Advertisement

An Empirical Verification of Kuznets Hypothesis in India

  • Aadil Ahmad Ganaie
  • Sajad Ahmad Bhat
  • Bandi Kamaiah
Chapter
Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)

Abstract

The trajectory of output growth, more precisely economic growth and its interaction with other phenomena of an economy follows a complex path. Among many phenomena the one that has caught the world attention at large scale especially since the work of Piketty and Saez is the “Rising Inequality in Incomes”. Though for some countries like India there was a reduction in the poverty level, there seems no positive bearing on economic growth in improving income distribution for past two decades. In this paper, we have used ARDL cointegration approach to analyze the relationship between income inequality (EHII, from UTIP-UNIDO) and its various determinants from 1964 to 2007. Besides using data on Estimated Household Income Inequality (EHII), we have used income share of top 1% as an alternative measure of inequality. Our results reveal no relevance of Kuznets Hypothesis, instead, the relationship is U-shaped in nature, implying that with the initial rise in GDP per capita inequality decreases, later on as GDP increases, inequality tends to increase. Among the control variables, CPI (price level) is found to be positively and Government expenditure negatively related to inequality, while trade openness showed no significant relationship.

Keywords

Kuznets’ hypothesis GDP per capita ARDL approach EHII Top 1% 

References

  1. Ahluwalia, M. S. (1976). Income distribution and development: some stylized facts. The American Economic Review, 66, 128–135. Google Scholar
  2. Ahluwalia, M. S. (2000). Economic performance of states in post-reforms period. Economic and Political Weekly, 35, 1637–1648.Google Scholar
  3. Ahmad, W., Nain, M. Z., & Kamaiah, B. (2014). On the role of the trend and cyclical components in electricity consumption and India’s economic growth: A cointegration and cofeature approach. OPEC Energy Review, 38(1), 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alesina, A., & Perotti, R. (1996). Income distribution, political instability, and investment. European Economic Review, 40(6), 1203–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alesina, A., Perotti, R., Alesina, A., Rodrik, D., Barro, R., BÃnabou, R., et al. (1994). Is inequality harmful for growth? Theory and evidence. The American Economic Review, 84(3), 600–621. Google Scholar
  6. Anand, S., & Kanbur, S. R. (1993a). Inequality and development a critique. Journal of Development Economics, 41(1), 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anand, S., & Kanbur, S. R. (1993b). The Kuznets process and the inequality development relationship. Journal of Development Economics, 40(1), 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ang, J. B. (2010). Finance and inequality: The case of India. Southern Economic Journal, 76(3), 738–761. http://journal.southerneconomic.org/doi/abs/10.4284/sej.2010.76.3.738.
  9. Angeles, L. (2010). An alternative test of Kuznets hypothesis. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 8(4), 463–473. doi: 10.1007/s10888-009-9117-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Gelan, A. (2008). Kuznets inverted-U hypothesis revisited: A time-series approach using US data. Applied Economics Letters, 15(9), 677–681. doi: 10.1080/13504850600749040.
  11. Bandelj, N., & Mahutga, M. C. (2010). How socio-economic change shapes income inequality in post-socialist Europe. Social Forces, 88(5), 2133–2161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Banerjee, A., Dolado, J., & Mestre, R. (1998). Error-correction mechanism tests for cointegration in a single-equation framework. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19(3), 267–283. doi: 10.1111/1467-9892.00091.
  13. Bastagli, F., Coady, D., & Gupta, S. (2012). Income inequality and fiscal policy. Tech. rep., International Monetary Fund. http://ideas.repec.org/p/imf/imfsdn/12-08r.html.
  14. Bensidoun, I., Jean, S., & Sztulman, A. (2005). International trade and income distribution: Reconsidering the evidence. Tech. rep. http://ideas.repec.org/p/cii/cepidt/2005-17.html.
  15. Bhagwati, J., & Srinivasan, T. N. (2002). Trade and poverty in the poor countries. American Economic Review, 92, 180–183.Google Scholar
  16. Blejer, M. I., & Guerrero, I. (1990). The impact of macroeconomic policies on income distribution: An empirical study of the Philippines. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 414–423.Google Scholar
  17. Bourguignon, F., & Morrisson, C. (1998). Inequality and development: The role of dualism. Journal of Development Economics, 57(2), 233–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chakravarty, S. (1987). Development planning: The Indian experience. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Chambers, D. (2007). Trading places: Does past growth impact inequality? Journal of Development Economics, 82(1), 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Charles-Coll, J. A. (2011). Understanding income inequality: Concept, causes and measurement. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 1(3), 17–28.Google Scholar
  21. Chen, Z. (2007). Development and inequality: Evidence from an endogenous switching regression without regime separation. Economics Letters, 96(2), 269–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cheng, W., et al. (2014). Understanding the Kuznets process: An empirical investigation of income inequality in China 1978–2011. Tech. rep., Monash University, Department of Economics. http://ideas.repec.org/p/mos/moswps/2014-12.html.
  23. Chu, K.-Y., Davoodi, H. R., & Gupta, S. (2000). Income distribution and tax and government social spending policies in developing countries. International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  24. Datt, G., & Ravallion, M. (1998). Farm productivity and rural poverty in India. The Journal of Development Studies, 34(4), 62–85.Google Scholar
  25. Daudey, E., & GarcÃ-a-Peà alosa, C. (2007). The personal and the factor distributions of income in a cross-section of countries. Journal of Development Studies, 43(5), 812–829. doi: 10.1080/00220380701384406.
  26. Deininger, K., & Squire, L. (1996). A new data set measuring income inequality. The World Bank Economic Review, 10(3), 565–591.Google Scholar
  27. Deininger, K., & Squire, L. (1998). New ways of looking at old issues: Inequality and growth. Journal of Development Economics, 57(2), 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. DeSa, U. N. (2013). Inequality matters. Report on the World Social Situation 2013. New York, United Nations.Google Scholar
  29. Desbordes, R., & Verardi, V. (2012). Refitting the Kuznets curve. Economics Letters, 116(2), 258–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eicher, T. S., & Turnovsky, S. J. (2003). Inequality and growth: Theory and policy implications (Vol. 1). US: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 55, 251–276.Google Scholar
  32. Ferreira, F. H., Leite, P. G., & Wai-Poi, M. (2007). Trade liberalization, employment flows, and wage inequality in Brazil.Google Scholar
  33. Fields, G. S. (1980). Poverty, inequality, and development. CUP Archive.Google Scholar
  34. Foster, J. E. (1985). Inequality measurement. Fair Allocation, 33, 31–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Frazer, G. (2006). Inequality and development across and within countries. World Development, 34(9), 1459–1481.Google Scholar
  36. Galbraith, J. K. (2007). Global inequality and global macroeconomics. Journal of Policy Modeling, 29(4), 587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Galbraith, J. K., Halbach, B., Malinowska, A., Shams, A., & Zhang, W. (2014). The UTIP global inequality data sets 1963–2008. http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/papers/UTIP_68.pdf.
  38. Galbraith, J. K., & Kum, H. (2005). Estimating the inequality of household incomes: A statistical approach to the creation of a dense and consistent global data set. Review of Income and Wealth, 51(1), 115–143. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4991.2005.00147.x.
  39. Galor, O., & Tsiddon, D. (1996). Income distribution and growth: The Kuznets hypothesis revisited. Economica, 63, S103–S117 (2554811).Google Scholar
  40. Hansen, B. E., & Phillips, P. C. (1990). Estimation and inference in models of cointegration: A simulation study. Advances in Econometrics, 8(1989), 225–248.Google Scholar
  41. Higgins, M., & Williamson, J. G. (1999). Explaining inequality the world round: Cohort size, Kuznets curves, and openness. Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w7224.
  42. Huang, H. C., Lin, Y. C., & Yeh, C. C. (2012). An appropriate test of the Kuznets hypothesis. Applied Economics Letters, 19(1), 47–51. doi: 10.1080/13504851.2011.566172.
  43. Jha, S. K. (1996). The Kuznets curve: A reassessment. World Development, 24(4), 773–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12(2), 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Johansen, S. (1995). Identifying restrictions of linear equations with applications to simultaneous equations and cointegration. Journal of Econometrics, 69(1), 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52(2), 169–210. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.1990.mp52002003.x.
  47. Kanbur, R., & Zhuang, J. (2013). Urbanization and inequality in Asia. Asian Development Review, 30(1), 131–147. doi: 10.1162/ADEV_a_00006.
  48. Kapoor, R. (2013). Inequality matters. Economic Political Weekly, 48(2), 58–65.Google Scholar
  49. Kim, D. H., Huang, H. C., & Lin, S. C. (2011). Kuznets hypothesis in a panel of states. Contemporary Economic Policy, 29(2), 250–260. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.2010.00218.x/full.
  50. Krishna, P., & Sethupathy, G. (2011). Trade and inequality in India. Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17257.
  51. Kumar, U., & Mishra, P. (2008). Trade liberalization and wage inequality: Evidence from India. Review of Development Economics, 12(2), 291–311. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9361.2007.00388.x/full.
  52. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  53. Kuznets, S. (1963). Quantitative aspects of the economic growth of nations: VIII. Distribution of income by size. Economic development and Cultural Change, 11.2, 1–80.Google Scholar
  54. Lewis, W. A. (1954). Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour. The Manchester School, 22(2), 139–191. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9957.1954.tb00021.x.
  55. Lim, C. Y., & Sek, S. K. (2014). Exploring the two-way relationship between income inequality and growth. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 2(1), 33. Google Scholar
  56. Lin, S. C., Suen, Y.-B., Yeh, C. C., et al. (2007). A quantile inference of the Kuznets hypothesis. Economic Modelling, 24(4), 559–570.Google Scholar
  57. Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. (2010). With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1), 109–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x/full.
  58. List, J. A., & Gallet, C. A. (1999). The Kuznets curve: What happens after the inverted-U? Review of Development Economics, 3(2), 200–206. doi: 10.1111/1467-9361.00061/full.
  59. Litchfield, J. (2001). Updated Income Distribution and Poverty Measures for Chile: 1987–1998. Background Paper, 1, 1987–1998.Google Scholar
  60. Lorenz, M. O. (1905). Methods of measuring the concentration of wealth. Publications of the American Statistical Association, 9(70), 209–219. doi: 10.1080/15225437.1905.10503443.
  61. Lubrano, M. (2012). The econometrics of inequality and poverty. Lecture 4: Lorenz curves, the Gini coefficient and parametric distributions. http://www.vcharite.univ-mrs.fr/PP/lubrano/cours/Lecture-4.pdf.
  62. Motonishi, T. (2006). Why has income inequality in Thailand increased?: An analysis using surveys from 1975 to 1998. Japan and the World Economy, 18(4), 464–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mushinski, D. W. (2001). Using non-parametrics to inform parametric tests of Kuznets’ hypothesis. Applied Economics Letters, 8(2), 77–79. doi: 10.1080/13504850150204093.
  64. Nain, M. Z., Ahmad, W., & Kamaiah, B. (2017). Economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions in India: A disaggregated causal analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 36(8), 807–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nain, M. Z., & Kamaiah, B. (2012). On the relationship between nominal and real effective exchange rates in India: Evidence from the ARDL bounds tests. IUP Journal of Applied Economics, 11(4), 50.Google Scholar
  66. Ogwang, T. (1994). Economic development and income inequality: A nonparametric investigation of Kuznets’ U-curve hypothesis. Journal of Quantitative Economics, 10, 139–153. Google Scholar
  67. Okun, A. M. (1975). Equality and efficiency, the big tradeoff. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Google Scholar
  68. Oosthuizen, M. (2007). Consumer Price inflation across the income distribution in South Africa. Development Policy Research Unit, University of Cape Town. http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk/download/pdf/6261866.pdf.
  69. Oshima, H. T. (1962). The international comparison of size distribution of family incomes with special reference to Asia. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 44, 439–445.Google Scholar
  70. Ouattara, B. (2004). Foreign aid and fiscal policy in Senegal. Tech. rep., Mimeo University of Manchester Manchester.Google Scholar
  71. Pal, P., & Ghosh, J. (2007). Inequality in India: A survey of recent trends. Economic and Social Affairs Working Paper (Vol. 45).Google Scholar
  72. Paukert, F. (1973). Income distribution at different levels of development: A survey of evidence. International Labour Review, 108, 97.Google Scholar
  73. Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1361–1401.Google Scholar
  74. Perron, P. (1997). Further evidence on breaking trend functions in macroeconomic variables. Journal of econometrics, 80(2), 355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pesaran, M. H., & Pesaran, B. (1997). Working with Microfit 4.0: Interactive econometric analysis. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (1998). An autoregressive distributed-lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis. Econometric Society Monographs, 31, 371–413.Google Scholar
  77. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (1994). Is inequality harmful for growth? The American Economic Review, 84(3), 600–621.Google Scholar
  78. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326. doi: 10.1002/jae.616/full.
  79. Phillips, P. C., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard (US): Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ram, R. (1988). Economic development and income inequality: Further evidence on the U-curve hypothesis. World Development, 16(11), 1371–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ram, R. (1991). Kuznets’s inverted-U hypothesis: evidence from a highly developed country. Southern Economic Journal, 57, 1112–1123.Google Scholar
  83. Ranciere, R., & Kumhof, M. M. (2010). Inequality, leverage and crises (No. 10–268). International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  84. Rangvid, J. (2001). Increasing convergence among European stock markets?: A recursive common stochastic trends analysis. Economics Letters, 71(3), 383–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rao, M. M., Samant, A. P., & Asher, N. L. (1999). Indian Macro-Economic Data Base in a Consistency Accounting Framework (1950–51 to 1997–98): I: Identifying Sectoral and Economywide Budget Constraints. Economic and Political Weekly, 2243–2262.Google Scholar
  86. Ravallion, M. (2000). Prices, wages and poverty in rural India: What lessons do the time series data hold for policy? Food Policy, 25(3), 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Ray, D. (1998). Development economics. US: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Rodrik, D., & Alesina, A. (1994). Distributive politics and economic growth. http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4551798.
  89. Sagala, P., Akita, T., & Yusuf, A. A. (2013). Urbanization and expenditure inequality in Indonesia: Testing the Kuznets hypothesis with provincial panel data. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s12076-013-0106-7.
  90. Saith, A. (1983). Development and distribution: A critique of the cross-country U-hypothesis. Journal of Development Economics, 13(3), 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Salotti, S., & Trecroci, C. (2013). Can fiscal policy mitigate income inequality and poverty? Available at SSRN 2379441. http://www.alde.es/encuentros/trabajos/s/pdf/78.pdf.
  92. Sato, S., & Fukushige, M. (2009). Globalization and economic inequality in the short and long run: The case of South Korea 1975–1995. Journal of Asian Economics, 20(1), 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sen, A. (1973). On economic inequality. OUP Catalogue. http://ideas.repec.org/b/oxp/obooks/9780198281931.html.
  94. Sen, A. K. (1997a). From income inequality to economic inequality. Southern Economic Journal, 384–401, 1060857.Google Scholar
  95. Sen, A. K. (1997b). On Economic Inequality, expanded edition with a substantial annexe by James E. Foster and Amartya Sen. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1979). The welfare basis of real income comparisons: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 17(1), 1–45.Google Scholar
  96. Shahbaz, M. (2010). Income inequality-economic growth and non-linearity: A case of Pakistan. International Journal of Social Economics, 37(8), 613–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Shahbaz, M., & Islam, F. (2011). Financial development and income inequality in Pakistan: An application of ARDL approach. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/28222/.
  98. Sinha, N., et al. (2004). Growth, inequality and structural adjustment: An empirical interpretation of the S-curve for Indian economy. https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/42134.
  99. Stiglitz, J. (2012). The price of inequality. Penguin UK.Google Scholar
  100. Stolper, W. F., & Samuelson, P. A. (1941). Protection and real wages. The Review of Economic Studies, 9(1), 58–73.Google Scholar
  101. Theil, H. (1967). Economics and information theory. http://cds.cern.ch/record/432570.
  102. Thornton, J. (2001). The Kuznets inverted-U hypothesis: Panel data evidence from 96 countries. Applied Economics Letters, 8(1), 15–16. doi: 10.1080/135048501750041213.
  103. Tiongson, E., & de Mello, L. R. (2003). Income inequality and redistributive government spending. International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  104. Tiwari, A. K., Shahbaz, M., & Islam, F. (2013). Does financial development increase rural-urban income inequality?: Cointegration analysis in the case of Indian economy. International Journal of Social Economics, 40(2), 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Torsten, P., & Guido, T. (1994). Is inequality harmful for growth? The American Economic Review, 84(3), 600–621.Google Scholar
  106. Walsh, M. J., & Yu, J. (2012). Inflation and income inequality: Is food inflation different?(EPub). International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  107. Wolff, E. N. (2009). Poverty and income distribution. UK: Blackwell Pub.Google Scholar
  108. Zhou, X., & Li, K.-W. (2011). Inequality and development: Evidence from semiparametric estimation with panel data. Economics Letters, 113(3), 203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aadil Ahmad Ganaie
    • 1
  • Sajad Ahmad Bhat
    • 2
  • Bandi Kamaiah
    • 3
  1. 1.School of EconomicsUniversity of HyderabadHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.School of EconomicsUniversity of HyderabadHyderabadIndia
  3. 3.School of EconomicsUniversity of HyderabadHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations