Advertisement

Journal of Economic Growth

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 283–304 | Cite as

Assessing the convergence and mobility of nations without artificially specified class boundaries

  • Gordon Anderson
  • Maria Grazia Pittau
  • Roberto Zelli
Article

Abstract

There is a long-established practice in the empirical growth and convergence literature of classifying countries into groups or clubs by arbitrarily specifying group boundaries. A problem with this approach is that determining boundaries in a particular fashion also determines the nature of the group in a way that is often prejudicial for analysis ultimately affecting the way transition and class mobility behavior is evaluated. Here a semi-parametric technique for class categorization without resort to arbitrarily specified frontiers is proposed and the convergence of classes and mobility between them is studied in the context of the size distribution of per capita GDP of nations. Category membership is partially determined by the commonality of observed behavior of category members: partial in the sense that only the probability of category membership in each category is determined for each country. Such an approach does not inhibit the size of classes or the nature of transitions between them. A study of the world distribution over the 40 years preceding 2010 reveals substantial changes in class sizes and mobility patterns between them which are very different from those observed in a fixed class size analysis.

Keywords

Mixture models Mobility Class membership 

JEL Classification

C14 I32 O1 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the journal’s editor and three anonymous referees for helpful comments. For helpful discussions on the topic of this paper the authors are grateful to Tuomas Malinen and seminar participants at the 6th Meeting of the Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, 2015. Gordon Anderson is grateful to the SSHRC and the University of Toronto for research support. Maria Grazia Pittau and Roberto Zelli are grateful to Sapienza research grants for financial support.

Supplementary material

10887_2016_9128_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (200 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 200 KB)

References

  1. Alfó, M., Trovato, G., & Waldmann, R. (2008). Testing for country heterogeneity in growth models using a finite mixture approach. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(4), 487–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, G. (1996). Non parametric tests for stochastic dominance in income distribution. Econometrica, 64, 1183–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, G. (2010). Polarization of the poor: Multivariate relative poverty measurement sans frontiers. Review of Income and Wealth, 56(1), 84–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, G., & Ge, Y. (2005). The size distribution of Chinese cities. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 35, 756–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, G., Farcomeni, A., Pittau, M. G., & Zelli, R. (2016). A new approach to measuring and studying the characteristics of class membership: The progress of poverty, inequality and polarization of income classes in urban China. Journal of Econometrics, 191(2), 348–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, G., Ge, Y., & Leo, T. W. (2013). Distributional overlap: Simple, multivariate, parametric and nonparametric tests for alienation, convergence and general distributional difference issues. Econometric Reviews, 29(3), 247–275.Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, G., Leo, T. W. & Anand, P. (2014). Multi-dimensional wellbeing assessment: A general method for index construction with an application to multivariate deprivation. Working Paper 524, Department of Economics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, G., Linton, O., & Leo, T. W. (2012a). A polarization-cohesion perspective on cross country convergence. Journal of Economic Growth, 17, 49–69.Google Scholar
  9. Anderson, G., Linton, O., & Whang, Y. J. (2012b). Nonparametric estimation and inference about the overlap of two distributions. Journal of Econometrics, 171(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  10. Atkinson, A. B., & Brandolini, A. (2013). On the identification of the middle class. In J. C. Gornick & M. Jäntti (Eds.), Income inequality (pp. 77–100). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2008). What is middle class about the middle classes around the world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barro, R. J. (1991). Economic growth in a cross section of countries. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 407–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1992). Convergence. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bianchi, M. (1997). Testing for convergence: Evidence from non-parametric multimodality tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 12, 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bloom, D. E., Canning, D., & Sevilla, J. (2003). Geography and poverty traps. Journal of Economic Growth, 8, 355–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brandt, L., & Holz, C. A. (2006). Spatial price differences in China: Estimates and implications. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 55(1), 43–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bulli, S. (2001). Distribution dynamics and cross-country convergence: A new approach. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 48, 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Canova, F. (2004). Testing for convergence clubs in income per capita: A predictive density approach. International Economic Review, 45, 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cheli, B., Lemmi, A., & Spera, C. (1995). An E.M. algorithm for estimating mixtures of Dagum’s models. In C. Dagum & A. Lemmi (Eds.), Income distribution, social welfare, inequality and poverty, Vol. VI, Researches on Income Inequality, Slotjee, D.J. (Ed.), (pp. 131–142). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dardanoni, V. (1993). Measuring social mobility. Journal of Economic Theory, 61, 372–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B, 69, 1–38.Google Scholar
  23. Durlauf, S., Johnson, P. A., & Temple, J. (2005). Growth econometrics, Chap. 8. In P. Aghion & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of economic growth (Vol 1B). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  24. Esteban, J. M., & Ray, D. (1994). On the measurement of polarization. Econometrica, 62(4), 819–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Easterly, W. (2001). The middle class consensus and economic development. Journal of Economic Growth, 6, 317–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Foster, J. E. (1998). Absolute versus relative poverty. American Economic Review, 88, 335–341.Google Scholar
  27. Fry, J. M., Fry, T. R. L., & Mclaren, K. R. (1996). The stochastic specification of demand share equations: Restricting budget shares to the unit simplex. Journal of Econometrics, 73, 377–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fry, T. R. L., Mclaren, K. R., & Fry, J. M. (2000). Compositional data analysis and zeros in micro data. Applied Economics, 32(8), 953–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gabaix, X. (1999). Zipf’s law for cities: An explanation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 739–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Galor, O. (1996). Convergence? Inferences from theoretical models. The Economic Journal, 106, 1056–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Galor, O., & Ryder, H. E. (1989). Existence, uniqueness and stability of equilibrium in an overlapping-generations model with productive capital. Journal of Economic Theory, 49, 360–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gibrat, R. (1930). Une Loi Des Repartitions Economiques: L’effet Proportionelle. Bulletin de Statistique General, France, 19, 469.Google Scholar
  33. Gill, I. S., & Kharas, H. J. (2007). An East Asian renaissance: Ideas for economic growth. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Green, W. H. (2005). Econometric analysis (6th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Heston, A., Summers, R. & Aten, B. (2012). Penn world table version 7.1. Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania. http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu/.
  36. Kalecki, M. (1945). On the Gibrat distribution. Econometrica, 13, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kremer, M., Onatski, A., & Stock, J. (2001). Searching for prosperity. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 55(1), 275–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Owen, A. L., Videras, J., & Davis, L. (2009). Do all countries follow the same growth process? Journal of Economic Growth, 14(4), 265–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paap, R., & van Dijk, H. K. (1998). Distribution and mobility of wealth of nations. European Economic Review, 42, 1269–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paap, R., Franses, P. H., & van Dijk, D. (2005). Does Africa grow slower than Asia, Latin America and the Middle East? Evidence from a new data-based classification method. Journal of Development Economics, 77, 553–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pittau, M. G., & Zelli, R. (2006). Empirical evidence of income dynamics across EU regions. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 21, 605–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pittau, M. G., Zelli, R., & Johnson, P. A. (2010). Mixture models, convergence clubs and polarization. Review of Income and Wealth, 56, 102–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pittau, M. G., Zelli, R., & Massari, R. (2014). Evidence of convergence clubs using mixture models. Econometric Reviews. doi: 10.1080/07474938.2014.977062.
  45. Prais, S. J. (1955). Measuring social mobility. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 118, 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Quah, D. (1993). Empirical cross-section dynamics in economic growth. European Economic Review, 37, 426–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Quah, D. (1996a). Convergence empirics across countries with (some) capital mobility. Journal of Economic Growth, 1, 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Quah, D. (1996b). Empirics for economic growth and convergence. European Economic Review, 40, 1353–1375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Quah, D. (1997). Empirics for growth and distribution: Polarization, stratification, and convergence clubs. Journal of Economic Growth, 2, 27–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. R Development Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org/.
  51. Ravallion, M. (2012). Why don’t we see poverty convergence? American Economic Review, 102(1), 504–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shorrocks, A. F. (1978). The measurement of mobility. Econometrica, 46, 1013–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. World Bank. (2012). China 2030: Building a modern, harmonious, and creative high-income society. World Development Report. Beijing: The World Bank and the Development Research Center of the State Council, P. R. China.Google Scholar
  54. Ye, L. & Robertson P. E. (2016). On the existence of a Middle Income Trap. Economic Record (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  55. Yitzhaki, S. (1994). Economic distance and overlapping of distributions. Journal of Econometrics, 61, 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gordon Anderson
    • 1
  • Maria Grazia Pittau
    • 2
  • Roberto Zelli
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Statistical SciencesSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations