A Note on Kuznets' U

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Global Kuznets Curve, 1969-2007

“…The analysis performed in this study examined global international economic development and international economic inequality. Increasing globalization of the world's economy might account, in part, for the failure of income inequality measures to follow a Kuznets curve in some individual nations or regions [2][3][4][5][6]. The relative ease of international capital and technology flow might obscure the intra-national labor flow originally suggested by Kuznets as the mechanism for producing the inverted U shaped curve relating national economic development and income inequality.…”

“…The coefficient of variation is defined by the equation: CV = SD MEAN (3) in which CV is the coefficient of variation and SD is the standard deviation. Standard deviation is a measure of spread.…”

“…Over the past half century, Kuznets curves have been both found and not found to exist within certain nations and regions [2][3][4][5][6]. This inconsistency in demonstrating the existence of Kuznets curves has caused many to question its meaning and to debate its significance [2][3][4][5][6].…”

“…This inconsistency in demonstrating the existence of Kuznets curves has caused many to question its meaning and to debate its significance [2][3][4][5][6]. Firebaugh [7] noted that "about seventy percent of the world's total income inequality is between-nation income inequality as opposed to within-nation income inequality".…”

The Kuznets Effect Revisited

“…*(3) Braulke (1983) provided another criterion to identify the turning point of the Kuznets curve, namely when the urbanization rate of the population *(4) reaches 0, 44 in the classical criterion and 0,25 in his new estimation. Taiwan's urbanization rate was 0,592 in 1964 (C = 0,408 according to Braulke 1983, that Taiwan's Kuznets curve was already in the declining phase from 1964. In other words, it is not very convincing to state that Taiwan did not fall into the Kuznets trap with Phase II data , and using the turning point of the economy as the proxy for the turning point of the Kuznets curve.…”