The spatial and temporal dynamics of US regional income inequality, 1950–1989

Fan, C. Cindy; Casetti, Emilio

doi:10.1007/bf01581768

Cited by 90 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Amos (1988) analyzed spatial inequality within U.S. states, finding that inequalities increased with development. The major finding is supported by Fan and Casetti (1994). Another case study is provided by Terrasi (1999) for Italian regions .…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Spatial inequality and development — Is there an inverted-U relationship?

Leßmann

2014

Journal of Development Economics

173

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract This paper studies the hypothesis of an inverted-U-shaped relationship between spatial inequality and economic development. The theory of Kuznets (1955) and Williamson (1965) suggests that (spatial) inequality first increases in the process of development, then peaks, and then decreases. To test this hypothesis I have used a unique panel data set of spatial inequalities in 55 countries at different stages of economic development, covering the period 1980-2009. Parametric and semiparametric regressions are carried out using cross-section and (unbalanced) panel data. The results provide strong support for the existence of an inverted U, but importantly I also find spatial inequalities to increase again at very high levels of economic development. Although many factors may be contributing to this rise, one explanation rests on the process of tertiarization, i.e., the structural shift from industrial production towards a service base in the highest-developed economies. Terms of use: Documents inJEL-Code: D310, R100, O150.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Spatial inequality and development — Is there an inverted-U relationship?

Leßmann

2014

Journal of Development Economics

173

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9) In this paper, expansion of rank-size function is performed based on research of Fan and Casetti [6]. 10) This hypothesis testing approach means to test the hypothesis that parameters associated with the newly added time variables are zero.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6) This study uses coefficient of variation and Theil entropy measure to examine the patterns of regional inequality. Then, in order to clarify the spatial dynamic variations of inequality, this study attempts to decompose Theil entropy measure and to expand rank-size functions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spatial Dynamic Variations of Regional Inequality in Korea and Japan

Lee

2003

SiRS, SRS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study attempts to illustrate the patterns of regional inequality and their dynamic variations in Korea and Japan where economic development levels differ. In order to present a reasonable demonstration of such patterns, the study starts with and further develops Williamson' s inverted-U hypothesis and Amos' augmented inverted-U hypothesis through a detailed empirical analysis of the interplay between regional dynamics and regional income inequality in the cases of both Korea and Japan. The primary conclusions of this study can be stated as: (1) Korea and Japan are moving into the spatial restructuring phase from the preceding polarization reversal phase after 1996 and 1978, respectively; (2) Regional dynamics applied to widespread regional growth and decline becomes very clear by portraying of the dynamic variation of inequality in geographical space.

show abstract

“…Numerous questions arose concerning the trends after the convergence period [4] or the role of regional policy [5]. Increasing spatial income inequalities appeared in the second half of the 1980's due to globalization and the sectoral changes in the terciery sector [6]. The largest metropolitan areas are becoming the centres of managing and controlling the world economy, as a consequence of globalization.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%