Advertisement

The Kuznets Curve and the Inequality Process

  • John Angle
  • Francçois Nielsen
  • Enrico Scalas
Part of the New Economic Windows book series (NEW)

Abstract

Four economists, Mauro Gallegati, Steven Keen, Thomas Lux, and Paul Ormerod, published a paper after the 2005 Econophysics Colloquium condemning conservative particle systems as models of income and wealth distribution. Their critique made science news: coverage in a feature article in Nature. A particle system model of income distribution is a hypothesized universal statistical law of income distribution. Gallegati et al. [1] claim that the Kuznets Curve, well known to economists, shows that a universal statistical law of income distribution is unlikely and that a conservative particle system is inadequate to account for income distribution dynamics. The Kuznets Curve is the graph of income inequality (ordinate variable) against the movement of workers from rural subsistence agriculture into more modern sectors of the economy (abscissa). The Gini concentration ratio is the preferred measure of income inequality in economics. The Kuznets Curve has an initial uptick from the Gini concentration ratio of the earned income of a poorly educated agrarian labor force. Then the curve falls in near linear fashion toward the Gini concentration ratio of the earned incomes of a modern, educated labor force as the modern labor force grows. The Kuznets Curve is concave down and skewed to the right. This paper shows that the iconic Kuznets Curve can be derived from the Inequality Process (IP), a conservative particle system, presenting a counter-example to Gallegati et al.’s claim. The IP reproduces the Kuznets Curve as the Gini ratio of a mixture of two IP stationary distributions, one characteristic of the wage income distribution of poorly educated workers in rural areas, the other of workers with an education adequate for industrial work, as the mixing weight of the latter increases and that of the former decreases.The greater purchasing power of money in rural areas is taken into account.

Keywords

Labor Force Income Inequality Income Distribution American Statistical Association Wage Income 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gallegati, Mauro, Steven Keen, Thomas Lux, and Paul Ormerod. 2006. “Worrying Trends in Econophysics”. Physica A 370:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kuznets, Simon. 1955. “Economic Growth and Income Inequality.” American Economic Review 45:1–28Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuznets, Simon. 1965. Economic Growth and Structure. New York: NortonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nielsen, Franois. 1994. “Income Inequality and Development”. American Sociological Review 59:654–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wolfson, Michael. 1994. “When inequalities diverge.” American Economic Review 84(#2): 353–358Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kleiber, Christian and Samuel Kotz. 2003. Statistical Size Distributions in Economics and Actuarial Sciences. New York: WileyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Angle, John. 1983. “The surplus theory of social stratification and the size distribution of Personal Wealth.” 1983 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section. Pp. 395–400. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical AssociationGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Angle, John. 1986. “The surplus theory of social stratification and the size distribution of Personal Wealth.” Social Forces 65:293–326Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Angle, John. 2002. “The statistical signature of pervasive competition on wages and salaries”. Journal of Mathematical Sociology. 26:217–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Angle, John. 2006 (received 8/05; electronic publication: 12/05; hardcopy publication 7/06). AThe Inequality Process as a wealth maximizing algorithm@. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 367:388–414 (DOI information: 10.1016/j.physa.2005.11.017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nord, Mark. 2000. “Does it cost less to live in rural areas? Evidence from new data on food security and hunger”. Rural Sociology 65(1): 104–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Joliffe, Dean. 2006. “The cost of living and the geographic distribution of poverty”. Economic Research Report #26 (ERR-25) [http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err26]. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Angle, John. 1996. “How the gamma law of income distribution appears invariant under aggregation”. Journal of Mathematical Sociology. 21:325–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Angle, John. 2001. “Modeling the right tail of the nonmetro distribution of wage and salary income”. 2001 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section. [CD-ROM], Alexandria, VA: American Statistical AssociationGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Angle, John. 2003. “Imitating the salamander: a model of the right tail of the wage distribution truncated by topcoding@. November, 2003 Conference of the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, [http://www.fcsm.gov/events/papers2003.html ]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McDonald, James and B. Jensen. 1979. “An analysis of some properties of alternative measures of income inequality based on the gamma distribution function.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 74: 856–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bernadelli, Harro. 1942–44. “The stability of the income distribution”. Sankhya 6:351–362Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Angle, John. 1990. “A stochastic interacting particle system model of the size distribution of wealth and income.” 1990 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section. Pp. 279–284. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical AssociationGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Friedman, Milton. 1970 [1953]. “The methodology of positive economics”. Pp. 3–43 in Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Angle, John. 2007A. The Macro Model of the Inequality Process and The Surging Relative Frequency of Large Wage Incomes@. Pp. 171–196 in A. Chatterjee and B.K. Chakrabarti, (eds.), The Econophysics of Markets and Networks (Proceedings of the Econophys-Kolkata III Conference, March 2007, Milan: SpringerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Angle
    • 1
  • Francçois Nielsen
    • 2
  • Enrico Scalas
    • 3
  1. 1.Inequality Process InstituteLafayette HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Department of Advanced Sciences and Technology, Laboratory on Complex SystemsEast Piedmont UniversityAlessandriaItaly

Personalised recommendations