CEPAL Review no. 124

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CEPAL Review N° 124 • April 2018 13 United States, according to information from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (see figure 3). The Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland) are among those with the lowest levels of inequality, along with the Benelux nations (Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg) and some Eastern European countries. Turkey, the United States, Israel and Russia are at the opposite extreme. Figure 3 Developed countries: Gini index of equivalized household disposable income, around 2011 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 Turkey United States Israel Russian Federation Latvia Portugal United Kingdom Spain Greece Australia Austria Japan Lithuania Italy Estonia New Zealand Canada Korea (Rep. of) France Polonia Ireland Germany Hungary Switzerland Netherlands Luxembourg Sweden Belgium Finland Slovakia Czechia Denmark Iceland Norway Slovenia Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), OECD Income Distribution Database. The trend between 1975 and 2010 shows inequality increasing in practically all developed countries for which information is available (see figure 4). In some cases (the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands), inequality grew strongly in the 1980s; while in others (Canada, the Nordic countries and Germany) this happened in the 1990s. Even in France, which achieved a sharp drop in its Gini coefficient, the indicator rose in the decade of 2000 (Morel li, Smeeding and Thompson, 2015). Owing to these movements, inequality among high-income countries displays less dispersion than in the 1980s; but the country inequality ranking remains basically unchanged during the period. 47 Figure 4 High-income countries: trend of the Gini coefficient of household disposable income, 1975-2010 37 27 17 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 United States Canada United Kingdom Verónica Amarante and Maira Colacce
14 CEPAL Review N° 124 • April 2018 Figure 4 (concluded) 47 37 27 17 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Sweden Finland Norway 47 37 27 17 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Italy France Netherlands Germany Source: Prepared by the authors, on the basis of A. B. Atkinson and S. Morelli, “Chartbook of economic inequality”, ECINEQ Working Paper Series, No. 2014-324, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality (ECINEQ), 2014. Although household surveys clearly provide up-to-date and comparable data that make it possible to construct indicators of inequality in the different countries of the world, these surveys also have major shortcomings in terms of capturing high incomes (Atkinson, Piketty and Sáez, 2011), in developed and developing countries alike. In the former, Morelli, Smeeding and Thompson (2015) show how, beyond the methodological problems involved in comparing data from tax records, the ranking of countries by inequality levels does not change much when the income appropriated by the top 1% is used as an inequality indicator. 6 These authors also draw attention to the rising trend of this indicator in developed countries, and to the fact that the 2008 financial crisis did not cause a structural break in this trend. In relation to the English-speaking countries, Piketty and Sáez (2013) find that the increase in inequality would be even more pronounced, if the incomes of the richest were properly measured. 6 Ruiz and Woloszko (2016) obtain similar results by applying a statistical adjustment to household survey data in developed countries. More unequal or less? A review of global, regional and national income inequality
Page 1: APRIL • 2018 More unequal or less
Page 5 and 6: Alicia Bárcena Executive Secretary
Page 7 and 8: Explanatory notes - Three dots (...
Page 9 and 10: 8 CEPAL Review N° 124 • April 20
Page 13: 12 CEPAL Review N° 124 • April 2
Page 34 and 35: Estimation of factors conditioning
Page 36 and 37: CEPAL Review N° 124 • April 2018
Page 56: CEPAL Review N° 124 • April 2018
Page 65 and 66:
64 CEPAL Review N° 124 • April 2
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 80 and 81:
Foreign direct investment and growt
Page 82 and 83:
CEPAL Review N° 124 • April 2018
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
The wealth gifted to the large-scal
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120:
Page 123 and 124:
122 CEPAL Review N° 124 • April
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 236 and 237:
Publicaciones recientes de la CEPAL
Page 238 and 239:
estudios del cambio climático en a
Page 240:
EDITORIAL BOARD Osvaldo Sunkel Chai
show all

CEPAL Review no. 124

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

Delete template?

Save as template?