Income Inequality: The Implications of Economic Structure and Social Conditions

Albrecht, Don E.; Albrecht, Carol Mulford

doi:10.1080/02732170601118153

Cited by 16 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Income inequality began to increase in the 1970s in the United States and other advanced economies and continued through the present days, thereby following a pattern resembling an N, instead of an inverted U (Alderson & Nielsen, 2002). Not only has income inequality been growing in the U.S. as a whole since the 1970s, it also has been growing at an increasing rate and also increasing within each population subgroup (Albrecht & Albrecht, 2007). The proponents of the economic restructuring view attribute the increased income inequality over the past several decades to the economic transformation from a dependence on manufacturing to a dependence on services.…”

Section: Possible Explanations For Changing Income Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While some scholars have attributed the increased levels of income inequality to economic restructuring processes, others have suggested that changing social conditions or the combination of the two were mainly responsible for the phenomenon (Albrecht & Albrecht, 2007). Other scholars have argued that technological changes (Blanchard, 1997), globalization (IMF, 2007;Kanbur, 2015), weakening of labor's bargaining position (Blanchard & Giavazzi, 2003), and financialization (Dünhaupt, 2012(Dünhaupt, , 2016Hein, 2015;Stockhammer, 2012;Van Arnum & Naples, 2013) were responsible for the increased inequality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a study aimed at investigating the sources of increased income inequality in the U.S., using county-level data for the US, Albrecht & Albrecht (2007) found that social conditions were much more strongly related to inequality than economic structure. The two social conditions most strongly related to inequality included female employment and the percent of female-headed households.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In doing so, following the literature, it employs the explanatory variables that represent economic structure, sociological conditions, and financialization. Unlike in (Albrecht & Albrecht, 2007;Chevan & Stokes, 2000) where the economic structure variable is measured by the proportion of labor force employed in each sector in the economy, here we measure it using the share in gross regional domestic product (GRDP) of each sector in each province. Since the sectors in the economy are disaggregated into nine sectors, the economic structure variable is broken down into nine variables that include the share in GRDP of each of the 9 sectors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, we hypothesize that there will be a positive relationship between the GDP share of financial sector and income inequality. Further we make use of college participation rate and absolute poverty rate as variables that represent social conditions variables, owing to (Van Arnum & Naples, 2013), instead of (Albrecht & Albrecht, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Determinant of income inequality in Indonesia

Afandi

Rantung

Marashdeh

2017

Econ. J. Emerg. Mark.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines whether changing economic structure, social conditions, and financialization are responsible for increased income inequality in Indonesia. By employing panel data of 32 provinces in Indonesia that spans from 2007 to 2013, it finds that structural change affects income inequality, increased share of finance reduces inequality, which is against the financialization hypothesis, and social conditions have expected effects on income inequality. While an increased share of both agriculture and service sectors tends to reduce inequality, an increased share of manufacture sector has no effect on inequality. This study finds that falling poverty increases inequality, implying that policy to reduce poverty might not be neutral for inequality and instead cannot prevent it from increasing. Since the higher the college participation rate the higher income inequality tends to be, it does not automatically imply that in order to reduce inequality we need to reduce the number of people who go to college. It might be the case that the college participation rate has not reached a turning point, below which its increase increases inequality, but beyond which its increases reduces inequality. AbstrakPenelitian ini mengkaji pengaruh perubahan struktur ekonomi, finansialisasi, dan kondisi sosial terhadap ketimpangan pendapatan. Menggunakan data panel dengan cross-section 32 propinsi di Indonesia dan rentang waktu 2007-2013, penelitian ini menemukan bahwa perubahan struktural mempengaruhi ketimpangan, kenaikan sumbangan sektor keuangan dalam PDB cenderung menurunkan ketimpangan, yang berarti bertentangan dengan hipotesis finansialisasi, dan kondisi sosial juga berpengaruh terhadap ketimpangan. Sementara kenaikan sumbangan baik sektor pertanian maupun sektor jasa dalam PDB cenderung mengurangi ketimpangan, kenaikan sumbangan sektor industri terbukti tidak mempengaruhi ketimpangan. Studi ini juga menemukan bahwa turunnya tingkat kemiskinan justru manaikkan ketimangan, sehingga kebijakan untuk menurunkan kemiskinan bisa bersifat tidak netral terhadap ketimpangan, melainkan tidak mampu membiarkan ketimpangan untuk tidak naik. Juga ditemukan bahwa kenaikan angka partisipasi kuliah justru menaikkan ketimpangan, yang mengimplikasikan bahwa angka ini belum mencapai titik belok (turning point).

show abstract

Section: Possible Explanations For Changing Income Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 99%