IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Who Are the Winners and the Losers? Transitions in the U.S. Household Income Distribution

Listed author(s):
  • John J. Hisnanick

    (Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, USA)

In the five decades since Kuznets (1955) published his hypothesis on income inequality, a large and significant portion of the work on income distribution and inequality has involved using cross-sectional data for developmental comparisons at the intra- and international levels. Using cross-sectional data, these studies have tracked inequality trends that were deemed the consequence of growth and technical progress due to fiscal manipulations, such as levying taxes and granting subsidies to satisfy some welfare target. While this prior work provided valuable insight at the macroeconomic level on the interrelationship of development, economic growth, and income inequality, only over the last few decades has the research emphasis shifted from an understanding of the implications of income inequality at the aggregate level to that at the individual level. Using cross-sectional data it is possible to track income groups over time, but not the composition nor the characteristics of these groups, which are likely to change over time and affect their position in the income distribution. On the other hand, with the availability of longitudinal, micro-level data it has become possible to investigate in more detail underlying facets of income distribution, such as income mobility, and the lack of it, among households. Using three panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) (1993, 1996, and 2001) and building upon the methodological suggestions of Jarvis and Jenkins (1998) and Jenkins (2000), this paper looks at a household’s economic and demographic characteristics relative to their position in the income distribution. For example, results indicate that between 1996-1999, 13 million households experienced changes in their annual income that resulted in their moving up or down two or more quintiles in the income distribution. On the other hand, 39 percent of households (38.5 million) remained in the same quintile between 1996-1999 with the majority of these households experiencing intra-quintile movements. Of notable interest is that of those households remaining in the fourth and top quintiles between 1996-1999; 70 percent and 65 percent, respectively, experienced positive intra-quintile gains in income ranging, on average, from $3,550 to $10,812 annually.JEL classification: C81, D31, O15

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:
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by Union for Radical Political Economics in its journal Review of Radical Political Economics.

Volume (Year): 43 (2011)
Issue (Month): 4 (December)
Pages: 467-487

in new window

Handle: RePEc:sae:reorpe:v:43:y:2011:i:4:p:467-487
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

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:sae:reorpe:v:43:y:2011:i:4:p:467-487. 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: (SAGE Publications)

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.