Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2202.00917

A quantitative method for benchmarking fair income distribution

Abstract

Concern about income inequality has become prominent in public discourse around the world. However, studies in behavioral economics and psychology have consistently shown that people prefer not equal but fair income distributions. Thus, finding a benchmark that could be used to measure fair income distribution across countries is a theoretical and practical challenge. Here a method for benchmarking fair income distribution is introduced. The benchmark is constructed based on the concepts of procedural justice, distributive justice, and authority's power in professional sports where it is widely agreed as an international norm that the allocations of athlete's salary are outcomes of fair rules, individual and/or team performance, and luck in line with no-envy principle of fair allocation. Using the World Bank data, this study demonstrates how the benchmark could be used to quantitatively gauge whether, for a given value of the Gini index, the income shares by quintile of a country are the fair shares or not, and if not, what fair income shares by quintile of that country should be. Knowing this could be useful for those involved in setting targets for the Gini index and the fair income shares that are appropriate for the context of each country before formulating policies toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goal 10 and other SDGs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Thitithep Sitthiyot, Kanyarat Holasut. 2022-02-02. A quantitative method for benchmarking fair income distribution. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10511

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN