Influence of Social Institutions on Inequality in China

This study analyses the impact of changes in social institutions, i.e. in the informal and formal social security system, on income inequality in China. This study uses an inequality decomposition analysis approach comparing household survey data for 1988 with 1995.Three main results emerge from the analysis: first, it findsthat the family based social security is losing its importance mainly through the changes in employment pattern in a household. This change contributes to rising income inequality. Second, thestudy shows that the introduction of new formal social security system helped to equalise the distribution of retired household members' income in urban areas in 1995. Third, however, these changes have only benefited a restricted number of persons. Benefits for rural migrants are low and most of the rural population has still no access to the new system.

Economic Reforms and Income Inequality in Urban China

This paper reports the results of an analysis of changes in income inequality, and in its determinants, in urban China since the economic reforms that began in 1978. The intention is to identify new characteristics of economic inequality. It first shows that income differentials acrossand in provinces widened and that their economic rankings were becoming fixed during the period from 1988 to 1995. Second, age was the major factor in inequality in 1988, while education became the important factor in 1995. Third, education significantly contributed to increasing inequality during the period. Fourth, the higher education-level groups had less within-group inequality. These changes reflect the penetration of the market mechanism into China after the reforms. However, this will be problematic without equality of opportunity.

Changes in the causes of earnings inequality in urban China from 1988 to 2002

This paper analyzes the causes of earnings inequality in urban China from 1988 to 2002. Earnings inequality in urban China continuously increased, even when adjusting for regional price differences. This paper reveals how the causes of earnings inequality changed between the periods 1988-1995 and 1995-2002 by reflecting labor-related institutional reform in China. Contrary to the situation from 1988 to 1995, between 1995 and 2002, employment status became the largest disequalizer, and the decline of inter-provincial inequality contributed to a reduction in entire earnings inequality. Individual ability, represented by education and occupation, received much greater rewards. Throughout the period from 1988 to 2002, a large part of the explained inequality increase was due to change in price (valuation of each individual's attributes) and not due to change in quantity (composition of individual attributes).

The contribution of supply and demand shifts to earnings inequality in urban China

This paper examines the degree to which supply and demand shift across skill groups contributed to the earnings inequality increase in urban China from 1988 to 2002. Product demand shift contributed to an equalizing of earnings distribution in urban China from 1988 to 1995 by increasing the relative product for the low educated. However, it contributed to enlarging inequality from 1995 to 2002 by increasing the relative demand for the highly educated. Relative demand was continuously higher for workers in the coastal region and contributed to a raising of interregional inequality. Supply shift contributed essentially nothing or contributed only slightly to a reduction in inequality. Remaining factors, the largest disequalizer, may contain skill-biased technological and institutional changes, and unobserved supply shift effects due to increasing numbers of migrant workers.

Chapter 6 Economic integration and changes in industrial location in Vietnam

Vietnam has been praised for its achievements in economic growth and success in poverty reduction over the last two decades. The incidence of poverty reportedly fell from 58.1% in 1993 to 19.5% in 2004 (VASS [2006, 13]). The country is also considered to have only a moderate level of aggregate economic inequality by international comparisons. As of the early 2000s, Vietnam’s consumption-based Gini coefficient is found to be comparable to that of other countries with similar levels of per capita GDP. The Gini index did increase between 1993 and 2004, but rather slowly, from 0.34 to 0.37 (VASS [2006, 13]). Yet, as the country moves on with its market oriented reforms, the question of inequality has been highlighted in policy and academic discourses. In particular, it is pointed out that socio-economic inequalities between regions (or provinces) are significant and have been widening behind aggregate figures (NCSSH [2001], Mekong Economics [2005], VASS [2006]). Between 1993 and 2004, while real per capita expenditure increased in all regions, it grew fastest in those regions with the highest per capita expenditures and vice versa, resulting in greater regional disparities (VASS [2006, 37]). A major contributing factor to such regional inequalities is the uneven distribution of industry within the country. According to the Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam, of the country's gross industrial output in 2007, over 50% belongs to the South East region, close to 25% to the Red River Delta, and about 10% to the Mekong River Delta. All remaining regions share some 10% of the country's gross industrial output. At a quick glance, the South East increased its share of the total industrial gross output in the 1990s, while the Red River Delta started to gain ground in more recent years. How can the government deal with regional disparities is a valid question. In order to offer an answer, it is necessary in the first place to grasp the trend of disparities as well as its background. To that end, this paper is a preparatory endeavor. Regional disparities in industrial activities can essentially be seen as a result of the location decisions of enterprises. While the General Statistics Office (GSO) of Vietnam has conducted one enterprise census (followed by annual enterprise surveys) and two stages of establishment censuses since 2000, sectorally and geographically disaggregated data are not readily available. Therefore, for the moment, we will draw on earlier studies of industrial location and the determinants of enterprises’ location decisions in Vietnam. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The following two sections deal with the country context. Section 2 will outline some major developments in Vietnam’s international economic relations that may affect sub-national location of industry. According to the theory of spatial economics, economic integration is seen as a major driver of changes in industrial location, both between and within countries (Nishikimi [2008]). Section 3, on the other hand, will consider some possible factors affecting geographic distribution of industry in the domestic sphere. In Section 4, existing literature on industrial and firm location will be examined, and Section 5 will briefly summarize the findings and suggest some areas for future research.

Factor decomposition of income inequality change : Japan's regional income disparity from 1955 to 1998

We propose a method for the decomposition of inequality changes based on panel data regression. The method is an efficient way to quantify the contributions of variables to changes of the Theil T index while satisfying the property of uniform addition. We illustrate the method using prefectural data from Japan for the period 1955 to 1998. Japan experienced a diminishing of regional income disparity during the years of high economic growth from 1955 to 1973. After estimating production functions using panel data for prefectures in Japan, we apply the new decomposition approach to identify each production factor’s contributions to the changes of per capita income inequality among prefectures. The decomposition results show that total factor productivity (residual) growth, population change (migration), and public capital stock growth contributed to the diminishing of per capita income disparity.