Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 703–717 | Cite as

On the measurement of plutonomy

Article

Abstract

Recently, a lot of attention is given to income variations occurring at the top of the income distribution. “What happens to the top 1 %?” is a question of crucial importance on the political level (Occupy Wall Street Movement) as well as on income inequality measurement level. Despite this increased interest, there is no rigorous measurement framework available in the literature for the measurement of plutonomy or “what happens to the top 1 %”. To fill this gap, this paper proposes a simple framework for the measurement of plutonomy. It exposes the ethical principles underlying plutonomy indices and develops restricted Lorenz dominance conditions that produce robust orderings of plutonomy between income distributions. Finally, the paper offers a brief empirical illustration using the World Top Incomes Database.

References

  1. Aaberge R (2009) Ranking intersecting Lorenz curves. Soc Choice Welf 33:235–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvaredo F (2011) A note on the relationship between top income shares and the Gini coefficient. Econ Lett 110:274–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson AB (2005) Top incomes in the UK over the twentieth century. J R Stat Soc Ser A 168:325–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson AB, Leigh A (2007) The distribution of top incomes in Australia. Econ Rec 83:247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson AB, Piketty T (2007) Top incomes over the twentieth century: a contrast between continental European and english speaking countries. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkinson AB, Piketty T, Saez E (2011) Top incomes in the long run of history. J Econ Lit 49:3–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bach S, Corneo G, Steiner V (2009) From bottom to top: the entire income distribution in Germany, 1992–2003. Rev Income Wealth 55:303–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bazen S, Moyes P (2012) Elitism and stochastic dominance. Soc Choice Welf 39:207–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowell F, Ebert U (2004) Complaints and inequality. Soc Choice Welf 23:71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dell F (2005) Top Incomes in Germany and Switzerland over the twentieth century. J Eur Econ Assoc 3:412–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fishburn PC, Willig RD (1984) Transfer principles in income redistribution. J Public Econ 25:323–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleurbaey M (1994) On fair compensation. Theory Decis 36:277–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fleurbaey M, Maniquet F (1996) Fair allocation with unequal production skills: The no-envy approach to compensation. Math Soc Sci 32:71–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleurbaey M, Maniquet F (1997) Implementability and horizontal equity imply no-envy. Econometrica 65:1215–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fortin N, Green DA, Lemieux T, Milligan K, Riddell WC (2012) Canadian inequality: recent developments and policy options. Can Public Policy 37:121–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kakwani NC (1980) On a class of poverty measures. Econometrica 48:437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kapur A, Macleod N, Singh N (2005) Plutonomy: buying luxury, explaining global imbalances, Citigroup Industry NoteGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolm J-C (1976) Unequal inequlities I. J Econ Theory 12:416–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leigh A (2009) Top incomes. In: Salverda W, Nolan B, Smeeding TM (eds) The Oxford handbook of economic inequality. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 150–176Google Scholar
  20. Lorenz MO (1905) Methods of measuring the concentration of wealth. Publ Am Stat Assoc 9:209–219Google Scholar
  21. Makdissi P, Mussard S (2008) Analyzing the impact of indirect tax reforms on rank dependent social welfare functions: a positional dominance approach. Soc Choice Welf 30:385–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Makdissi P, Yazbeck M (2012) On the measurement of indignation, working paper 1213E, Department of Economics, University of OttawaGoogle Scholar
  23. Mehran F (1976) Linear measures of income inequality. Econometrica 44:805–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Piketty T (2003) Income Inequality in France, 1901–1998. Journal of Political Economy 111:1004–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Piketty T (2014) Capital in the twenty-first century. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Piketty T, Saez E (2003) Income inequality in the United States, 1913–1998. Q J Econ 118:1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Piketty T, Saez E (2006) The evolution of top incomes: a historical and international perspective. Am Econ Rev, Pap Proc 96:200–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Saez E, Veall MR (2005) The evolution of high incomes in Northern America: lessons from Canadian evidence. Am Econ Rev 95:831–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stiglitz JE (2012) The price of inequality. How today’s divided society endengers our future. W.W. Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Temkin LS (1993) Inequality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Varian H (1974) Equity, envy and efficiency. J Econ Theory 9:63–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zheng B (1997) Aggregate poverty measures. J Econ Surv 11:123–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zheng B (2000) Poverty orderings. J Econ Surv 14:427–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zoli C (1999) Intersecting generalized Lorenz curves and the Gini index. Soc Choice Welf 16:183–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.School of EconomicsUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations