新西兰的收入不平等:为什么传统的估计是误导性的

J. Creedy, N. Gemmell
{"title":"新西兰的收入不平等:为什么传统的估计是误导性的","authors":"J. Creedy, N. Gemmell","doi":"10.22459/AG.26.01.2019.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Considerable attention is currently being paid to establishing the extent of inequality in New Zealand and whether it has risen in recent years. This paper offers some insights into the inequality measures and interpretations that commonly feature in those debates. These typically relate to cross-sectional inequality, such as annual Gini coefficients for various income definitions, or comparisons of income growth rates across income deciles. But failure to take into account the longitudinal dimension of inequality can lead to misinterpretations of inequality data and measures. The paper shows that examining longitudinal income data for the same individuals over time strongly contradicts cross-sectional inequality evidence. For example, some recent cross-sectional inequality measures suggest that the incomes of initially low-income households grew at slower rates than those with initially higher-incomes. This has been interpreted as the poorest earners being ‘left behind’. But recent longitudinal data, at least for individuals, reveals evidence of much faster-than-average growth among initially lower, compared to higher, income earners. Thus, ‘regression to the mean’ is a dominant feature of the longitudinal data.","PeriodicalId":41700,"journal":{"name":"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Income inequality in New Zealand: Why conventional estimates are misleading\",\"authors\":\"J. Creedy, N. Gemmell\",\"doi\":\"10.22459/AG.26.01.2019.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Considerable attention is currently being paid to establishing the extent of inequality in New Zealand and whether it has risen in recent years. This paper offers some insights into the inequality measures and interpretations that commonly feature in those debates. These typically relate to cross-sectional inequality, such as annual Gini coefficients for various income definitions, or comparisons of income growth rates across income deciles. But failure to take into account the longitudinal dimension of inequality can lead to misinterpretations of inequality data and measures. The paper shows that examining longitudinal income data for the same individuals over time strongly contradicts cross-sectional inequality evidence. For example, some recent cross-sectional inequality measures suggest that the incomes of initially low-income households grew at slower rates than those with initially higher-incomes. This has been interpreted as the poorest earners being ‘left behind’. But recent longitudinal data, at least for individuals, reveals evidence of much faster-than-average growth among initially lower, compared to higher, income earners. Thus, ‘regression to the mean’ is a dominant feature of the longitudinal data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41700,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.26.01.2019.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.26.01.2019.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目前正在相当重视确定新西兰的不平等程度,以及近年来这种不平等程度是否有所上升。本文对这些辩论中常见的不平等衡量和解释提供了一些见解。这些通常与横断面不平等有关,例如不同收入定义的年度基尼系数,或收入十分位数之间的收入增长率比较。但是,不考虑不平等的纵向维度可能导致对不平等数据和措施的误解。这篇论文表明,对同一个人长期的纵向收入数据进行检查,与横截面不平等的证据强烈矛盾。例如,最近的一些横断面不平等测量表明,最初低收入家庭的收入增长速度低于那些最初收入较高的家庭。这被解释为最贫穷的收入者被“落在后面”。但最近的纵向数据(至少对个人而言)显示,与收入较高的人相比,收入较低的人的增长速度远快于平均水平。因此,“回归均值”是纵向数据的主要特征。
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
Income inequality in New Zealand: Why conventional estimates are misleading
Considerable attention is currently being paid to establishing the extent of inequality in New Zealand and whether it has risen in recent years. This paper offers some insights into the inequality measures and interpretations that commonly feature in those debates. These typically relate to cross-sectional inequality, such as annual Gini coefficients for various income definitions, or comparisons of income growth rates across income deciles. But failure to take into account the longitudinal dimension of inequality can lead to misinterpretations of inequality data and measures. The paper shows that examining longitudinal income data for the same individuals over time strongly contradicts cross-sectional inequality evidence. For example, some recent cross-sectional inequality measures suggest that the incomes of initially low-income households grew at slower rates than those with initially higher-incomes. This has been interpreted as the poorest earners being ‘left behind’. But recent longitudinal data, at least for individuals, reveals evidence of much faster-than-average growth among initially lower, compared to higher, income earners. Thus, ‘regression to the mean’ is a dominant feature of the longitudinal data.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Structural reform of the Reserve Bank of Australia Which public debt should be paid off? ssessing the risks from Australia’s economic exposure to China Is quantitative easing good policy? Public infrastructure investment in the time of Covid
×
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