IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v168y2023i1d10.1007_s11205-023-03121-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Twofold Subjective Measure of Income Inequality

Author

Listed:
  • Attila Gáspár

    (KRTK-KTI
    University of Padova)

  • Carmen Cervone

    (University of Padova)

  • Federica Durante

    (University of Milano-Bicocca)

  • Anne Maass

    (New York University Abu Dhabi)

  • Caterina Suitner

    (University of Padova)

  • Roberta Rosa Valtorta

    (University of Milano-Bicocca)

  • Michela Vezzoli

    (University of Milano-Bicocca)

Abstract

Social scientists have been aiming to calculate a “subjective income Gini coefficient”of survey respondents that would describe their beliefs about income inequality in their country. Niehues (Subjective perceptions of inequality and redistributive preferences: an international comparison, Cologne Institute for Economic Research, IWTRENDS Discussion Paper, 2014) derives this estimate from respondents’ beliefs about the relative sizes of different social classes (answers to “shape of society” questions), while Kuhn (The individual perception of wage inequality: a measurement framework and some empirical evidence, Technical report, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), 2015) estimates it using beliefs about the pay structure. We combine their efforts to calculate what we call a twofold subjective Gini coefficient, which incorporates both pieces of information independently from one another. We present the country-level distribution of perceived and desired twofold subjective Gini coefficients using the ISSP Social Inequality V survey (ISSP Research Group in International social survey programme: social inequality v—issp 2019, 2019. https://doi.org/10.4225/13/511C71F8612C3 ). Accounting for both subjective class structure and pay structure yields much lower perceived and desired levels of inequality. At the country level the averages of the twofold subjective Gini coefficients are closer to actual income Gini coefficients than the previous measures. At the individual level the twofold subjective Gini coefficients are better predictors of the individual’s verbal assessment of inequality and their preferences towards redistribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Attila Gáspár & Carmen Cervone & Federica Durante & Anne Maass & Caterina Suitner & Roberta Rosa Valtorta & Michela Vezzoli, 2023. "A Twofold Subjective Measure of Income Inequality," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 25-43, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:168:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11205-023-03121-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-023-03121-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11205-023-03121-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11205-023-03121-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Knell, Markus & Stix, Helmut, 2020. "Perceptions of inequality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    2. Chunping Han, 2014. "Health Implications of Socioeconomic Characteristics, Subjective Social Status, and Perceptions of Inequality: An Empirical Study of China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 495-514, November.
    3. Vladimir Gimpelson & Daniel Treisman, 2018. "Misperceiving inequality," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 27-54, March.
    4. Sen, Amartya, 1997. "On Economic Inequality," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198292975, Decembrie.
    5. Engelhardt, Carina & Wagener, Andreas, 2014. "Biased Perceptions of Income Inequality and Redistribution," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100395, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Pedersen, Rasmus T. & Mutz, Diana C., 2019. "Attitudes Toward Economic Inequality: The Illusory Agreement," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(4), pages 835-851, October.
    7. Choi, Gwangeun, 2019. "Revisiting the redistribution hypothesis with perceived inequality and redistributive preferences," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 220-244.
    8. Kuhn, Andreas, 2015. "The Individual Perception of Wage Inequality: A Measurement Framework and Some Empirical Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 9579, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Knight, John & Gunatilaka, Ramani, 2022. "Income inequality and happiness: Which inequalities matter in China?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    2. Knell, Markus & Stix, Helmut, 2020. "Perceptions of inequality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    3. Gimpelson, V. & Chernina, E., 2020. "How we perceive our place in income distribution and how the perceptions deviate from reality," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 46(2), pages 30-56.
    4. Kuhn, Andreas, 2019. "The subversive nature of inequality: Subjective inequality perceptions and attitudes to social inequality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 331-344.
    5. Windsteiger, Lisa, 2022. "The redistributive consequences of segregation and misperceptions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    6. John Knight & Ramani Gunatilaka, 2020. "Income inequality and happiness: perceived or actual, widely or narrowly defined, fair or unfair, self- or community-centred inequality?," Economics Series Working Papers 922, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    7. Andreas Kuhn, 2020. "The individual (mis-)perception of wage inequality: measurement, correlates and implications," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2039-2069, November.
    8. Choi, Gwangeun, 2019. "Revisiting the redistribution hypothesis with perceived inequality and redistributive preferences," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 220-244.
    9. Roberto Iacono & Marco Ranaldi, 2021. "The nexus between perceptions of inequality and preferences for redistribution," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(1), pages 97-114, March.
    10. Campos-Vazquez, Raymundo M. & Krozer, Alice & Ramírez-Álvarez, Aurora A. & de la Torre, Rodolfo & Velez-Grajales, Roberto, 2022. "Perceptions of inequality and social mobility in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    11. Gwangeun Choi, 2021. "Individuals’ socioeconomic position, inequality perceptions, and redistributive preferences in OECD countries," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(2), pages 239-264, June.
    12. Frederich Kirsten & Ilse Botha & Mduduzi Biyase & Marinda Pretorius, 2023. "Determinants of Subjective Social Status in South Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 1-24, August.
    13. Gründler, Klaus & Köllner, Sebastian, 2017. "Determinants of governmental redistribution: Income distribution, development levels, and the role of perceptions," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 930-962.
    14. Andreoli, Francesco & Olivera, Javier, 2020. "Preferences for redistribution and exposure to tax-benefit schemes in Europe," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    15. Bublitz, Elisabeth, 2016. "Misperceptions of income distributions: Cross-country evidence from a randomized survey experiment," HWWI Research Papers 178, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).
    16. Antonino Callea & Dalila De Rosa & Giovanni Ferri & Francesca Lipari & Marco Costanzi, 2022. "Can Emotional Intelligence promote Individual Wellbeing and protect from perceptions' traps?," CERBE Working Papers wpC39, CERBE Center for Relationship Banking and Economics.
    17. Colagrossi, Marco & Karagiannis, Stelios & Raab, Roman, 2019. "The Median Voter Takes it All: Preferences for Redistribution and Income Inequality in the EU-28," Working Papers 2019-06, Joint Research Centre, European Commission.
    18. Matthias Diermeier & Madeleine L. Fischer & Judith Niehues, 2023. "Punching up or Punching down? How Stereotyping the Rich and the Poor Impacts Redistributive Preferences in Germany," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1182, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    19. Carina Engelhardt & Andreas Wagener, 2016. "What do Germans think and know about income inequality? A survey experiment," Working Papers 389, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    20. Kuhn, Andreas, 2015. "The Individual Perception of Wage Inequality: A Measurement Framework and Some Empirical Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 9579, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:168:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11205-023-03121-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.