{"title":"新冠肺炎与收入不平等：每月人口登记的证据。","authors":"Nikolay Angelov, Daniel Waldenström","doi":"10.1007/s10888-022-09560-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We measure the distributional impact of the COVID-19 pandemic using newly released population register data in Sweden. Monthly earnings inequality increased during the pandemic, and the key driver is income losses among low-paid individuals while middle- and high-income earners were almost unaffected. In terms of employment, as measured by having positive monthly earnings, the pandemic had a larger negative impact on private-sector workers and on women. In terms of earnings conditional on being employed, the effect was still more negative for women, but less negative for private-sector workers compared to publicly employed. Using data on individual take-up of government COVID-19 support, we show that policy significantly dampened the inequality increase, but did not fully offset it. Annual total market income inequality, which also includes capital income and taxable transfers, shows similar patterns of increasing inequality during the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10888-022-09560-8.</p>","PeriodicalId":51559,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Inequality","volume":" ","pages":"1-29"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10015130/pdf/","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COVID-19 and income inequality: evidence from monthly population registers.\",\"authors\":\"Nikolay Angelov, Daniel Waldenström\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10888-022-09560-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We measure the distributional impact of the COVID-19 pandemic using newly released population register data in Sweden. Monthly earnings inequality increased during the pandemic, and the key driver is income losses among low-paid individuals while middle- and high-income earners were almost unaffected. In terms of employment, as measured by having positive monthly earnings, the pandemic had a larger negative impact on private-sector workers and on women. In terms of earnings conditional on being employed, the effect was still more negative for women, but less negative for private-sector workers compared to publicly employed. Using data on individual take-up of government COVID-19 support, we show that policy significantly dampened the inequality increase, but did not fully offset it. Annual total market income inequality, which also includes capital income and taxable transfers, shows similar patterns of increasing inequality during the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10888-022-09560-8.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Economic Inequality\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10015130/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Economic Inequality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-022-09560-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Inequality","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-022-09560-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
COVID-19 and income inequality: evidence from monthly population registers.
We measure the distributional impact of the COVID-19 pandemic using newly released population register data in Sweden. Monthly earnings inequality increased during the pandemic, and the key driver is income losses among low-paid individuals while middle- and high-income earners were almost unaffected. In terms of employment, as measured by having positive monthly earnings, the pandemic had a larger negative impact on private-sector workers and on women. In terms of earnings conditional on being employed, the effect was still more negative for women, but less negative for private-sector workers compared to publicly employed. Using data on individual take-up of government COVID-19 support, we show that policy significantly dampened the inequality increase, but did not fully offset it. Annual total market income inequality, which also includes capital income and taxable transfers, shows similar patterns of increasing inequality during the pandemic.
Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10888-022-09560-8.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Economic Inequality provides a forum for analysis of ''economic inequality'', broadly defined. Its scope includes: · Theoretical and empirical analysis· Monetary measures of ''well-being'' such as earnings, income, consumption, and wealth; non-monetary measures such as educational achievement and health and health care; multidimensional measures· Inequality and poverty within and between countries, and globally, and their trends over time· Inequalities of opportunity· Income mobility and poverty persistence· The factor distribution of income· Differences in ''well-being'' between socioeconomic groups, for example between men and women, generations, or ethnic groups· The effects of inequality on macroeconomic and other phenomena, and vice versa· Related statistical methods and data issues · Related policy analysis Papers need to prioritize the ''economic inequality'' dimension. For example, papers about trade and inequality, or inequality and growth, should not primarily be about trade or growth (in which case they should target a different journal). The same is true for papers considering the inter-relationships between the income distribution and the labour market, public policy, or demography.
Officially cited as: J Econ Inequal
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
