19.04.2014 Views

Exceptional Argentina Di Tella, Glaeser and Llach - Thomas Piketty

Exceptional Argentina Di Tella, Glaeser and Llach - Thomas Piketty

Exceptional Argentina Di Tella, Glaeser and Llach - Thomas Piketty

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

This change in inequality is also robust to the geographic coverage of the data.<br />

Inequality series from 1974 can only be estimated for the Greater Buenos Aires, an<br />

urban area containing around a third of <strong>Argentina</strong>’s total population. Notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />

this limitation, the trends described in the previous paragraph can be extrapolated to<br />

the whole urban population. Figure 9 suggests that inequality estimates for the<br />

aggregate of all large urban areas in <strong>Argentina</strong> (available since 1992) do not differ<br />

considerably from those of the GBA. 11<br />

The trend in inequality can also be inferred from alternative data sources. Using<br />

comparable methodologies for the 1985-1986 <strong>and</strong> 1996-1997 expenditure surveys,<br />

Navajas (1999) reports Gini coefficients for the distribution of per capita expenditures<br />

of 0.33 <strong>and</strong> 0.38, broadly compatible with the trend in income inequality in Figure 9.<br />

Galbraith et al. (2006) find a large increase in inequality among formal workers<br />

between 1994 <strong>and</strong> 2002, using microdata from the social security contribution<br />

records.<br />

It is also possible to complement indicators based on personal income with the<br />

distribution of income between the factors of production, which can be inferred from<br />

aggregate national accounts. While the share of wages was around 45 percent in the<br />

early 1970s, the estimations for the mid 2000s range from 30 to 38 percent<br />

(Lindemboim et al., 2005), suggesting again a substantial increase in inequality (see<br />

Figure 7). 12<br />

Finally, inequality statistics for the period after 1974 can also be derived from<br />

administrative tax sources, as in the previous section of this chapter. Figure 1<br />

presented an attempt to reconcile these sources with household survey data – while<br />

not strictly comparable, the top income shares from administrative <strong>and</strong> survey data<br />

presented roughly the same trends for the overlapping period available. These data<br />

sources can also complement <strong>and</strong> correct some biases in inequality estimates derived<br />

from incomplete household survey samples - see Figure 11 <strong>and</strong> a full discussion in<br />

section 3.4 below.<br />

The main reference points selected for Figure 8 depict the evolution of inequality in<br />

the long run, but conceal the volatility that characterized <strong>Argentina</strong>’s income<br />

distribution along this upward trend. Figure 9 displays the Gini coefficient for all the<br />

years for which comparable data is available: there are short periods of relative calm,<br />

<strong>and</strong> episodes of rapid surge in inequality. This volatility contrasts with the relative<br />

11 See Gasparini <strong>and</strong> Cruces (2008) for more details.<br />

12 In recent years, an increasing share of wages in aggregated income per se has ceased to be an indicator of<br />

diminishing income concentration, since the rise of top wages in English-speaking economies has been a<br />

driving force of the sharp increase in top income shares.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!