Variation in U.S. State Income Inequality: 1960-1990

Abstract

This study examines regional trends in state income inequality in the United States. Data for the 48 contiguous states are used to estimate separate cross-sectional equations of state income inequality for I960, 1970, 1980, and 1990. Thus, previous cross-sectional studies of state income inequality are updated with the addition of recent census data. Moreover, the model specified includes variables not previously examined, which reduces the possibility of omitted variable bias and provides a richer policy framework. State characteristics are identified that may explain the convergence of state income inequality both during earlier years and in recent years.

Regional implications of the 2001 recession

“…Berry and Kaserman also included as an explanatory variable the percentage of employment in manufacturing. Levernier et al (1996) utilized economic, demographic, human capital, and labor market variables along with regional dummies to capture unmeasured regional fixed effects (pp. 363-364).…”

State Patterns in Family Income Inequality

“…These studies suggest that interstate differences in inequality can be explained by recent foreign immigration, labor-force participation rates, and the share of female-headed families (Topel, 1994;Karoly and Klerman, 1994;Levernier et al, 1995;Partridge et al, 1996). These studies find much less support for the argument that other factors such as declining unionization and manufacturing are important explanations.…”

Reexamining the Evidence of an Ecological Association between Income Inequality and Health

“…For example, the increase in income inequality in the U.S. from 1980 to 1990 has been 3 attributed to changes in manufacturing employment, international migration and the increase in households headed by single females (Husted 1991, Levernier, et al 1995, Partridge, et al 1998and Bernard and Jensen 1998. 2 demonstrates that the evidence of an association between inequality and health is more limited and mixed than is typically acknowledged.…”