Search results

Brazil’s regional inequality is an important topic due to the large and persistent differences in development between states and the high levels of inequality in the country. These variations in development can potentially render survey data inaccurate since the significance of capital income varies across the states. Besides, previous studies incorporating tax and national accounts data globally have mainly focused on measuring the income distribution at the country-level. This approach can limit the understanding of inequality, especially when considering large countries such as Brazil.

The methodology used to construct these estimates follows the guidelines of the Distributional National Accounts, whose core goal is to provide income distribution measures consistent with macroeconomic aggregates and harmonized across countries and time. The procedure has three main steps: first, it corrects the survey’s underrepresentation of top incomes using tax data. Then, it accounts for national income items not included in the survey or tax data, such as imputed rents and undistributed profits. Finally, it ensures that all components match the national income.

Compared to survey-based estimations, the results reveal a new angle on the state-level inequality. This study indicates that Amazonas, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo have a more concentrated income distribution. The top 1\% of earners in these states receives around 28\% of total pre-tax income, while the top 10\% receive nearly 60\%. On the other end, Amapá (AP), Acre (AC), Rondônia (RO) and Santa Catarina (SC) are the states where the income distribution is less concentrated. There were no significant changes in the income distribution across the states during the period analyzed.

This study combines survey, tax and national accounts data to construct new estimates of Brazil’s state-level income distribution from 2006 to 2019. Previous results only considered income captured in surveys, which usually misses a significant part of capital incomes. This limitation may bias comparisons as capital income has different importance across the states. The new estimates represent the income of top groups more accurately, account for the entire national income and enable to compare regional inequality levels consistently with other countries.

This paper aims to estimate the global income distribution during the nineties using limited information. In a first stage, we obtain national income distributions considering a model with two parameters. In particular, we propose to use the so-called Lamé distributions, which are curved versions of the Sigh-Maddala and Dagum distributions. The main feature of this family is that they represent parsimonious models which can fit income data adequately with just two parameters and whose Lorenz curves are characterized by only one parameter. In a second stage, global and regional distributions are derived from a finite mixture of these families using population shares. We test the validity of the model, comparing it with other two-parameter families. Our estimates of different inequality measures suggest that global inequality presents a decreasing pattern mainly driven by the fall of the differences across countries during the course of the study period that offsets the increase in disparities within countries.

The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual realities and the future, potential, best possible conditions of general stable equilibrium which both pure and practical reason, exhaustive in the Kantian sense, show as being within the realm of potential realities beyond any doubt. The first classical revolution in economic thinking, included in factor “P” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium but neglected the full consideration of the existing, actual conditions. That is the main reason why, in the end, it failed. The second modern revolution, included in factor “A” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of the existing, actual conditions, usually in disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium (in case of stagnation) and neglected the sense of right direction expressed in factor “P” or the realization of general, stable equilibrium. That is the main reason why the modern revolution failed in the past and is failing in front of our eyes in the present. The equation of unified knowledge, perceived as a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern thinking has been applied rigorously and systematically in writing the enclosed American‐British economic, monetary, financial and social stabilization plans. In the final analysis, a new economic philosophy, based on a synthesis between classical and modern thinking, called here the new economics of unified knowledge, is applied to solve the malaise of the twentieth century which resulted from a confusion between thinking in terms of stable equilibrium on the one hand and disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium on the other.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

This article is concerned with pre‐tax total income distribution in 18 “western” countries. Its objective is a tentative comparison among national income distributions and the study of trends since the 1950s. Similar issues have recently been analysed in a number of studies. This analysis differs from them in three main respects. Firstly, it refers to a group of nations which excludes developing countries. In spite of substantial differences in political and socio‐economic structures in this group of countries, processes of income distribution have a great degree of similarity. Income statistics are then more “homogeneous” and their comparison more meaningful than in studies covering developed and developing nations. Secondly, the article differs in the methodology it uses. Other studies have relied on “strict comparisons” of income statistics, for example they have compared values of coefficients of inequality and of income shares. In this article “loose classification”, for example categorisation of countries into groups (see following section), is used as a means of comparing income distributions. This makes it possible to allow, within limits, for the fact that the value of the data can be different from the one which is observed, even when statistics seem “fairly” accurate and comparable. Thirdly, the possible influence of the data source on each country's position is examined by considering a plurality of sources whenever possible. Intentionally, this article does not include discussion of most of the problems which exist in the field of income distribution—including those concerning coverage and reliability of data. It is expected that the reader keeps them and their various caveats well in mind when evaluating the empirical evidence which is presented. The explanation of differences in income distribution structures is outside the scope of this article.

Among developing countries, the Republic of China in Taiwan (hereinafter Taiwan) has been experiencing economic growth accompanied by improving income distribution. Between 1964 and 1980, the average annual growth rate of the real gross national product was 9.92 per cent (Council for Economic Planning and Development (CEPD), 1982, p. 23). In the same period, the income ratio between the top 20 per cent and the bottom 20 per cent of families dropped from 5.33 to 4.17 and the Gini coefficient decreased from 0.36 to 0.30 (CEPD, 1982, p. 54; Directorate‐General of Budget Accounting and Statistics, 1980, (DGBAS), p. 44). To put it somewhat dif‐ferently, in 1964 the lowest fifth of households received 7.71 per cent of total personal income, and the highest fifth 41.07 per cent. But in 1980, the income share of the lowest fifth increased to 8.82 per cent while that of the highest fifth decreased to 36.80 per cent. The condition of greater equality in income distribution appears more obvious in the capital city of Taipei. In 1981, for instance, its Gini coefficient was estimated to be only 0.28 (Taipei Bureau of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, 1981, (TBBAS), P. 24).

As an essential part of mainstream Western development economics, the trickle-down theory originates from the behavioral choices and iterations of thought on conflicts of interest in the evolution of remuneration structure in Western countries. The fundamental flaw of the logic of this theory is that it conceals the inherent implication of social systems and the essential characteristics of social structures.

This paper examines the relationships among economic growth, income distribution and poverty from the perspective of social relations of production – the nature of production relations determines the nature of distribution relations and further determines the essence of trickle-down development, and ownership is the core mechanism for realizing the trickle-down effect.

The stagnation or smoothness of the trickle-down effect in different economies is essentially subject to the logic of “development for whom”, which is determined by ownership relationship.

To be more specific, “development for capitalists” and “development for the people” indicate two distinctly different economic growth paths. The former starts with private ownership and follows a bottom-up negative trickle-down path that inevitably leads to polarization, while the latter starts with public ownership and follows a top-down positive trickle-down path that will lead to common prosperity in the end.

The secondary analysis of the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) is used to examine inequality in the United Kingdom compared with other European Union (EU) countries and to analyse how inequality has changed over the period from the start of the great financial crisis in 2008–2015. The analysis compares inequality in market income, gross income and disposable incomes, and measured inequality using the Gini coefficient, 80/20 and 90/10 ratios. It includes an analysis of the impact of cash benefits and direct taxes on market income and how the composition of households in different parts of the income distribution has changed over time. In addition, inequality within the EU is explored. The chapter concludes with a discussion of what contribution the EU itself through its own institutions and policies plays in mitigating market inequalities. We find that the distribution of market income in the United Kingdom is comparatively unequal, but the UK’s relative position on disposable income is greatly improved, due to an effective system of direct taxes and transfers. The conclusions remain broadly similar for all the inequality indices that are considered. There is evidence that households with children have moved down the distribution between 2008 and 2014 and aged households have moved up the distribution in most EU countries including the United Kingdom. The chapter concludes that EU policies have relatively little impact on inequality and that inequalities can really only be tackled using national redistributive policies.

This chapter studies trends in income distributions and inequality in the European Union using data from the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. The author models the income distribution for each country under a Dagum distribution assumption and using maximum likelihood techniques. The author uses parameter estimates to form distributions for regions defined as finite mixtures of the country distributions. Specifically, the author studies the groups of ‘new’ and ‘old’ countries depending on the year they joined the European Union. The author provides formulae and estimates for the regional Gini coefficients and Lorenz curves and their decomposition for all the survey years from 2007 through 2011. The estimates of this study show that the ‘new’ European Union countries have become richer and less unequal over the observed years, while the ‘old’ ones have undergone a slight increase in inequality which is however not significant at conventional levels.