# Revisiting macroeconomic activity and income distribution in the USA

- 6 Downloads

## Abstract

We revisit the distributional implications of macroeconomic activity in the USA by estimating the effects of the unemployment and inflation rates on the quintile Lorenz ordinates. We have access to 16 years of additional data (1995–2010) that were not available for the earlier studies, covering the deepest recession since the Great Depression. These additional data do not substantively change the results regarding the effects of unemployment and inflation on income inequality (both increase it). Adding controls for other important macroeconomic variables that have increased substantially in recent decades (public transfers, government budget deficits, and openness to trade) also has little effect on the findings regarding unemployment and inflation. Changes in budget deficits are uniformly equalizing, and public transfers increase the share of the bottom 20% across different specifications. Greater openness to international trade increases inequality in some specifications but has little effect when we also include controls for public transfers and budget deficits.

## Keywords

Unemployment Inflation Income distribution Lorenz curve United States## JEL Classification

D31 E32## Notes

### Acknowledgements

The authors thank Philip Rothman, Robert Kunst, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions.

### Compliance with ethical standards

### Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

## Supplementary material

## References

- Achdut L (1996) Income inequality, income composition and macroeconomic trends: Israel, 1979–93. Economica 63:S1–S27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Anderson G (1996) Nonparametric tests of stochastic dominance in income distributions. Econometrica 64:1183–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Angello L, Sousa RM (2014) How does fiscal consolidation impact on income inequality? Rev Income Wealth 60:702–726Google Scholar
- Atkinson A (1970) On the measurement of inequality. J Econ Theory 2:244–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Atkinson AB, Piketty T, Saez E (2011) Top incomes in the long run of history. J Econ Lit 49:3–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Barrett GF, Donald SG (2003) Consistent tests for stochastic dominance. Econometrica 71:71–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beach CM, Davidson R (1983) Distribution-free statistical inference with Lorenz curves and income shares. Rev Econ Stud 50:723–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bishop JA, Formby JP, Thistle PD (1989) Statistical inference, income distributions, and social welfare. In: Slottje DJ (ed) Research on economic inequality, vol 1. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 49–82Google Scholar
- Bishop JA, Formby JP, Thistle PD (1992) Convergence of the south and non-south income distributions, 1969–1979. Am Econ Rev 82:262–272Google Scholar
- Bishop JA, Formby JP, Sakano R (1994) Evaluating changes in the distribution of income in the United States. J Income Distrib 4:79–105Google Scholar
- Björklund A (1991) Unemployment and income distribution: time-series evidence from Sweden. Scand J Econ 93:457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Blank RM, Blinder AS (1985) Macroeconomics, income distribution, and poverty. NBER Working Paper No. 1567Google Scholar
- Blejer MI, Guerrero I (1990) The impact of macroeconomic policies on income distribution: an empirical study of the Philippines. Rev Econ Stat 72:414–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Blinder AS, Esaki HY (1978) Macroeconomic activity and income distribution in the postwar United States. Rev Econ Stat 60:604–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Buse A (1982) The cyclical behaviour of the size distribution of income in Canada: 1947–78. Can J Econ 15:189–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Damjanovic T (2005) Lorenz dominance for transformed income distributions. Math Soc Sci 50:234–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Davidson R, Duclos J-Y (2000) Statistical inference for stochastic dominance and for the measurement of poverty and inequality. Econometrica 68:1435–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc 74:427–431Google Scholar
- Dimelis S, Livada A (1999) Inequality and business cycles in the U.S. and European Union countries. Int Adv Econ Res 5:321–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dutt P, Mitra D, Ranjan P (2009) International trade and unemployment: theory and cross-national evidence. J Int Econ 78:32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Engle RF, Granger CWJ (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 39:251–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Felbermayr G, Prat J, Schmerer H-J (2011) Trade and unemployment: What do the data say? Eur Econ Rev 55:741–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Granger CWJ (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37:424–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gustafsson B, Johansson M (1999) In search of smoking guns: What makes income inequality vary over time in different countries? Am Soc Rev 64:585–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hayes KJ, Slottje DJ, Porter-Hudak S, Scully G (1990) Is the size distribution of income a random walk? J Econom 43:213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jäntti M (1994) A more efficient estimate of the effects of macroeconomic activity on the distribution of income. Rev Econ Stat 76:372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Johansen S (1988) Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. J Econ Dyn Control 12:231–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Johansen S (2014) Time series: cointegration, CREATES (Center for Research in the Econometric Analysis of Time Series) Research Paper 2014-38Google Scholar
- Khattak D, Muhammad A, Iqbal K (2014) Determining the relationship between income inequality, economic growth & inflation. J Soc Econ Res Acad Soc Sci 1:104–114Google Scholar
- Kwiatkowski D, Phillips PCB, Schmidt P, Shin Y (1992) Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root. J Econom 54:159–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mocan HN (1999) Structural unemployment, cyclical unemployment, and income inequality. Rev Econ Stat 81:122–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nolan B (1989) Macroeconomic conditions and the size distribution of income: evidence from the United Kingdom. J Post Keynes Econ 11:196–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rajan RG (2010) Fault lines: how hidden fractures still threaten the world economy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Stoline MR, Ury HK (1979) Tables of the studentized maximum modulus distribution and an application to multiple comparisons among means. Technometrics 21:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tse YK, Zhang X (2004) A Monte Carlo investigation of some tests for stochastic dominance. J Stat Comput Simul 74:361–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Weil G (1984) Cyclical and secular influences on the size distribution of personal income in the UK: some econometric tests. Appl Econ 16:749–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wolff EN, Zacharias A (2007) The distributional consequences of government spending and taxation in the U.S., 1989 and 2000. Rev Inc Wealth 53:692–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Woo J, Bova E, Kinda T, Zhang YS (2013) Distributional consequences of fiscal consolidation and the role of fiscal policy: What do the data say? International Monetary Fund (IMF) working paper WP/13/195Google Scholar
- Xu K (1997) Asymptotically distribution-free statistical test for the generalized Lorenz curve. J Income Distrib 7:45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Xu K, Osberg L (1998) A distribution-free test for deprivation dominance. Econom Rev 17:415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zheng B (2018) Almost Lorenz dominance. Soc Choice Welf 51:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar