衡量不平等的陷阱:当前辩论的启示

Q4 Business, Management and Accounting Wirtschaftsdienst Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.2478/wd-2024-0125
Lilith Burgstaller, Joshua Hassib, W. Benedikt Schmal, Philipp Weber
{"title":"衡量不平等的陷阱:当前辩论的启示","authors":"Lilith Burgstaller, Joshua Hassib, W. Benedikt Schmal, Philipp Weber","doi":"10.2478/wd-2024-0125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Auten and Splinter (2024) is the latest contribution to an ongoing debate regarding the historical development of income inequality in the U.S. This debate is mainly based on the seminal work of Piketty and co-authors. Auten and Splinters’ results challenge established measurement techniques as their results indicate a much weaker increase in income inequality compared to Piketty and co-authors. This article summarises and discusses major differences between the approaches and the results. However, U.S. results on inequality are only of limited use for similar debates in Germany. This is due to the fact that the inequality debate in Germany focuses more on wealth than income inequality. Additionally, German data infrastructure prohibits any expressive replication of the approaches discussed in this article.","PeriodicalId":35890,"journal":{"name":"Wirtschaftsdienst","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Die Tücken der Ungleichheitsmessung: Rezeption einer aktuellen Debatte\",\"authors\":\"Lilith Burgstaller, Joshua Hassib, W. Benedikt Schmal, Philipp Weber\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/wd-2024-0125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Auten and Splinter (2024) is the latest contribution to an ongoing debate regarding the historical development of income inequality in the U.S. This debate is mainly based on the seminal work of Piketty and co-authors. Auten and Splinters’ results challenge established measurement techniques as their results indicate a much weaker increase in income inequality compared to Piketty and co-authors. This article summarises and discusses major differences between the approaches and the results. However, U.S. results on inequality are only of limited use for similar debates in Germany. This is due to the fact that the inequality debate in Germany focuses more on wealth than income inequality. Additionally, German data infrastructure prohibits any expressive replication of the approaches discussed in this article.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35890,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wirtschaftsdienst\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wirtschaftsdienst\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/wd-2024-0125\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Business, Management and Accounting\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wirtschaftsdienst","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/wd-2024-0125","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Auten and Splinter (2024) 是对目前有关美国收入不平等历史发展争论的最新贡献。Auten 和 Splinters 的研究结果挑战了既定的测量技术,因为他们的研究结果表明,与皮凯蒂及其合著者相比,收入不平等的加剧程度要弱得多。本文总结并讨论了这些方法和结果之间的主要差异。然而,美国的不平等结果对德国的类似辩论作用有限。这是因为德国的不平等辩论更多关注的是财富不平等而非收入不平等。此外,德国的数据基础设施也不允许对本文讨论的方法进行任何有说服力的复制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Die Tücken der Ungleichheitsmessung: Rezeption einer aktuellen Debatte
Auten and Splinter (2024) is the latest contribution to an ongoing debate regarding the historical development of income inequality in the U.S. This debate is mainly based on the seminal work of Piketty and co-authors. Auten and Splinters’ results challenge established measurement techniques as their results indicate a much weaker increase in income inequality compared to Piketty and co-authors. This article summarises and discusses major differences between the approaches and the results. However, U.S. results on inequality are only of limited use for similar debates in Germany. This is due to the fact that the inequality debate in Germany focuses more on wealth than income inequality. Additionally, German data infrastructure prohibits any expressive replication of the approaches discussed in this article.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Wirtschaftsdienst
Wirtschaftsdienst Business, Management and Accounting-Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
228
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Die Zeitschrift, herausgegeben von der ZBW, publiziert Beiträge von namhaften Autor:innen aus Wissenschaft und Politik zu aktuellen Themen der Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik in Deutschland und in der Europäischen Union. Der Wirtschaftsdienst schlägt eine Brücke zwischen Wissenschaft und Praxis, die Leser:innen werden sachkundig und allgemeinverständlich über aktuelle wirtschaftspolitische Themen informiert. Die Zeitschrift erscheint seit 1916 und gehört damit zu den traditionsreichsten wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Fachzeitschriften. Offiziell zitiert als: Wirtschaftsdienst
期刊最新文献
Die Schuldenbremse – ein Garant für nachhaltige Haushaltspolitik? Eine Replik auf Feld et al. (2024) Frankreich-Wahl: Substanzielle Folgen für die EU Zur aktuellen Krisenstimmung im Wohnungsbau Geburtenraten: Vom Baby-Boom zum Baby-Bust Abscheidung und Speicherung von CO2 und „schwer oder nicht vermeidbare Emissionen“
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1