Advertisement

Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 49, Issue 3–4, pp 499–544 | Cite as

Inequality of income acquisition: the role of childhood circumstances

  • Paul Hufe
  • Andreas PeichlEmail author
  • John Roemer
  • Martin Ungerer
Original Paper

Abstract

Many studies have estimated the effect of circumstances on income acquisition. Perhaps surprisingly, the fraction of inequality attributable to circumstances is usually quite small—in the advanced democracies, approximately 20%. One reason for this is the lack of data on circumstance variables in empirical research. Here, we argue that all behaviors and accomplishments of children should be considered the consequence of circumstances: that is, an individual should not be considered to be responsible for her choices before an age of consent is reached. Using two data sets that contain data on childhood accomplishments, other environmental circumstances and the income as an adult, we calculate that the fraction of income inequality due to circumstances in the US rises from 27 to 43% when accounting for childhood circumstances. In the UK it rises from 18 to 27%.

Supplementary material

References

  1. Alesina A, Giuliano P (2011) Preferences for redistribution. In: Benhabib J, Jackson MO, Bisin A (eds) Handbook of social economics. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 93–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arneson R (1990) Liberalism, distributive subjectivism, and equal opportunity for welfare. Philos Public Affair 19(2):158–194Google Scholar
  3. Assaad R, Krafft C, Roemer JE (2015) Inequality of opportunity for income and consumption in Egypt. Mimeo, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Björklund A, Jäntti M (1997) Intergenerational income mobility in Sweden compared to the United States. Am Econ Rev 87(5):1009–1018Google Scholar
  5. Bourguignon F, Ferreira FHG, Menéndez M (2007) Inequality of opportunity in Brazil. Rev Income Wealth 53(4):585–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunori P, Ferreira FHG, Peragine V (2013) Inequality of opportunity, income inequality, and economic mobility: some international comparisons. In: Paus E (ed) Getting development right: structural transformation, inclusion, and sustainability in the post-crisis Era. Palgrave Macmillan US, New York, pp 8–115Google Scholar
  7. Cappelen AW, Hole AD, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2007) The pluralism of fairness ideals: an experimental approach. Am Econ Rev 97(3):818–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cappelen AW, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2010) Responsibility for what? Fairness and individual responsibility. Eur Econ Rev 54(3):429–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Checchi D, Peragine V, Serlenga L (2010) Fair and unfair income inequalities in Europe. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 5025Google Scholar
  10. Checchi D, Peragine V (2010) Inequality of opportunity in Italy. J Econ Inequal 8(4):429–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chetty R, Hendren N, Kline P, Saez E (2014) Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. Quart J Econ 129:1553–1623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cowell FA, Jenkins SP (1995) How much inequality can we explain? A methodology and an application to the United States. Econ J 105(429):421–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elbers C, Lanjouw P, Mistiaen J, Özler B (2008) Reinterpreting between-group inequality. J Econ Inequal 6(3):231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferreira FHG, Gignoux J (2011) The measurement of inequality of opportunity: theory and an application to Latin America. Rev Income Wealth 57(4):622–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferreira FHG, Peragine V (2016) Individual responsibility and equality of opportunity. In: Adler MD, Fleurbaey M (eds) Oxford handbook of well-being and public policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 746–784Google Scholar
  16. Fleurbaey M, Peragine V (2013) Ex ante versus ex post equality of opportunity. Economica 80(317):118–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fong C (2001) Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution. J Public Econ 82(2):225–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hufe P, Peichl A (2015) Lower Bounds and the Linearity Assumption in Parametric Estimations of Inequality of Opportunity. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 9605Google Scholar
  19. Kanbur R, Wagstaff A (2016) How useful is inequality of opportunity as a policy construct? In: Basu K, Stiglitz JE (eds) Inequality and growth: patterns and policy: volume I: concepts and analysis. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 131–150Google Scholar
  20. Mostafa T, Wiggins D (2014) Handling attrition and non-response in the 1970 British Cohort Study. CLS Working Paper 2014/2Google Scholar
  21. Niehues J, Peichl A (2014) Upper bounds of inequality of opportunity: theory and evidence for Germany and the US. Soc Choice Welf 43(1):73–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. OECD (2010) OECD Factbook 2010: Economic, environmental and social statistics. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. Pistolesi N (2009) Inequality of opportunity in the land of opportunities, 1968–2001. J Econ Inequal 7(4):411–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ramos X, Van de gaer D (2016) Empirical approaches to inequality of opportunity: principles, measures, and evidence. J Econ Surv 30(5):855–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Roemer JE (1993) A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner. Philos Public Aff 22(2):146–166Google Scholar
  27. Roemer JE (1998) Equality of opportunity. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Roemer JE (2017) On the importance of circumstances in explaining income inequality. Rev Econ 68(1):35–56Google Scholar
  29. Roemer JE, Trannoy A (2016) Equality of opportunity: theory and measurement. J Econ Lit 54(4):1288–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Hufe
    • 1
  • Andreas Peichl
    • 2
    Email author
  • John Roemer
    • 3
  • Martin Ungerer
    • 4
  1. 1.ZEW and the University of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.ZEW, the University of Mannheim, IZA and CESifoMannheimGermany
  3. 3.Yale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  4. 4.ZEW and the University of CologneMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations