IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cep/sticas/008.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Income Dynamics in Germany, the USA and the UK: Evidence from Panel Data

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Schluter

Abstract

This paper is about the distributional dynamics of net household income in Germany, the US and the UK. We reject the common wisdom that Germany is a country in statsis: stable cross-sectional distributions are deceptive, concealing substantial movements beneath the surface. The US and the UK underwent a process of income polarisation. For the study of mobility, stochastic kernels are used, because standard approaches based on mobility indices and transition matrices, which group persons into income classes of arbitrary size, lead to misleading conclusions. The measures attribute greater mobility to Germany than to the US, but this ranking is entirely driven by the substantially greater mobility of the German poor. In order to determine whether incomes changes are transitory or permanent, a law of motion for income is estimated.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Schluter, 1998. "Income Dynamics in Germany, the USA and the UK: Evidence from Panel Data," CASE Papers 008, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    • Handle: RePEc:cep:sticas:008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper8.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ramses H. ABUL NAGA, 2001. "Biases of the Ordinary Least Squares and Instrumental Variables Estimators of the Intergenerational Earnings Correlation : Revisited in the Light of Panel Data," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 01.05, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    2. Luis Ayala & Mercedes Sastre, 2008. "The structure of income mobility: empirical evidence from five UE countries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 451-473, November.
    3. Ramses H. ABUL NAGA, 2000. "Galtonian Regression of Intergenerational Income Linkages : Biased Procedures, a New Estimator and Mean-Square Error Comparisons," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 00.13, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    4. Axel Schmidt, 2002. "Statistical Measurement of Income Polarization. A cross-national comparison," 10th International Conference on Panel Data, Berlin, July 5-6, 2002 D3-1, International Conferences on Panel Data.
    5. Andrew J. Houtenville, 2001. "Income Mobility in the United States and Germany: A Comparison of Two Classes of Mobility Measures using the GSOEP, PSID, and CPS," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 70(1), pages 59-65.
    6. VAN KERM Philippe, 2002. "On the magnitude of income mobility in Germany," IRISS Working Paper Series 2002-03, IRISS at CEPS/INSTEAD.
    7. Luis Ayala & Mercedes Sastre, 2004. "Europe vs. the United States: is there a trade-off between mobility and inequality?," Journal of Income Distribution, Ad libros publications inc., vol. 13(1-2), pages 4-4, March-Jun.
    8. Radhika Lahiri & Shyama Ratnasiri, 2007. "Concerning Technology Adoption and Inequality," School of Economics and Finance Discussion Papers and Working Papers Series 215, School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology.
    9. Carlos Madeira, 2015. "Identification of Earning Dynamics using Rotating Samples over Short Periods: The Case of Chile," Working Papers Central Bank of Chile 754, Central Bank of Chile.
    10. M. Grazia Pittau & Roberto Zelli, 2001. "Income distribution in Italy: A nonparametric analysis," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 10(1), pages 175-189, January.
    11. Radhika Lahiri & Shyama Ratnasiri, 2012. "Growth Patterns and Inequality in the Presence of Costly Technology Adoption," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(1), pages 203-223, July.

    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:cep:sticas:008. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/case/_new/publications/ .

    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.