IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Bizonytalanság és a jövedelmek újraelosztása iránti igény Magyarországon
[Uncertainty and the demand for redistribution in Hungary]

Listed author(s):
  • Molnár, György

    ()

  • Kapitány, Zsuzsa

    ()

Registered author(s):

    A munkaerő-piaci helyzet, a képzettség, bizonyos családszerkezeti összefüggések és a jövedelmi mobilitás a legfontosabbak azok közül az objektív tényezők közül, amely a jövedelem-újraelosztás iránti igényt meghatározzák. A munkanélküliek és kvázi-munkanélküliek, az alacsony képzettségűek újraelosztás iránti igénye - jövedelmüktől függetlenül - magasabb az átlagnál, a vállalkozóké, vezető beosztásúaké alacsonyabb. A tartósan lefelé irányuló jövedelmi mobilitás növeli az újraelosztás iránti igényt, a tartósan felfelé irányuló azonban egyáltalán nem csökkenti, sőt, bizonyos esetekben szintén növeli. Ennek kapcsán vizsgáljuk a tényleges és a szubjektív mobilitás szisztematikus eltérésének okait. Az újraelosztáshoz való viszonyt nem annyira a tényleges anyagi helyzet, hanem az anyagi ranglétrán elfoglalt pozíció szubjektív megítélése befolyásolja. 2002-ben a magyar társadalom jelentős többsége a középnél lejjebb sorolta magát, ami az újraelosztás igen magas támogatottságának egyik magyarázata lehet. Az életükkel elégedetlenek az átlagnál sokkal inkább újraelosztás-pártiak. Minél bizonytalanabb valaki - és ez a bizonytalanság elsősorban a munkanélküliségtől való félelemben nyilvánul meg -, annál inkább pártolja az újraelosztást. A jelennel és a jövővel kapcsolatban legbizonytalanabbak a leginkább csalódottak, egyben a gazdagokkal szembeni ellenérzések is náluk a legerősebbek. A jövedelmi mobilitás érzékelése helyzetfüggő, különösen a biztonság hiánya befolyásolja. Gazdaságpolitikai következtetésünk az, hogy az újraelosztás iránti igény csökkentése elsősorban a munkaerő-piaci bizonytalanság csökkentésével és a képzettségi szint emelésével, nem pedig a jövedelmek közvetlen emelésével érhető el. Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) kód: D31, D63, D80, J62, I31, H50.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.kszemle.hu/tartalom/letoltes.php?id=900
    Download Restriction: Registration and subscription. 3-month embargo period to non-subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation) in its journal Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences).

    Volume (Year): LIV (2007)
    Issue (Month): 3 ()
    Pages: 201-232

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:ksa:szemle:900
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.kszemle.hu

    Order Information: Postal: Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation) Budapest, Budaörsi út 45., 1112, Hungary
    Web: http://www.kszemle.hu/elofizetes/ Email:


    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Andrew E. Clark & Fabrice Etilé & Fabien Postel-Vinay & Claudia Senik & Karine Van der Straeten, 2004. "Heterogeneity in reported well-being: evidence from twelve european countries," DELTA Working Papers 2004-01, DELTA (Ecole normale supérieure).
    2. Andrew J. Oswald & Nattavudh Powdthavee, 2010. "Daughters and Left-Wing Voting," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(2), pages 213-227, May.
    3. Blanchflower, David G. & Oswald, Andrew J., 2001. "Well-Being Over Time in Britain and the USA," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 616, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    4. Ravallion, Martin & Lokshin, Michael, 1999. "Who wants to redistribute? Russia's tunnel effect in the 1990's," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2150, The World Bank.
    5. Jean Tirole & Roland Bénabou, 2006. "Belief in Just World and Redistributive Politics," Post-Print hal-00173678, HAL.
    6. Alberto Alesina & George-Marios Angeletos, 2004. "Fairness and Redistribution," NajEcon Working Paper Reviews 122247000000000306, www.najecon.org.
    7. Orsolya Lelkes, 2005. "Knowing what is good for you. Empirical analysis of personal preferences and the “objective good”," Others 0502008, EconWPA.
    8. Clark, Andrew E & Oswald, Andrew J, 1994. "Unhappiness and Unemployment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(424), pages 648-659, May.
    9. C. Graham & S. Pettinato, 2002. "Frustrated Achievers: Winners, Losers and Subjective Well-Being in New Market Economies," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(4), pages 100-140.
    10. Di Tella, Rafael & Alesina, Alberto & MacCulloch, Robert, 2004. "Inequality and Happiness: Are Europeans and Americans Different?," Scholarly Articles 4553007, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    11. Benabou, R. & Ok, E.A., 2000. "Mobility as Progressivity: Ranking Income Processes According to Equality of Opportunity," Papers 211, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
    12. Christina M. Fong & Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis, 2005. "Behavioural Motives for Income Redistribution," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 38(3), pages 285-297, 09.
    13. Orsolya Lelkes, 2002. "Tasting Freedom: Happiness, religion and economic transition," CASE Papers case59, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    14. Claudia Senik, 2005. "Income distribution and well-being: what can we learn from subjective data?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 43-63, 02.
    15. Lelkes, Orsolya, 2003. "A pénz boldogít? A jövedelem és hasznosság kapcsolatának empirikus elemzése
      [Can money buy happiness? An empirical analysis of the relation between income and utility]
      ," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(5), pages 383-405.
    16. Blanchflower, David G. & Oswald, Andrew J., 2005. "Happiness and the Human Development Index: The Paradox of Australia," IZA Discussion Papers 1601, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    17. Alesina, Alberto F & La Ferrara, Eliana, 2002. "Preferences for Redistribution in the Land of Opportunities," CEPR Discussion Papers 3155, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Hirschman, Albert O., 1973. "The changing tolerance for income inequality in the course of economic development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 1(12), pages 29-36, December.
    19. Erzo F.P. Luttmer, 2004. "Neighbors as Negatives: Relative Earnings and Well-Being," NBER Working Papers 10667, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Paul Frijters & John P. Haisken-DeNew & Michael A. Shields, 2004. "Money Does Matter! Evidence from Increasing Real Income and Life Satisfaction in East Germany Following Reunification," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 730-740, June.
    21. Tito Boeri & Andrea Brandolini, 2004. "The Age of Discontent: Italian Households at the Beginning of the Decade," Giornale degli Economisti, GDE (Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia), Bocconi University, vol. 63(3-4), pages 449-487, December.
    22. Erzo F.P. Luttmer, 1999. "Group Loyalty and the Taste for Redistribution," Working Papers 9902, Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago.
    23. Winkelmann, Liliana & Winkelmann, Rainer, 1998. "Why Are the Unemployed So Unhappy? Evidence from Panel Data," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 65(257), pages 1-15, February.
    24. Fumio Ohtake & Jun Tomioka, 2004. "Who Supports Redistribution?," ISER Discussion Paper 0603, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    25. Blanchflower, David G., 2001. "Unemployment, Well-Being, and Wage Curves in Eastern and Central Europe," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 364-402, December.
    26. Csontos, László, 1995. "Fiskális illúziók, döntéselmélet és az államháztartási rendszer reformja
      [Fiscal illusions, decision theory, and public sector reform]
      ," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1118-1135.
    27. Ravallion, Martin & Lokshin, Michael, 2000. "Identifying welfare effects from subjective questions," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2301, The World Bank.
    28. Branko Milanovic, 2000. "The Median Voter Hypothesis, Income Inequality and Income Redistribution: An Empirical Test with the Required Data," LIS Working papers 256, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    29. Fong, Christina, 2001. "Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 225-246, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ksa:szemle:900. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Odon Sok)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.