Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Granger-causality between income and educational inequality: a spatial cross-regressive VAR framework

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The Annals of Regional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper tests the causal processes between income and educational inequality within regions of the European Union, using a spatial cross-regressive VAR framework. The results show that there is a heterogeneous causality from income inequality to educational inequality and vice versa, and interregional income and educational externalities are relevant to this causality. This finding raises potentially interesting economic policy implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A researcher taking the structural approach, through the use of theory, can obtain restrictions to help pin down parameters and, by estimating the structural parameters of a fully specified model, can simulate the impact of alternatives that have never actually occurred in the data (Holmes 2010). However, a cost of the structural approach is that the researcher must be explicit up-front about the underlying model and the underlying economics. This paper puts emphasis on the importance of interregional externalities which occur through many mechanisms. Therefore, adopting a data-driven model, I do not need to make explicit up-front the underlying mechanisms of interregional externalities. Structural econometric modellers must also add statistical structure in order to rationalise why economic theory does not perfectly explain data and must be able to argue that their model will be invariant to the contemplated change in economic environment (Reiss and Wolak 2007). A data-driven model does not face this problem, because a structural model is not based on an artificial economy. Moreover, I do not use a structural model because causal relations cannot be established a priori (Hume 1748). In the proposed model, I construct a spatial weights matrix (see Sect. 2) which captures externalities. Instead of constructing the spatial weights matrix, some researchers suggest directly entering variables that proxy externalities in the regression model (see Harris et al. 2011). Nevertheless, Corrado and Fingleton (2012) argue that such an approach itself requires strong identifying assumptions and therefore possesses no real advantage compared to employing a spatial weights matrix. Modelling spatial interaction in the economic context means in many cases modelling externalities which are difficult to pin down (Corrado and Fingleton 2012). Overall, the putative advantages do not always mean structural models should be favoured over non-structural models. Reiss and Wolak (2007) say that ‘[t]he advantages of structural models of course do not all come for free. All economic theories contain assumptions that are not easily relaxed. While theorists sometimes have the luxury of being able to explore stylized models with simplifying assumptions, structural econometric modelers have to worry that when they use stylized or simplifying assumptions they will be dismissed as arbitrary, or worse: insensitive top the way the world ‘real works” (page 4290).

  2. Granger-causality is a statistical concept of causality that is based on prediction and its mathematical formulation is based on linear regression modelling of stochastic processes (Granger 1969).

  3. The F tests tend to be the most conservative of a set of analogous tests, such as the likelihood ratio and Wald tests, and are the least sensitive to small sample deviations from normally distributed disturbances (Greene 2003; Hood et al. 2008).

  4. For a review of the ECHP survey see Peracchi (2002).

  5. The successor to the ECHP came in the form of the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) which was launched in 2003 (Atkinson and Marlier 2010). The EU-SILC differs markedly from its predecessor in two important ways: (a) while the ECHP has the advantage of being input-harmonised, that is of being based on standardised questionnaires common across all of the countries where it was implemented, the EU-SILC is output-harmonised, that is, instead of being based on harmonised questionnaires, the procedure involves the specification of a set of social and economic indicators which should be provided by the new data set, but it is up to each member state to decide how these are to be collected; (b) whereas the ECHP is a panel survey, in which the same individuals were interviewed year after year, the EU-SILC takes the form of a rotating panel, where the individuals are interviewed usually for a maximum of four years, and the sample is regularly refreshed with new members (Iacovou et al. 2012). According to Longford et al. (2010), the EU-SILC ‘provides reliable statistics at national level but sample sizes do not allow reliable estimates at subnational level, despite a rising demand from policy-makers and local authorities’ (page 1). Finally, although the EU-SILC survey domains over the enlarged EU, micro-data that would enable us to identify regions and compare them are available only for a few countries (Longford et al. 2010). For example, no location is indicated in the data for the UK, and it is collapsed to only six categories in Germany (Longford et al. 2010).

  6. Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) provides a single uniform breakdown of territorial units where each member state is subdivided into three administrative units (NUTS I, II and III).

  7. The procedure proposed to measure educational inequality is better than just using the variance for two main reasons. (a) It allows us to compare educational inequality with income inequality, as they use the same disproportionality functions and thus the same indices (i.e. Theil index of income and Theil index of education, or Gini coefficient on income and Gini coefficient on education). More specifically, in the literature on inequality, it is conceptualised as the average disproportionality. Inequality concerns a ‘disproportionate share’, which means a share that is bigger or smaller than the average share of all basic units. The challenge for the inequality literature is to comprehend how to aggregate those basic unit disproportionalities to obtain a measure of overall inequality. As each region has a different distribution of income (resp. education), an index of income (resp. education) inequality that is comparable across regions has to be compiled. The index should be fundamentally based on the principle that income (resp. education) inequality increases as the income (resp. education) ratios deviate from 1.0. Hence, the task in hand is to devise summary measures of income (resp. education) inequality that distinguish more inequality from less inequality (Firebaugh 2003). Conceptualising inequality as the average disproportionality across all basic units implies that the degree of income (resp. education) inequality depends on the average distance of the income (resp. education) ratios \(r_{i}\) from 1.0. Income (resp. education) inequality is unaffected by proportional increases or decreases. Inequality indices \(I\) are expressed in a common form \(I=\frac{1}{N}\sum _{i=1}^N {f(r_{i} )} \), where \(f\) denotes the disproportionality or distance function which captures the mathematical functions for determining deviations of income (resp. education) ratios from 1.0. (b) This procedure was initially used by Thomas et al. (2001) and, more recently, by Tselios (2008) and Rodríguez-Pose and Tselios (2009a).

  8. These results can be provided upon request.

References

  • Abreu M, De Groot HLF, Florax RJGM (2005) Space and growth: a survey of empirical evidence and methods. Région et Développement 21:12–43

  • Anselin L (1988) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Studies in operational regional science, Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anselin L (1992) SpaceStat Tutorial: a workbook of using SpaceStat in the analysis of spatial data. University of Illinois, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Anselin L (2000) Spatial econometrics. In: Baltagi BH (ed) A companion to theoretical econometrics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 310–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Anselin L, Bera AK (1998) Spatial dependence in linear regression models with an introduction to spatial econometrics. In: Ullah A, Giles DEA (eds) Handbook of applied economic statistics. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 237–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Anselin L, Rey S (1991) Properties of tests for spatial dependence in linear regression models. Geogr Anal 23(2):112–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong HW (2002) European Union regional policy: reconciling the convergence and evaluation evidence. In: Cuadrado-Roura JR, Parellada M (eds) Regional convergence in the European Union: facts, prospects, and policies. Springer, Berlin, New York, pp 211–230

  • Atkinson AB, Marlier E (eds) (2010) Income and living conditions in Europe Eurostat European Commission. Publications Office of the EU, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker GS, Chiswick BR (1966) Economics of education and distribution of earnings. Am Econ Rev 56(2):358–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1998) Human capital investment: an international comparison. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris

  • Cliff AD, Ord JK (1981) Spatial processes: models & applications. Pion, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrado L, Fingleton B (2012) Where is the economics in spatial econometrics? J Reg Sci 52(2):210–239. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9787.2011.00726.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdil E, Yetkiner IH (2009) The Granger-causality between health care expenditure and output: a panel data approach. Appl Econ 41(4):511–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertur C, Le Gallo J, Baumont C (2006) The European regional convergence process, 1980–1995: do spatial regimes and spatial dependence matter? Int Reg Sci Rev 29(1):3–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firebaugh G (2003) The new geography of global income inequality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Florax R, Folmer H, Rey SJ (2003) Specification searches in spatial econometrics: the relevance of Hendry’s methodology. Reg Sci Urban Econ 33(5):557–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galor O, Moav O (2000) Ability-biased technological transition, wage inequality, and economic growth. Q J Econ 115(2):469–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galor O, Moav O (2004) From physical to human capital accumulation: inequality and the process of development. Rev Econ Stud 71(4):1001–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galor O, Zeira J (1993) Income distribution and macroeconomics. Rev Econ Stud 60(1):35–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granger CWJ (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrics 37(3):424–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene WH (2003) Econometric analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (Great Britain)

  • Gujarati DN (2003) Basic econometrics, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris R, Moffat J, Kravtsova V (2011) In search of ‘W’. Spat Econ Anal 6(3):249–270. doi:10.1080/17421772.2011.586721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes TJ (2010) Structural, experimentalist, and descriptive approaches to empirical work in regional economics. J Reg Sci 50(1):5–22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9787.2009.00637.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood MV III, Kidd Q, Morris IL (2008) Two sides of the same coin? Employing Granger causality tests in a time series cross-section framework. Polit Anal 16(3):324–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume D (1748) An enquiry concerning human understanding. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis

  • Hurlin C, Venet B (2001) Granger causality tests in panel data models with fixed coefficients. Working paper Eurisco 2001-09, University of Paris Dauphine

  • Iacovou M, Kaminska O, Levy H (2012) Using EU-SILC data for cross-national analysis: strengths, problems and recommendations. ISER Working paper series, No. 2012-03, Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), Essex University

  • Jesuit DK, Rainwater L, Smeeding TM (2003) Regional poverty within the rich countries. In: Bishop J, Amiel Y (eds) Inequality, welfare and poverty: theory and measurement, vol 9. Elsevier Science, New York, pp 345–377

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Le Gallo J, Ertur C, Baumont C (2003) A spatial econometric analysis of convergence across European regions. In: Fingleton B (ed) European regional growth. Springer, Berlin, pp 1980–1995

    Google Scholar 

  • Longford NT, Grazia Pittau M, Zelli R, Massari R (2010) Measures of poverty and inequality in the countries and regions of EU. Working Paper Series, ECINEQ WP 2010-182, ECINE Society for the Study of Economic Inequality

  • Magrini S (2004) Regional (di)convergence. In: Henderson JV, Thisse JF (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics, vol 4. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 2741–2796

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann P, Shefer S (2005) Agglomeration, economic geography and regional growth. Pap Reg Sci 84(3):301–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno R, Paci R, Usai S (2005) Spatial spillovers and innovation activity in European regions. Environ Plan A 37(10):1793–1812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peracchi F (2002) The European community household panel: a review. Empir Econ 27(1):63–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfaffermayr M (2009) Conditional beta- and sigma-convergence in space: a maximum likelihood approach. Reg Sci Urban Econ 39(1):63–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss PC, Wolak FA (2007) Structural econometric modeling: rationales and examples from industrial organisation. In: Heckman JJ, Leamer EE (eds) Handbook of econometrics, vol 6A. North-Holland, Elsevier, pp 4277–4412

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Pose A, Crescenzi R (2008) R&D, spillovers, innovation systems and the genesis of regional growth in Europe. Reg Stud 42(1):51–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Pose A, Tselios V (2009a) Education and income inequality in the regions of the European Union. J Reg Sci 49(3):411–437. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9787.2008.00602.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Pose A, Tselios V (2009b) Mapping regional personal income distribution in Western Europe: income per capita and inequality. Financ Uver-Czech J Econ Financ 59(1):41–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Pose A, Tselios V (2010) Inequalities in income and education and regional economic growth in western Europe. Ann Reg Sci 44(2):349–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Pose A, Tselios V (2011) Mapping the European regional educational distribution. Eur Urban Reg Stud 18(4):358–374. doi:10.1177/0969776411399345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Pose A, Vilalta-Bufí M (2005) Education, migration, and job satisfaction: the regional returns of human capital in the E.U. J Econ Geogr 5(5):545–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sianesi B, Van Reenen J (2003) The returns to education: macroeconomics. J Econ Surv 17(2):157–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence AM (1973) Job market signaling. Q J Econ 87(3):355–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterlacchini A (2008) R&D, higher education and regional growth: uneven linkages among European regions. Res Policy 37(6–7):1096–1107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theil H (1967) Economics and information theory. Studies in mathematical and managerial economics, vol 7. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas V, Wang Y, Fan X (2001) Measuring education inequality: Gini coefficients of education. Policy research working paper; 2525. World Bank, Washington, DC

  • Thorbecke E, Charumilind C (2002) Economic inequality and its socioeconomic impact. World Dev 30(9):1477–1495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tselios V (2008) Income and educational inequalities in the regions of the European Union: geographical spillovers under welfare state restrictions. Pap Reg Sci 87(3):403–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tselios V (2011) Is inequality good for innovation? Int Reg Sci Rev 34(1):75–101. doi:10.1177/0160017610383278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vayá E, López-Bazo E, Moreno R, Surinach J (2004) Growth and externalities across economies: an empirical analysis using spatial econometrics. In: Anselin L, Florax RJGM, Rey SJ (eds) Advances in spatial econometrics: methodology, tools and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 433–455

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, Pedion Areos, 383 34 Volos, Greece

    Vassilis Tselios

Authors
  1. Vassilis Tselios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vassilis Tselios.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tselios, V. The Granger-causality between income and educational inequality: a spatial cross-regressive VAR framework. Ann Reg Sci 53, 221–243 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-014-0626-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-014-0626-0

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation