Advertisement

Gauging fiscal worlds: how the EU countries balanced equality and wealth between 2007 and 2016

  • Alessia Damonte
  • Fedra NegriEmail author
Article
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

Can income equality and national wealth go hand in hand? This issue has long marked the distance between the neoliberal and the social democratic policy paradigms. By combining so far unrelated streams of literature, we sketch a theoretical framework in which fiscal policies shape four “fiscal worlds”, each of them characterized by a special balance between income equality and national wealth. Then, we resort to Boolean algebra and fuzzy sets to develop a measure that encompasses both these policy outcomes at once without assuming any a priori functional relationship. Last, we assess the heuristic capacity of our measure by mapping the EU countries’ membership to the four fiscal worlds from 2007 until 2016 and the trajectories they followed.

Keywords

Set-theoretic indicators Fiscal policy outcomes Income inequality National wealth Economic crisis European Union 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article contributes to the project “PolCrisis@Europe”, headed by Marco Giuliani and funded by the Italian Ministry of University and Research under the PRIN scheme (Prot. 2015P7RCL5). The authors gratefully acknowledge the encouraging comments that earlier versions of this work received from the participants to the Spring Meeting “Fiscal Union, Social Europe: Synergies and Tensions” (Institute for the New Economic Thinking, Bruxelles, April 2017), to the panel “Are Member States’ Tax Systems in a European Policy Trap?” (Italian Political Science Association—SISP Conference, Urbino, September 2017) and to the Labour and Welfare Lunch Seminar (University of Milano, December 2017). Special thanks go to Fabio Franchino, Enrico Rettore and Antonio Scialà for their useful suggestions.

Funding

The study is part of the PRIN project ‘POLCrises@Europe’ (Prot. 2015P7RCL5), www.polcrises.unimi.it. We kindly acknowledge the Italian Ministry of Education for financial support.

Supplementary material

11135_2018_833_MOESM1_ESM.docx (193 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 193 kb)

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J.A.: The political economy of the Kuznets curve. Rev. Dev. Econ. 6(2), 183–202 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. Acemoglu, D., Ticchi, D., Vindigni, A.: Emergence and persistence of inefficient states. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 9(2), 177–208 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. Alesina, A., Rodrik, D.: Distributive politics and economic growth. Q. J. Econ. 109(2), 465–490 (1994)Google Scholar
  4. Alesina, A., Perotti, R.: Income distribution, political instability and investment. Eur. Econ. Rev. 81(5), 1170–1189 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. Ansell, B.W., Samuels, D.J.: Inequality and Democratization. An Elite-Competition Approach, pp. 17–35. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015)Google Scholar
  6. Atkinson, A.: On the measurement of economic inequality. J. Econ. Theory 2(3), 244–263 (1970)Google Scholar
  7. aus dem Moore, N., Schmidt, C.M.: On the shoulders of giants: tracing back the intellectual sources of the current debate on ‘GDP and Beyond’ to the 19th century. J. Econ. Stat. 233(3), 266–290 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. Barro, R.J.: Inequality and growth in a panel of countries. J. Econ. Growth 5(1), 5–32 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. Barro, R.J.: Convergence and modernisation. Econ. J. 125(585), 911–942 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. Basmann, R.L., Hayes, K.J., Slottje, D.J.: The Lorenz curve and the mobility function. Econ. Lett. 36(1), 105–111 (1991)Google Scholar
  11. Berg, A., Ostry, J.D., Zettelmeyer, J.: What makes growth sustained? J. Dev. Econ. 98(2), 149–166 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. Berg-Schlosser, D.: Aggregating a multi-dimensional concept: the quality of democracy. In: Tomini, L., Sandri, G. (eds.) Challenges of Democracy in the XXI Century, pp. 47–65. Routledge, London (2018)Google Scholar
  13. Borgna, C.: Migrant Penalties in Educational Achievement. Second-Generation Immigrants in Western Europe. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam (2017)Google Scholar
  14. Buchanan, J.M.: Fiscal Theory and Political Economy. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill (1960)Google Scholar
  15. Ciccone, A., Jarocinski, M.: Determinants of economic growth: will data tell? European Central Bank working paper series 58 (2008). https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp852.pdf?01d58ea619eb052ec77587689c777412. Accessed 4 Dec 2018
  16. Colantone, I., Stanig, P.: Global competition and Brexit. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 112(2), 201–218 (2018)Google Scholar
  17. Darvas, Z.: Some are more equal than others: new estimates of global and regional inequality. Bruegel working papers, 8 (2016). http://bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/WP_08_16-1.pdf
  18. Deininger, K., Squire, L.: A new dataset measuring income inequality. World Bank Econ. Rev. 10(3), 565–591 (1996)Google Scholar
  19. Dollar, D., Kraay, A.: Growth is good for the poor. J. Econ. Growth 7(3), 195–225 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. Dollar, D., Kleineberg, T., Kraay, A.: Growth still is good for the poor. Eur. Econ. Rev. 81, 68–85 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. Downs, A.: Why the government budget is too small in a democracy. World Polit. 12(4), 541–563 (1961)Google Scholar
  22. Duşa, A.: QCA with R. Springer, New York, NY (2018)Google Scholar
  23. Ennser-Jedenastik, L.: Welfare chauvinism in populist radical right platforms: the role of redistributive justice principles. Soc. Policy Adm. 52(1), 293–314 (2018)Google Scholar
  24. Fleurbaey, M., Blanchet, D.: Beyond GDP: Measuring Welfare and Assessing Sustainability. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)Google Scholar
  25. Gastwirth, J.L.: Is the Gini index of inequality overly sensitive to changes in the middle of the income distribution? Stat. Public Policy 4(1), 1–11 (2017)Google Scholar
  26. Georgiadou, V., Rori, L., Roumanias, C.: Mapping the European far right in the 21st century: a meso-level analysis. Elect. Stud. 54, 103–115 (2018)Google Scholar
  27. Gupta, S., Davoodi, H., Alonso-Terme, R.: Does corruption affect income inequality and poverty? Econ. Gov. 3(1), 23–45 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. Gurr, T.R.: Why Men Rebel. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1970)Google Scholar
  29. Han, K.J.: Income inequality and voting for radical right-wing parties. Elect. Stud. 42, 54–64 (2016)Google Scholar
  30. Hernández, E., Kriesi, H.: The electoral consequences of the financial and economic crisis in Europe. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 55, 203–224 (2016)Google Scholar
  31. Hicks, D.A.: The inequality-adjusted Human Development Index: a constructive proposal. World Dev. 25(8), 1283–1298 (1997)Google Scholar
  32. Jordan, J.: Political awareness and support for redistribution. Eur. Polit. Sci. Rev. 10(1), 119–137 (2018)Google Scholar
  33. Korpi, W.: Economic growth and the welfare state: leaky bucket or irrigation system? Eur. Sociol. Rev. 1, 97–118 (1985)Google Scholar
  34. Kuznets, S.: Economic growth and income inequality. Am. Econ. Rev. 45(1), 1–28 (1955)Google Scholar
  35. Kuznets, S.: Economic Growth of Nations. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA (1971)Google Scholar
  36. Lee, D., Borcherding, T.E.: Public choice of tax and regulatory instruments. The role of heterogeneity. Public Finance Rev. 34(6), 607–636 (2006)Google Scholar
  37. Lewis-Beck, M.S., Stegmaier, M.: Economic models of voting. In: Dalton, R.J., Klingemann, H.D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behaviour. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  38. Lijphart, A.: The wave of power-sharing democracy. In: Reynolds, A. (ed.) The Architecture of Democracy: Constitutional Design, Conflict Management, and Democracy, pp. 37–54. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  39. Lipset, S.M.: Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 53(1), 69–105 (1959)Google Scholar
  40. Lowi, T.J.: American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Polit. 16(4), 677–715 (1964)Google Scholar
  41. Merton, R.K., Kitt, A.S.: Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior. In: Merton, R.K., Lazersfeld, P.F. (eds.) Continuities in Social Research: Studies in the Scope and Method of ‘The American Soldier’, pp. 40–105. Free Press, New York, NY (1950)Google Scholar
  42. Mitchell, G., Tetlock, P.E., Mellers, B.A., Ordonez, L.D.: Judgments of social justice: Compromises between equality and efficiency. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65(4), 629–639 (1993)Google Scholar
  43. Nicoli, F.: Hard-line Euroscepticism and the Eurocrisis: Evidence from a Panel Study of 108 Elections Across Europe. J. Common Market Stud. 55(2), 312–331 (2017a)Google Scholar
  44. Nicoli, F.: Democratic legitimacy in the era of fiscal integration. J. Eur. Integr. 39(4), 389–404 (2017b)Google Scholar
  45. Nijkamp, P., Poot, J.: Meta-analysis of the effect of fiscal policies on long-run growth. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 20(1), 91–124 (2004)Google Scholar
  46. Oates, W.E.: On the nature and measurement of fiscal illusion: A survey. In: Brennan, G., Grewal, B.S., Groenewegen, P.D. (eds.) Taxation and Fiscal Federalism: Essays in Honour of Russell Mathews, pp. 65–82. Australian National University Press, Sydney (1985)Google Scholar
  47. OECD: In it together: why less inequality benefits all. OECD Publishing, Paris (2015). http://www.oecd.org/social/in-it-together-why-less-inequality-benefits-all-9789264235120-en.htm
  48. Okun, A.M.: Equality and Efficiency. The Big Tradeoff. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC (1975)Google Scholar
  49. Persson, T., Tabellini, G.: Is inequality harmful for growth? Am. Econ. Rev. 84(3), 600–621 (1994)Google Scholar
  50. Posner, R.A.: Taxation by regulation. Bell J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2(1), 22–50 (1971)Google Scholar
  51. Przeworski, A.: The last instance: are institutions the primary cause of economic development? Eur. J. Sociol. 45(2), 165–188 (2004)Google Scholar
  52. Ragin, C.C.: Fuzzy-Set Social Science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2000)Google Scholar
  53. Ragin, C.C.: Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (2008)Google Scholar
  54. Ragin, C.C., Fiss, P.: Intersectional Inequality: Race, Class, Test Scores, and Poverty. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (2017)Google Scholar
  55. Reed, W.R., Sidek, N.N.: A replication of ‘Meta-analysis of the effect of fiscal policies on long-run growth’. Public Finance Review 44(3), 397–405 (2016)Google Scholar
  56. Robinson, J.A., Torvik, R.: White elephants. J. Public Econ. 89, 197–210 (2005)Google Scholar
  57. Roller, E.: The Performance of Democracies. Political Institutions and Public Policies. Oxford University Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  58. Sartori, G.: Comparing and miscomparing. J. Theor. Polit. 3(3), 243–257 (1991)Google Scholar
  59. Salamon, L.M.: The new governance and the tools of public action: an introduction. Fordham Urban Law J. 28(5), 1611–1674 (2000)Google Scholar
  60. Sen, A.: On Economic Inequality. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1973)Google Scholar
  61. Schmidt, V.: The Eurozone’s crisis of democratic legitimacy: can the EU rebuild public trust and support for European integration?. European Economy, discussion paper no. 015 (2015)Google Scholar
  62. Schneider, C.Q., Wagemann, C.: Set-Theoretic Methods for The Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  63. Solt, F.: Standardizing the World Income Inequality Database. Soc. Sci. Q. 90(2), 231–242 (2009)Google Scholar
  64. Solt, F.: The Standardized World Income Inequality Database. Soc. Sci. Q. 97(5), 1267–1281 (2016)Google Scholar
  65. Stigler, G.J.: Director’s law of public income redistribution. J. Law Econ. 13(1), 1–10 (1970)Google Scholar
  66. Stiglitz, J.E., Sen, A., Fitoussi, J.P.: Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. OECD, Paris (2009)Google Scholar
  67. UNDP: Human Development Report 2016 technical notes (2016). http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2016_technical_notes.pdf. Accessed 4 Dec 2018
  68. Vining, A.R., Weimer, D.L.: Government supply and government production failure: a framework based on contestability. J. Public Policy 10(1), 1–22 (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social and Political SciencesUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations