Advertisement

Shadow Incomes and Real Inequality Within the Framework of Leadership and Social Change

  • Halyna Mishchuk
  • Halyna Yurchyk
  • Yuriy Bilan
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

Our paper suggests a new method of assessing income inequality which also allows estimating the contribution of each income decile group to the formation of shadow income. The authors identified the share of shadow incomes of individual population groups in its overall distribution with the assumption that the decile shadow income distribution corresponds to the structure of total expenditure breakdown by the respective population group. The paper normalises the expenditure structure and the availability of individual benefits on the basis of available data (official surveys of expenditure structure, self-assessment of household property and income) taking into account only those types of income and expenditure that have the most obvious signs of positive or negative impact on the opportunities of participation in the underground (or shadow) relations. The authors’ approach revealed significant differences in the estimates of the participation of different decile groups in the real income distribution, particularly in Ukraine, the Gini coefficient, as determined by official data, did not exceed 0.227 in 2015, adjusted by the income distribution indicators – from 0.248 to 0.266 depending on the source of data on the population inequality; a similar difference in the decile dispersion ratio was 4.5 versus 5.24–6.06. Thus, there is strong evidence that such differences should to be taken into account in analysing the real inequality of income distribution while choosing social policy alternatives.

References

  1. Chmielewska B, Horváthová Z (2016) Policy levelling economic and social inequalities between rural and urban areas. J Int Stud 9(2):103–111.  https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2016/9-2/7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chvátalová I (2016) Social policy in the European Union. Czech J Soc Sci Bus Econ 5(1):37–41.  https://doi.org/10.24984/cjssbe.2016.5.1.4 Google Scholar
  3. Dalton H (1920) The measurement of the inequality of income. Econ J 30(119):348–361.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2223525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dreher A, Méon PG, Schneider F (2014) The devil is in the shadow. Do institutions affect income and productivity or only official income and official productivity? Public Choice 158(1–2):121–141.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-012-9954-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ekici T, Besim M (2016) A measure of the shadow economy in a small economy: evidence from household-level expenditure patterns. Rev Income Wealth 62(1):145–160.  https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eurostat (2015) Income and living condition. European Commission. Eurostat. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database. Accessed 12 Sep 2017
  7. Janda K, Rausser G, Strielkowski W (2013) Determinants of profitability of polish rural micro-enterprises at the time of EU accession. East Eur Countryside 19:177–217.  https://doi.org/10.2478/eec-2013-0009 Google Scholar
  8. Jankiewicz J (2014) The level of wealth and the financial condition of households in relation to the results of consumer surveys. Econ Soc 7(3):116–129.  https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2014/7-3/9 Google Scholar
  9. Lorenz M (1905) Methods of measuring the concentration of wealth. Publ Am Stat Assoc 9(70):209–219.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2276207 Google Scholar
  10. Magessi NT, Antunes L (2015) Shadow economy and wealth distribution. In: Amblard F, Miguel FJ, Blanchet A, Gaudou B (eds) Advances in artificial economics, vol 676. Springer, Cham, pp 169–179Google Scholar
  11. Mishchuk H, Grishnova O (2015) Empirical study of the comfort of living and working environment–Ukraine and Europe: comparative assessment. J Int Stud 8(1):67–80.  https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2015/8-1/6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mishra US, Singhania D (2014) Contrasting the levels of poverty against the burden of poverty: an Indian case. Int Econ Lett 3(2):26–35.  https://doi.org/10.24984/iel.2014.3.2.1 Google Scholar
  13. Mostenska T (2015) Informal market as a result of shadow economy. Czech J Soc Sci Bus Econ 4(2):23–29.  https://doi.org/10.24984/cjssbe.2015.4.2.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moyseyenko I, Ryvak N (2016) Indirect taxes in the mechanism of state regulation. Int Econ Lett 5(2):63–71.  https://doi.org/10.24984/iel.2016.5.2.4 Google Scholar
  15. Munda G (2014) On the use of shadow prices for sustainable well-being measurement. Soc Indic Res 118(2):911–918.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0446-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. NISS (2015) Trends of shadow economy in Ukraine in the first quarter of 2015. Report of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine. Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine. http://www.niss.gov.ua. Accessed 9 Oct 2017
  17. Raitano M, Fantozzi R (2015) Political cycle and reported labour incomes in Italy: Quasi-experimental evidence on tax evasion. Eur J Polit Econ 39:269–280.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rakauskiene OG, Volodzkiene L (2017) The inequality of material living conditions in EU countries. Econ Soc 10(1):265–278.  https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2017/10-1/19 Google Scholar
  19. Schneider F (2015) Size and development of the shadow economy of 31 European and 5 other OECD countries from 2003 to 2014: different developments? J Self-Governance Manag Econ 3(4):7–29Google Scholar
  20. Shorrocks A (1982) The impact of income components on the distribution of family incomes. Q J Econ 98:311–326.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1885627 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Simionescu M, Ciuiu D, Bilan Y, Strielkowski W (2016) GDP and net migration in some eastern and south-eastern countries of Europe. A panel data and Bayesian approach. Montenegrin J Econ 12(2):161–175.  https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845.2016/12-1/10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sinicakova M, Sulikova V, Gavurova B (2017) Twin deficits threat in the European Union. E&M Ekonomie Manag 20(1):144–156.  https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2017-1-010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Soltes V, Gavurova B (2015) Modification of performance measurement system in the intentions of globalization trends. Polish J Manag Stud 11(2):160–170Google Scholar
  24. SSSU (2015a) The expenditures and resources of households in Ukraine (2011–2015). State Statistics Service of Ukraine. http://ukrstat.gov.ua. Accessed 13 Oct 2017
  25. SSSU (2015b) Self-assessment of incomes of households of Ukraine. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. http://ukrstat.gov.ua. Accessed 13 Oct 2017
  26. Strielkowski W, Tumanyan Y, Kalyugina S (2016) Labour market inclusion of international protection applicants and beneficiaries. Econ Soc 9(2):293–302.  https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2016/9-2/20 Google Scholar
  27. UNDP (2016) Human development report. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2017
  28. Williams CC, Horodnic IA (2016) Beyond the marginalization thesis: evaluating the participation of the formally employed in the shadow economy in the European Union. J Econ Stud 43(3):400–417.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-06-2014-0105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Halyna Mishchuk
    • 1
  • Halyna Yurchyk
    • 1
  • Yuriy Bilan
    • 2
  1. 1.National University of Water and Environmental EngineeringRivneUkraine
  2. 2.University of SzczecinSzczecinPoland

Personalised recommendations