, 32, 176?195. doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2010.02.001.
• Aristei, D., & Perugini, C. (2016). Inequality aversion in postcommunist countries in the years of the crisis. Post-Communist Economies, 28(4), 436?448. doi: 10.1080/14631377.2016.1224053.
• Atkinson, A. B., Rainwater, L., & Smeeding, T. (1995). Income distribution in OECD Countries. Social Policy Studies, 18.
• Atkinson, A. B. (1970). On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 2(3), 244?263. doi: 10.1016/0022-0531(70)90039-6.
• Attanasio, O. P., & Browning, M. (1995). Consumption over the life cycle and over the business cycle. American Economic Review, 85, 1118?1137.
• Bandourian, R., McDonald, J. B., & Turley, R. S. (2003). A comparison of para-metric models of income distribution across countries and years, Estadistica, 55, 135-152.
• Berg, A., Ostry, J. D., Tsangarides, C. G., & Yakhshilikov, Y. (2018). Redistribution, inequality, and growth: new evidence. Journal of Economic Growth, 3, 259?305. doi: 10.1007/s10887-017-9150-2.
• Blundell, R., Browning, M., & Meghir, C. (1994). Consumer demand and the life-cycle allocation of household expenditures. Review of Economic Studies, 61, 57?80. doi: 10.2307/2297877.
• Bourguignon, F., & Spadaro, A. (2012). Tax-benefit revealed social preferences. Journal of Economic Inequality, 10, 75-108. doi: 10.1007/s10888-010-9153-0.
• Brazauskas, V. (2002). Fisher information matrix for the Feller?Pareto distribution. Statistics & Probability Letters, 59, 159?167. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7152(02)001 43-8.
• Burkhauser, R. V., Butler, J. S., Feng, S., & Houtenville, A. (2004). Long-term trends in earnings inequality: what the CPS can tell us. Economics Letters 82, 295-299. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2003.08.011.
• Burkhauser, R.V., Feng, S., & Jenkins, S. (2007). Using the P90/P10 ratio to meas-ure US inequality trends with Current Population Survey data: a view from inside the Census Bureau vaults. Colchester, UK: Institute for Social and Eco-nomic Research, University of Essex.
• Chotikapanich, D., Griffiths, W. E., Hajargasht, G., Karunarathne, W., & Prasada Rao, D. S. (2018). Using the GB2 income distribution. Econometrics, 6(2), 21 doi: 10.3390/econometrics6020021.
• Clark, A.E., & D?Ambrosio, C. (2015). Attitudes to income inequality: experi-mental and survey evidence. In A. B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (Eds.). Handbook of income distribution. Elsevier, 1147?1208. doi: 1016/B978-0-444-59428-0.00014-X.
• Costa-Font, J., F., & Cowell, F. (2019). Incorporating inequality aversion in health-care priority setting. Social Justice Research, 32, 172?185. doi: 10.1007/s1121 1-019-00328-6.
• Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (1991). Elements of information theory. New York: Wiley.
• Cowell, F., & Gardiner, K. (1999). Welfare weights. STICERD, London School of Economics.
• Dagum, C. (1977). A new model of personal income distribution: specification and estimation. Economie Appliquée, 30, 413-437.
• Eriksson, K. H. (2005). Censoring and top-coding in LIS data. LIS Technical Work-ing Paper Series, 4.
• Evans, D. J. (2005). The elasticity of marginal utility of consumption: estimates for 20 OECD Countries. Fiscal Studies, 26(2), 197?224. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5890 .2005.00010.x.
• Feng, S., Burkhauser, R. V., & Butler, J. S. (2006). Levels and long-term trends in earnings inequality: overcoming current population survey censoring problems using the GB2 distribution. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 24(1), 57?62. doi: 10.1198/073500105000000144.
• Fisk, P. R. (1961). The graduation of income distribution. Econometrica, 29, 171?184. doi: 10.2307/1909287.
• Fisz, M. (1967). Probability theory and mathematical statistics. New York: Wiley.
• Frisch, R. (1959). A complete system for computing all direct and cross-demand elasticities in a model with many sectors. Econometrica, 27, 177?196. doi: 10.2307/1909441.
• Graf, M., & Nedyalkova, D. (2010). GB2: Generalized Beta distribution of the decond kind: properties, likelihood, estimation. R package version 1.0. Re-trieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/GB2/index.html.
• Groom, B., & Pr, D. M. (2019). New estimates of the elasticity of marginal utility for the UK. Environmental and Resource Economics, 72(4), 1155?1182. doi: 10.1007/s10640-018-0242-z
• Jenkins, S. P. (2007). gb2fit: Stata module to fit Generalized Beta of the Second Kind distribution by maximum likelihood. Statistical Software Components Archive S456823. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s4568 23.html.
• Johnson, N. L., Kotz, S., & Balakrishnan, N. (1994). Continuous univariate distri-butions. New York: Willey.
• Kleiber, C., & Kotz, S. (2003). Statistical size distributions in economics and actu-arial sciences, Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
• Kolm, S. C. (1969). The optimal production of social justice. In J. Margolis & H. Guitton (Eds.). Public economics: an analysis of public production and con-sumption and their relations to the private sectors. London: Macmillan, 145?200.
• Kot, S. M. (2017). Estimating inequality aversion from subjective assessments of the just noticeable differences in welfare. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 11(1), 123?146. doi: 10.24136/eq.v12i1.7.
• Kot, S. M. (2020). Estimating the parameter of inequality aversion on the basis of a parametric distribution of incomes. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 15(3), 391?417. doi: 10.24136/eq.2020.018.
• Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review, 45(1), 1?28.
• Lambert, P. J., & Naughton, H. P. (2009). The equal absolute sacrifice principle revisited. Journal of Economic Surveys, 23(2), 328?349. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6419.2008.00564.x.
• Lambert, P. J., Millimet, D. L., & Slottje, D. (2003). Inequality aversion and the natural rate of subjective inequality. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 1061?1090. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00171-7.
• Lambert, P. J. (2001). Income distribution and redistribution. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
• Larrimore, J., Burkhauser, R. V., Feng, S., & Zayatz, L. (2008). Consistent cell means for topcoded incomes in the public use March CPS (1976-2007). NBER Working Paper, 13941.
• Layard, R., Mayraz, G., & Nickell, S. (2008). The marginal utility of income. Jour-nal of Public Economics, 92, 1846?1857. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.01. 007.
• Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) Database (2020). Luxembourg: LIS. Retrieved from http://www.lisdatacenter.org.
• McDonald, J. B. (1984). Some generalised functions for the size distribution of income. Econometrica, 52, 647?663. doi: 10.2307/1913469.
• McDonald, J. B., & Xu, Y. J. (1995). A generalisation of the beta distribution with applications. Journal of Econometrics, 66(1-2), 427?428. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(94)01612-4.
• Mirrlees, J. A. (1971). An exploration in the theory of optimum income taxation. Review of Economic Studies, 38, 175?208.
• Mitra, T., & Ok, E. A. (1996). Personal income taxation and the principle of equal sacrifice revisited. International Economic Review, 37, 925?948. doi: 10.2307 /2527317.
• Ok, E. A. (1995). On the principle of equal sacrifice in income taxation. Journal of Public Economics, 58, 453?467. doi: 10.1016/0047-2727(94)01481-3.
• Okun, A. M. (1975). Equality and efficiency. Washington: Brookings Institution.
• Pareto, V. (1897). Cours d?Economie Politique. Lausanne: Ed. Rouge.
• Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the 21st century. Cambridge, Massachusetts Har-vard University Press.
• Pirttilä, J., & Uusitalo, R. (2007). Leaky bucket in the real world: estimating ine-quality aversion using survey data. CESifo Working Paper, 2026.
• Ravallion, M. (2015). The Luxembourg income study. Journal of Economic Inequality, 13, 527?547. doi: 10.1007/s10888-015-9298-y.
• Richter, W. F. (1983). From ability to pay to concept of equal sacrifice. Journal of Public Economics, 20, 211?229. doi: 10.1016/0047-2727(83)90011-7.
• Schlör, H., Fischer, W., & Hake, J. F. (2012). Measuring social welfare, energy and inequality in Germany. Applied Energy, 97, 135?142.
• Sen, A. (1973). On economic inequality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Sheshinski, E. (1972). Relation between a social welfare function and the Gini index of income inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 4, 98?100.
• Singh S. K., & Maddala, G. S. (1976). A function of size distribution of income. Econometrica, 44, 963?973.
• Tuominen, E. (2015). Reversal of the Kuznets curve. Study on the inequality?development relation using top income shares data. WIDER Working Paper, 2015/036.
• Vitaliano, D. F. (1977). The tax sacrifice rules under alternative definitions of pro-gressivity. Public Finance Quarterly, 5, 489?494,
• Young, H. P. (1987). Progressive taxation and the equal sacrifice principle. Journal of Public Economics, 32, 203?214.
• Young, H. P. (1990). Progressive taxation and equal sacrifice. American Economic Review, 80, 253?266.

Identifiers

DOI

10.24136/eq.2022.010

Biblioteka Nauki

22443170