FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2912451985> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2912451985 endingPage "31" @default.
• W2912451985 startingPage "3" @default.
• W2912451985 abstract "In most Member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD), the income gap between rich and poor has widened over the past decades. This article analyses whether and to what extent income taxes and social transfers have contributed to this trend. Has the redistributive impact of different social programmes changed over time? We use microdata from the LIS Cross National Data Center in Luxembourg for the period 1982–2014 and study both the total population and the working-age population. In contrast to the results of some other studies, especially by the OECD, we do not find that redistribution has declined. Tax-benefit systems around 2013 are more effective at reducing income inequality compared to the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s, especially among the total population. Changes in social programmes are not a driver of greater income inequality across the countries included in this study. La plupart des pays de l’Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (OCDE) ont vu se creuser l’écart de revenu entre les riches et les pauvres ces dernières décennies. Dans cet article, nous examinons si et dans quelle mesure la fiscalité sur le revenu et les transferts sociaux contribuent à expliquer cette tendance, en d’autres termes si l’impact redistributif de certains programmes sociaux a évolué au fil du temps. Nous étudions cette évolution à la fois au sein de la population totale et de la population d’âge actif à partir de microdonnées provenant du centre de données transnationales LIS, au Luxembourg, et se rapportant à la période 1982-2014. Contrairement à d’autres études, en particulier aux travaux de l’OCDE, notre analyse ne révèle pas de diminution de la redistribution. Aux alentours de 2013, les systèmes d’imposition et de transferts parviennent mieux à réduire les inégalités de revenu qu’ils ne le faisaient au milieu des années 1980 et 1990, spécialement au sein de la population totale. Les réformes qui ont touché les programmes sociaux ne sont pas à l’origine de l’augmentation des inégalités de revenu dans les pays étudiés dans cet article. En la mayor parte de los países de la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OCDE), la diferencia de ingresos entre ricos y pobres ha aumentado durante los últimos decenios. En este artículo se analiza en qué medida los impuestos sobre la renta y las transferencias sociales han contribuido a esta tendencia. ¿Ha cambiado con el tiempo el efecto redistributivo de los diferentes programas sociales? Se han utilizado microdatos publicados por el LIS Cross National Data Center (Centro de Datos Transnacional LIS) en Luxemburgo para el período 1982-2014 y se ha estudiado la población total y la población en edad de trabajar. A diferencia de los resultados obtenidos por otros estudios, realizados en particular por la OCDE, no se ha llegado a la conclusión de que la redistribución haya disminuido. Los sistemas fiscales y de prestaciones de alrededor de 2013 lograban reducir de forma más eficaz la desigualdad de ingresos que los sistemas de mediados de los decenios de 1980 y 1990, especialmente en lo que respecta a la población total. Los cambios en los programas sociales no impulsan el aumento de la desigualdad de ingresos en los países objeto de este estudio. In den meisten Mitgliedsländern der Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (OECD) ist die Einkommensschere zwischen arm und reich in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten weiter aufgegangen. Dieser Artikel analysiert, ob und inwieweit Einkommenssteuern und Sozialtransfers zu diesem Trend beigetragen haben. Hat sich die Umverteilungswirkung verschiedener Sozialprogramme über die Zeit verändert? In der Studie wurden Mikrodaten des LIS Cross National Data Center in Luxemburg für den Zeitraum 1982‑2014 verwendet, und sowohl die Gesamtbevölkerung als auch die Bevölkerung im erwerbsfähigen Alter wurden untersucht. Im Gegensatz zu den Ergebnissen einiger anderer Studien, insbesondere der OECD, kamen wir nicht zu dem Schluss, dass die Umverteilungswirkung abgenommen hat. Steuervergünstigungssysteme waren um das Jahr 2013 erfolgreicher darin, Einkommensungleichheiten auszugleichen, als dies noch Mitte der 1980er- und Mitte der 1990er-Jahre der Fall gewesen war, vor allem, wenn man die Gesamtbevölkerung betrachtet. Veränderungen in den Sozialprogrammen führten in den hier untersuchten Ländern nicht zu einer größeren Einkommensungleichheit. В большинстве стран-членов Организации экономического сотрудничества и развития (ОЭСР) в последние десятилетия наблюдалось увеличение разницы в уровнях доходов между бедными и богатыми. В статье анализируется вопрос, в какой степени социальные выплаты и налоги на доходы усугубляют этот тренд. Изменился ли со временем перераспределительный эффект различных социальных программ? Мы использовали микроданные исследовательского центра LIS (Люксембург) за период с 1982 по 2014 год и рассматривали как всё население, так и только население трудоспособного возраста. В отличие от результатов других исследований, в частности, проведённых ОЭСР, мы не обнаружили снижения перераспределительного эффекта. Системы налоговых льгот образца 2013 года являются более эффективными с точки зрения снижения неравенства доходов по сравнению с системами середины 1980-х и середины 1990-х годов, особенно если рассматривать общую численность населения. Изменения, которые претерпели социальные программы, не являются причиной роста неравенства в странах, включенных в исследование. 在经济合作与发展组织(OECD)大多数成员国，贫富收入差距过去几十年来不断扩大。本文分析了所得税和社会转移支付是否以及在何种程度上促成了这一趋势。不同社会计划的再分配效应是否随时间发生了改变?我们使用来自卢森堡实验室信息系统(LIS)跨国数据中心1982-2014年期间的微观数据，对总人口和工作年龄人口进行了研究。与其他一些研究，特别是OECD研究的结果相反，我们没有发现再分配效应的下降。与20世纪80年代和90年代中期相比，特别是对总人口而言，2013年左右的税收优惠制度在减少收入不平等方面更为有效。社会计划改变并不是本研究所涵盖的各国收入不平等加剧的推动因素。 توسعت الفجوة في الدخل بين الأغنياء والفقراء في معظم دول منظمة التعاون الاقتصادي والتنمية في العقود الأخيرة. ويحلل هذا المقال ما إذا كانت الضرائب على الدخل والبرامج الاجتماعية قد ساهمت في هذا التوجه، وإلى أي مدى حدث ذلك. فهل تَغير أثر إعادة التوزيع لمختلف البرامج الاجتماعية عبر الزمن؟ نستخدم البيانات الجزئية التي يوفرها المركز عبر الوطني للبيانات الجزئية لدراسة الدخل في لوكسمبورغ للفترة ما بين 1982 و2014، ونقوم بدراسة السكان ككل وكذا السكان في سن العمل. وعلى عكس نتائج بعض الدراسات الأخرى، خاصة منها دراسات منظمة التعاون الاقتصادي والتنمية، لا نجد أن ثمة تراجعاً في إعادة التوزيع. فأنظمة الاستحقاق الضريبي لسنة 2013 هي أكثر فعالية في الحد من التفاوت في الدخل مقارنة بفترة منتصف الثمانينيات ومنتصف التسعينيات، وخاصة بالنسبة لإجمالي السكان. فالتغييرات في البرامج الاجتماعية ليست سبباً في زيادة حالات التفاوت في الدخل في الدول التي شملتها هذه الدراسة. Nas últimas décadas, a disparidade de renda entre ricos e pobres aumentou na maioria dos países membros da Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE). Este artigo analisa se, e até que ponto, os impostos de renda e as transferências sociais influenciaram esta tendência. Será que o impacto redistributivo dos diferentes programas sociais mudou com o tempo? Usamos os microdados do período de 1982–2014 do LIS Cross National Data Center, de Luxemburgo, e analisamos a população total e a população economicamente ativa. Comparado aos resultados de outros estudos, especialmente aqueles conduzidos pela OCDE, não consideramos que essa redistribuição tenha diminuído. Os sistemas de benefícios fiscais adotados por volta de 2013 mostraram-se mais eficazes na redução de desigualdades de renda em comparação aos mesmos sistemas usados em meados dos anos 80 e dos anos 90, especialmente entre a população total. Mudanças nos programas sociais não são determinantes para uma maior desigualdade de renda entre os países incluídos nesta análise. The overall tendency over the past two or three decades has been for an increase in income inequality in the large majority of wealthy nations. In Member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD), from the mid-1980s, greater inequality in primary income 11 Primary income can be defined as income from work and capital and net transfers from other households. See: <www.oecd.org/els/soc/IDD-ToR.pdf>. has driven the widening of the income gap between rich and poor (OECD, 2008, 2011, 2015). Several explanations of income inequality have been introduced (Atkinson, 2015; Piketty, 2014). One of the main driving forces behind disposable income distribution is the reduction of inequality through the tax-transfer system (Atkinson and Brandolini, 2001; Smeeding, 2004). The overall redistributive effect can be divided into redistribution by transfers and by income taxes, but can also be detailed more specifically (Ferrarini and Nelson, 2003; Jesuit and Mahler, 2010, 2017; Wang, Caminada and Goudswaard, 2012). In the middle of the first decade of this millennium, the average redistributive effect achieved by public cash transfers was twice as large as that achieved through household taxes. Regardless, the example of the United States is noteworthy for achieving a greater part of its redistribution through taxes (OECD, 2008 and 2011; Whiteford, 2010; Wang and Caminada, 2011; Wang, Caminada and Goudswaard, 2012). As the tax-transfer system has only been able to offset a part of the rise in primary income inequality over the last 25 years, disposable income (i.e. income after income taxes and social benefits) has also become more unequal in many countries. This article examines in detail the observed changes in the redistributive effects of social transfers and income taxes (including social contributions) for households. The extensive literature on “welfare state retrenchment” that has emerged over the last decades seems to imply that welfare states have become less redistributive. The OECD concludes that redistribution has in recent years decreased in a majority of countries (Causa and Hermansen, 2017). Other studies, to the contrary, show that most welfare states became more redistributive in the 1980s and 1990s (Kenworthy and Pontusson, 2005; Wang, Caminada and Goudswaard, 2014). Welfare states have not compensated completely for the higher inequality in primary income among households, but most have done so to some degree. By and large, welfare states have worked the way they were designed to work. It is markets – not redistribution policies – that have become more inegalitarian. It is worth noting that, because tax-benefit systems are generally progressive, one could expect higher primary income inequality to lead automatically to more redistribution, even without policy actions (Immervoll and Richardson, 2011). The growing interest in national and cross-national differences in earnings and income inequality has produced a wide range of studies. An important development has been the launching of the LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg (LIS), through which microdata-sets from various countries have been “harmonized”. 22 LIS Cross-National Data Center. 2017. Luxembourg Income, LIS Key Figures and LIS Database, Luxembourg <www.lisproject.org>. Consequently, it is possible to study income inequality across countries and years (see Atkinson, Rainwater and Smeeding, 1995). However, the improvement in methods of measurement and in empirical knowledge sits in contrast with the lack of insight into the causes of changes in equality over time. 33 The OECD (OECD, 2008, 2011 and 2015) summarizes trends and driving factors in income distribution and poverty based on the responses to a harmonized questionnaire of OECD Member countries (i.e. distribution indicators derived from national micro-economic data). This should perhaps not come as a surprise, as the distribution of income in a country is the outcome of numerous decisions made over time by households, enterprises, organizations and the public sector (Gottschalk and Smeeding, 2000). For many countries, important forces behind growing disposable income inequality are the growth of inequality of earned primary income, demographic changes, changes in household size and composition, and other endogenous factors. The evolution of income inequality is not simply the product of common economic forces: it also represents the impact of institutions and national policies (Atkinson, 2000). Our analysis of the level and the evolution of income distribution and fiscal redistribution uses LIS data on income in a standardized way across countries and over time. We focus here on the effect of several social transfers and income taxes (including social contributions) in redistributing income, and we analyse trends for the period 1982–2014 with the most recent data. We use the traditional budget incidence approach – despite some methodological problems that we will address – to study the combined effects of income taxes and transfers on income (re)distribution. The distribution of primary income is compared with the distribution of income after taxes and after social transfers. The change in summary measures of inequality between pre- and post-government income represents direct government redistribution. In this article, we elaborate on the work of Mahler and Jesuit (2006) and Wang, Caminada and Goudswaard (2014). We offer a user-friendly dataset, the Leiden LIS budget incidence fiscal redistribution dataset on income inequality (Wang and Caminada, 2017). A new database was asked for, because the LIS staff implemented a major database template revision. Most components of this revised template have been applied, retroactively, to all earlier waves of the microdata. The revised template increases comparability both over time and cross-nationally. The updated dataset covers all 47 LIS-countries and a longer period (1967–2014). The remainder of the article is organized as follows. First, we summarize the literature on the redistributive effect of taxes and transfers in LIS countries. We then present our research method and our empirical results before offering conclusions. The relationship between income inequality and redistribution in a cross-country perspective is far from transparent (Lambert, Nesbakken and Thoresen, 2010). The main reason for this stems from differences in measurement strategies. Indeed, with three distributions involved (pre-tax-transfer income, post-tax-transfer income, and the tax-benefit system), and with different inequality measures to sum up these distributions, it is unsurprising that the literature offers a plethora of research methods and empirical results. We shall briefly review a number of studies, restricting ourselves to the Gini-based literature and its application, which is by far the most prevalent. Several studies analyse income distribution across countries, indicating that the role of social policy (taxes and transfers) is important in the magnitude of income redistribution. 44 Among others, Atkinson (2003), Atkinson and Brandolini (2001), Brandolini and Smeeding (2007), and Smeeding (2004). Kenworthy and Pontusson (2005) examined the trend in primary income inequality and redistribution in OECD countries in the 1980s and 1990s, indicating that redistribution increased in most countries. Welfare state policies compensated for the rise in primary income inequality across countries. A recent study by the OECD (Causa and Hermansen, 2017) using data up to 2014 concludes that redistribution through income taxes and cash transfers cushions income inequality among the working-age population on average by slightly more than one quarter in OECD countries (see also Immervoll and Richardson, 2011). In all countries, cash transfers account for the largest part of redistribution and taxes for a smaller part. Social security contributions have weak regressive effects in a number of countries. However, the OECD study also finds that redistribution has declined on average and in the majority of the countries since the mid-1990s, especially between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s. In particular, in some Nordic countries redistribution has reduced substantially. The decline in total redistribution is attributable mainly to transfers, with taxes playing a less important role. Bargain et al. (2017) analyse the impact on inequality of the reform of tax-benefit programmes in response to the Great Recession, using microsimulation and household surveys. For the first stage of the crisis, they find that policy responses contributed to stabilizing or even decreasing inequality in the United Kingdom, France and Ireland. In Germany, policy effects on inequality were small. In the later stage of the crisis, policy reforms had mixed effects. During this period, tax-benefit changes increased inequality, especially in Ireland. Most studies focus on overall redistribution; others have examined in more detail the impact of income components on overall inequality (Shorrocks, 1983; Lerman and Yitzhaki, 1985; Jenkins, 1995; Breen, García-Peñalosa and Orgiazzi, 2008). These suggest that income taxes and social benefits are important to reduce household income inequality. Plotnick (1984) calculates the redistributive impact of cash transfers in the United States in 1967 and in 1974. Caminada and Goudswaard (2001) performed a budget incidence analysis for the Netherlands to investigate the effect of transfers and taxes in 1981, 1991 and 1997. Ferrarini and Nelson (2003) focus on the effects of taxation and social insurance in ten countries around 1995, analysing inter- and intra- country comparisons of income (re)distribution. Mahler and Jesuit (2006) divide government redistribution into several components: the redistributive effects from unemployment benefits, from pensions, and from taxes. They applied their empirical exercise for 13 countries with LIS-data around the years 1999/2000. Caminada, Goudswaard and Wang (2012) and Wang, Caminada and Goudswaard (2012 and 2014) updated and extended the analyses of Mahler and Jesuit (2006) by taking into account many more benefits and taxes, and applied a budget incidence analysis to a wider range of 36 countries with LIS data up to around 2004. They conclude that transfers account for 75 per cent of redistribution, while direct taxes account for 25 per cent. More than half of the total redistribution owing to transfers comes from pension benefits, although the redistributive character of pension benefits varies across countries. Unemployment benefits are the second most important programme in terms of redistribution, but their redistributive impact is only one fifth of the effect of pension benefits. Another finding of Mahler and Jesuit (2006) is that redistribution relates more strongly to the size of social benefits than to the extent to which benefits target lower income groups (targeting efficiency). Studies that apply tax-benefit instruments sequentially suggest that the redistributive effect of transfers is much more important than taxes (e.g. Immervoll et al., 2005; Mahler and Jesuit, 2006; Wang, Caminada and Goudswaard, 2012, 2014). A number of studies use the EUROMOD microsimulation model for the European Union 55 See <www.euromod.ac.uk>. to analyse the distributional impact of transfers and taxes. De Agostini et al. (2014) analyse tax-benefit policy reforms implemented since the Great Recession. They find that the changes in direct taxes, pensions and cash benefits have had, broadly, inequality reducing effects, except in Germany. However, after including VAT, the policy package appears to have been more regressive. Hills et al. (2014) point out that most of the structural policy changes, especially those introduced in the 2007–2011 period of the crisis, had inequality increasing effects. Avram, Levy and Sutherland (2014) analyse different types of policies in reducing income disparities. They conclude that pension benefits and direct taxes have the strongest impact on redistribution, despite the low progressivity of these programmes in some countries. Thus, the size of the programmes matters more than their targeting on lower income groups. As suggested by Figari and Paulus (2015), the overall redistributive effect of the tax-benefit systems depends heavily on the income concept concerned. They introduce an extended income concept, which also includes indirect taxes, imputed rent and in-kind benefits. Applying this concept to three European countries (Belgium, Greece and the United Kingdom), they find that differences in redistribution across countries become smaller. The standard method to calculate the impact of social transfers on income inequality is the statutory or budget incidence analysis (Musgrave, Case and Leonard, 1974). Through comparing pre-tax-transfer income inequality and post-tax-transfer income inequality, the redistributive effect of taxes and income transfers can be assessed (OECD, 2008, p. 98). Redistribution is simply the difference between primary income inequality and disposable income inequality. In this type of analysis, income inequality is measured by the Gini index. However, there are several indicators of income inequality, and these do not always tell the same story (see Atkinson, Rainwater and Smeeding, 1995). There is a critical literature on budget incidence analyses; see Smolensky, Hoyt and Danziger (1987) for a critical assessment of efforts to measure budget incidence. For example, analyses on budget incidence ignore the important issue of behavioural responses, and tax/transfer shifting in particular. Both the generosity and efficiency of the tax-transfer system may influence the level of pre-tax-transfer income inequality. However, models that include all behavioural links are beyond the scope of existing empirical work (Gottschalk and Smeeding, 2000). Therefore, researchers have restricted themselves largely to accounting exercises that decompose changes in overall inequality into a set of components (see Kristjánsson, 2011; Fuest, Niehues and Peichl, 2010; Paul, 2004). The criticisms leave the stylized conclusions of budget incidence analyses intact. To assess the partial effects of specific social benefits and taxes on overall redistribution, we apply a sequential accounting decomposition technique to the Gini. It should be noted, however, that this procedure is somewhat arbitrary since the choice of benchmark income affects the outcome. Applying the redistribution from, say, taxes on gross income rather than primary income alters the outcome to some extent. Since taxes are levied on gross income (primary income plus social benefits), the redistributive effects may be underestimated. Nevertheless, the logic of this decomposition of the Gini is that taxes are applied to gross income and benefits to primary income. This approach has been, among others, advocated by Kakwani (1986). Our sequential accounting decomposition approach of income inequality follows studies by Mahler and Jesuit (2006), Kristjánsson (2011) and Kammer, Niehues and Peichl (2012), with inequality indices accounted sequentially in order to determine the effective distributional impact of different income sources. Other techniques of the decomposition of the Gini coefficient by income source are found in the literature as well, 66 See, for example, Lerman and Yitzhaki (1985), Stark, Taylor and Yitzhaki (1986), Kim (2000), Creedy and van de Ven (2001). but the sequential accounting approach is the most straightforward. Disentangling inequality by income source could be affected by the ordering effect. For example, the partial redistributive effect of a specific social transfer will be highest (smallest) when computed as the first (last) social programme. The order of the calculations affects the results. We correct for this as follows: we first consider every specific social transfer as the first programme to be added to primary income and then the last programme following all other transfer programmes. Consequently, we get two results for the Gini. When we take the mean of the decomposition results across countries, the sum of all partial redistributive effects amount to (a little) over 100 per cent due to missing observations. We rescaled the redistributive effects of each programme by applying an adjustment factor to correct for this effect; see Caminada et al. (2017) for details. LIS is the largest available income database of harmonized microdata collected from 47 countries in Europe, North America, Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Australasia spanning five decades. LIS data are available for ten waves, centred on 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2004, 2007 and 2010. However, not every country is represented in every wave and some countries include more than one year in a single wave. Harmonized into a common framework, LIS datasets contain household- and person-level data on labour income, capital income, social security and private transfers, income taxes and contributions, demography, employment, and expenditures (Ravallion, 2015). The LIS database allows scholars to access the microdata, so that income inequality measures and fiscal redistribution (and the partial effect per social programme) can be derived consistently from the underlying data at the individual and household level. LIS microdata seem to be the best available data for describing how income inequality and the redistributive effects of income taxes and social transfers vary across countries and over time (Nolan and Marx, 2009; Smeeding and Latner, 2015; Nieuwenhuis, Munzi and Gornick, 2016). We apply a cross-national analysis using comparable income surveys for all countries of LIS from 1982–2014. From nearly 300 variables in the dataset, we choose those related to household income (all kinds of income sources), total number of persons in a household and household weight (in order to correct sample bias or non-sampling errors) to measure income inequality and the redistributive effect across countries. In line with LIS convention and the work of Mahler and Jesuit (2006) and Wang and Caminada (2011), we have eliminated observations with a zero or a missing value of disposable income from LIS data. Household weights are applied for the calculation of Gini coefficients. Country-comparative and trend analyses of income distribution based on LIS gross/net datasets should be undertaken with caution. LIS provides gross income data in most countries and years while providing income data that are net of (income) taxes in others. Of the 293 LIS datasets available at the time of writing, 194 are classified as gross, 84 as net and 15 as “mixed”. 77 See Documentation Guide in Wang and Caminada (2017). Conventionally, studies have used household income per capita to adjust total incomes according to the number of persons in the household. In the last decades, equivalence scales have come to be widely used in the literature on income distribution (Figini, 1998). An equivalence scale is a function that calculates adjusted income from income and a vector of household characteristics. Equivalence scale elasticity for the LIS database is set around 0.5. This implies that in order to have an equivalent income of 100, a household of two persons must have an income of 140 to have equivalent incomes. Put alternatively, a one-person household must have 70 per cent of the total income of a two-person household to have equivalent income. However, it has been shown that the choice of equivalence scales affects international comparisons of income inequality to a wide extent. Alternatively, adjustment methods would definitely affect the ranking of countries, although the broad pattern remains the same (Atkinson, Rainwater and Smeeding, 1995, p. 52). Unlike most existing studies, this study focuses both on the total population and on the non-elderly population (those aged 18–64). Restricting the analysis to the non-elderly would avoid some of the problems inherent to comparisons of incomes between people who are at different stages in their lives. For instance, an essential function of old-age pensions is to redistribute inter-temporally over the life cycle; in this case, a focus on the non-elderly helps to understand the most important elements of interpersonal redistribution. However, we believe that the largest government transfer programme, public pensions, cannot be excluded from our analysis. Public pension plans are generally seen as part of the safety net, generating large antipoverty effects. Thus, state old-age pension benefits will be included in our analysis on redistribution. Clearly, countries differ in the public versus private provision of their pensions (OECD, 2008, p. 120). Occupational and private pensions are not redistributive programmes per se; although they too have a significant effect on redistribution when pre-tax-transfer inequality and post-tax-transfer inequality are measured at one moment in time, particularly among the elderly (Been et al., 2017). In this study, we pragmatically follow the LIS Household Income Variables List: occupational and private pensions are earmarked and treated as social security transfers (see also Jesuit and Mahler, 2017). This section presents cross-national comparisons of primary and disposable income inequality across countries over time. We selected 15 countries with at least three data points (around 1985, 1997 and 2010 or later). Moreover, we selected countries for which full information is available on the whole trajectory from primary income to disposable income. The changes in inequality levels are illustrated by the Gini coefficients. In order to give a general idea, we cluster the countries around 1985, 1997, and 2010 or later respectively, showing the average trends of inequality and redistribution. We show country profiles for all 15 LIS countries in Figure 1. Source: Wang and Caminada (2017) database based on LIS. Table 1 shows the 15-country average trend of primary income and disposable income inequality from 1985 to 2014. This table highlights some significant differences across p" @default.
• W2912451985 created "2019-02-21" @default.
• W2912451985 creator A5013038112 @default.
• W2912451985 creator A5040369572 @default.
• W2912451985 creator A5080842077 @default.
• W2912451985 creator A5083452441 @default.
• W2912451985 date "2019-01-01" @default.
• W2912451985 modified "2023-10-07" @default.
• W2912451985 title "Has the redistributive effect of social transfers and taxes changed over time across countries?" @default.
• W2912451985 cites W1484209392 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W1523693456 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W1535304579 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W1542155717 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W1549526318 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W1598619243 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W1803037101 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W1902463151 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W1942165635 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W1970162248 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W1994842548 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2014691990 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2024254834 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2025789093 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2025989004 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2048975557 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2071084357 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2089475718 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2099328970 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2100295519 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2101232048 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2109592631 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2119264967 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2138195158 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2141666250 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2144821447 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2154613083 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2158066431 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2285416326 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2434530882 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2562102170 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2592595037 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W2752384816 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W3122264331 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W3125660691 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W4246793868 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W4246811182 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W4250171607 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W4251401344 @default.
• W2912451985 cites W4252482052 @default.
• W2912451985 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/issr.12193" @default.
• W2912451985 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2912451985 type Work @default.
• W2912451985 sameAs 2912451985 @default.
• W2912451985 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W2912451985 countsByYear W29124519852020 @default.
• W2912451985 countsByYear W29124519852021 @default.
• W2912451985 countsByYear W29124519852022 @default.
• W2912451985 countsByYear W29124519852023 @default.
• W2912451985 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2912451985 hasAuthorship W2912451985A5013038112 @default.
• W2912451985 hasAuthorship W2912451985A5040369572 @default.
• W2912451985 hasAuthorship W2912451985A5080842077 @default.
• W2912451985 hasAuthorship W2912451985A5083452441 @default.
• W2912451985 hasBestOaLocation W29124519851 @default.
• W2912451985 hasConcept C145236788 @default.
• W2912451985 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2912451985 hasConcept C4249254 @default.
• W2912451985 hasConceptScore W2912451985C145236788 @default.
• W2912451985 hasConceptScore W2912451985C162324750 @default.
• W2912451985 hasConceptScore W2912451985C4249254 @default.
• W2912451985 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2912451985 hasLocation W29124519851 @default.
• W2912451985 hasLocation W29124519852 @default.
• W2912451985 hasOpenAccess W2912451985 @default.
• W2912451985 hasPrimaryLocation W29124519851 @default.
• W2912451985 hasRelatedWork W1621182428 @default.
• W2912451985 hasRelatedWork W1967169907 @default.
• W2912451985 hasRelatedWork W1999079104 @default.
• W2912451985 hasRelatedWork W2041189243 @default.
• W2912451985 hasRelatedWork W2085338353 @default.
• W2912451985 hasRelatedWork W2569096928 @default.
• W2912451985 hasRelatedWork W3122570229 @default.
• W2912451985 hasRelatedWork W3123327902 @default.
• W2912451985 hasRelatedWork W3142471568 @default.
• W2912451985 hasRelatedWork W2020084683 @default.
• W2912451985 hasVolume "72" @default.
• W2912451985 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2912451985 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2912451985 magId "2912451985" @default.
• W2912451985 workType "article" @default.