My Group Beats Your Group: Evaluating Non-Income Inequalities

This paper proposes a new methodology, the Domination Index, to evaluate non-income inequalities between social groups such as inequalities of educational attainment, occupational status, health or subjective well-being. The Domination Index does not require specific cardinalisation assumptions, but only uses the ordinal structure of these non-income variables. We approach from an axiomatic perspective and show that a set of desirable properties for a group inequality measure when the variable of interest is ordinal, characterizes the Domination Index up to a positive scalar transformation. Moreover we make use of the Domination Index to explore the relation between inequality and segregation and show how these two concepts are related theoretically.

Age, Life-satisfaction, and Relative Income – Insights from the UK and Germany

We first confirm previous results with the German Socio-Economic Panel by Layard et al. (2010), and obtain strong negative effects of comparison income. However, when we split the sample by age, we find quite different results for reference income. The effects on lifesatisfaction are positive and significant for those under 45, consistent with Hirschman’s (1973) ‘tunnel effect’, and only negative (and larger than in the full sample) for those over 45, when relative deprivation dominates. Thus for young respondents, reference income’s signalling role, indicating potential future prospects, can outweigh relative deprivation effects. Own-income effects are also larger for the older sample, and of greater magnitude than the comparison income effect. In East Germany the reference income effects are insignificant for all. With data from the British Household Panel Survey, we confirm standard results when encompassing all ages, but reference income loses significance in both age groups, and most surprisingly, even own income becomes insignificant for those over 45, while education has significant negative effects.

Income stratification and between-group inequality

The paper demonstrates that the ratio of the Yitzhaki (1994) to the conventional measure of between-group inequality is in general equal to one minus twice the weighted average probability that a random member of a richer (on average) group is poorer than a random member of a poorer (on average) group, and may therefore be interpreted as an index of stratification in its own right.

Income stratification and the measurement of interdistributional inequality between multiple groups

This paper proposes a new class of stratification indices that measure interdistributional inequality between multiple groups. The class is based on a conceptualisation of stratification as a process that results in a hierarchical ordering of groups and therefore seeks to capture not only the extent to which groups form well-defined strata in the income distribution but also the scale of the resultant differences in income standards between them, where these two factors play the same role as identification and alienation respectively in the measurement of polarisation. The properties of the class as a whole are investigated as well as those of selected members of it: zeroth and first power indices may be interpreted as measuring the overall incidence and depth of stratification respectively, while higher power indices members are directly sensitive to the severity of stratification between groups. An illustrative application provides an empirical analysis of global income stratification by regions in 1993.

Type II Errors in IO Multipliers

This paper compares methods for calculating Input-Output (IO) Type II multipliers. These are formulations of the standard Leontief IO model which endogenise elements of household consumption. An analytical comparison of the two basic IO Type II multiplier methods with the Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) multiplier approach identifies the treatment of non-wage income generated in production as a central problem. The multiplier values for each of the IO and SAM methods are calculated using Scottish data for 2009. These results can be used to choose which Type II IO multiplier to adopt where SAM multiplier values are unavailable.