IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1409.3979.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Rawls' Fairness, Income Distribution and Alarming Level of Gini Coefficient

Author

Listed:
  • Yong Tao
  • Xiangjun Wu
  • Changshuai Li

Abstract

The argument that the alarming level of Gini coefficient is 0.4 is very popular, especially in the media industry, all around the world for a long time. Although the 0.4 standard is widely accepted, the derivation of the value lacks rigid theoretical foundations. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, it is not based on any prevalent and convincing economic theories. In this paper, we incorporate Rawls' principle of fair equality of opportunity into Arrow-Debreu's framework of general equilibrium theory with heterogeneous agents, and derive the alarming level of Gini coefficient formally. Our theory reveals that the exponential distribution of income not only satisfies Pareto optimality, but also obeys social fairness in Rawls' sense. Therefore, we specify the maximal value of the Gini coefficient when income follows exponential distribution as a possible alarming level. Our computations show that the alarming level should be specified at least equal or larger than 0.5 rather than 0.4. We empirically investigate if our model receives support from a large data set of all kinds of countries all over the world from Word Bank in 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 using the distribution fitting and statistical decision methodology. The results suggest that the value of 0.4 is around the mean of the Gini coefficients, corresponding to the most probable event in a peaceful world, rather than the alarming level, while the two-sigma rule shows that in our sample the alarming levels are all larger than 0.5, conforming to the predictions of our theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Yong Tao & Xiangjun Wu & Changshuai Li, 2014. "Rawls' Fairness, Income Distribution and Alarming Level of Gini Coefficient," Papers 1409.3979, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1409.3979
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.3979
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ku, Hyejin & Salmon, Timothy C., 2013. "Procedural fairness and the tolerance for income inequality," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 111-128.
    2. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 699-746.
    3. Howe, Roger E & Roemer, John E, 1981. "Rawlsian Justice as the Core of a Game," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 880-895, December.
    4. Alberto Alesina & George-Marios Angeletos, 2005. "Fairness and Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 960-980, September.
    5. Kuan Xu, 2007. "U-Statistics and Their Asymptotic Results for Some Inequality and Poverty Measures," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(5), pages 567-577.
    6. Gary E Bolton & Jordi Brandts & Axel Ockenfels, 2005. "Fair Procedures: Evidence from Games Involving Lotteries," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(506), pages 1054-1076, October.
    7. Barrett, Garry F. & Donald, Stephen G., 2009. "Statistical Inference with Generalized Gini Indices of Inequality, Poverty, and Welfare," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27, pages 1-17.
    8. Xu, Kuan, 2000. "Inference for Generalized Gini Indices Using the Iterated-Bootstrap Method," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 18(2), pages 223-227, April.
    9. Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2014. "Inequality in the long run," PSE - Labex "OSE-Ouvrir la Science Economique" halshs-01053609, HAL.
    10. Alberto Alesina & Guido Cozzi & Noemi Mantovan, 2012. "The Evolution of Ideology, Fairness and Redistribution," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(565), pages 1244-1261, December.
    11. Ruben Durante & Louis Putterman & Joël Weele, 2014. "Preferences For Redistribution And Perception Of Fairness: An Experimental Study," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 1059-1086, August.
    12. Alvaredo, Facundo, 2011. "A note on the relationship between top income shares and the Gini coefficient," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(3), pages 274-277, March.
    13. Sudhir Anand & Paul Segal, 2008. "What Do We Know about Global Income Inequality?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 46(1), pages 57-94, March.
    14. Jarque, Carlos M. & Bera, Anil K., 1980. "Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and serial independence of regression residuals," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 255-259.
    15. Claudia Biancotti, 2006. "A polarization of inequality? The distribution of national Gini coefficients 1970–1996," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 4(1), pages 1-32, April.
    16. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    17. Elisha A. Pazner & David Schmeidler, 1974. "A Difficulty in the Concept of Fairness," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(3), pages 441-443.
    18. A.B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (ed.), 2000. "Handbook of Income Distribution," Handbook of Income Distribution, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    19. Yong Tao, 2012. "Spontaneous Economic Order," Papers 1210.0898, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2013.
    20. Yong Tao, 2010. "Competitive market for multiple firms and economic crisis," Papers 1010.1413, arXiv.org.
    21. Makoto Nirei & Wataru Souma, 2007. "A Two Factor Model Of Income Distribution Dynamics," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 53(3), pages 440-459, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tao, Yong & Wu, Xiangjun & Li, Changshuai, 2017. "Rawls' fairness, income distribution and alarming level of Gini coefficient," Economics Discussion Papers 2017-67, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Yong Tao, 2016. "Spontaneous economic order," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 467-500, July.
    3. Cardella, Eric & Roomets, Alex, 2022. "Pay distribution preferences and productivity effects: An experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    4. Grimalday, Gianluca & Karz, Anirban & Proto, Eugenio, 2012. "Everyone Wants a Chance: Initial Positions and Fairness in Ultimatum Games," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 93, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    5. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid & Morten Raun Mørkbak, 2018. "Modelling Heterogeneous Preferences for Income Redistribution–An Application of Continuous and Discrete Distributions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 270-294, June.
    6. Yong Tao & Xiangjun Wu & Tao Zhou & Weibo Yan & Yanyuxiang Huang & Han Yu & Benedict Mondal & Victor M. Yakovenko, 2019. "Exponential structure of income inequality: evidence from 67 countries," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 14(2), pages 345-376, June.
    7. Laura K. Gee & Marco Migueis & Sahar Parsa, 2017. "Redistributive choices and increasing income inequality: experimental evidence for income as a signal of deservingness," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 894-923, December.
    8. Grimalda, Gianluca & Farina, Francesco & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2018. "Preferences for redistribution in the US, Italy, Norway: An experiment study," Kiel Working Papers 2099, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    9. Akbaş, Merve & Ariely, Dan & Yuksel, Sevgi, 2019. "When is inequality fair? An experiment on the effect of procedural justice and agency," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 114-127.
    10. Gustavo Caballero, "undated". "Information Effect Regarding Inequality of Opportunities on Redistribution: A Lab Experiment," Working Papers 2014-75, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, revised 15 Oct 2014.
    11. Andrea Fazio & Tommaso Reggiani, 2022. "Minimum wage and tolerance for inequality," MUNI ECON Working Papers 2022-07, Masaryk University, revised Feb 2023.
    12. Kuhn, Andreas, 2015. "The Subversive Nature of Inequality: Subjective Inequality Perceptions and Attitudes to Social Inequality," IZA Discussion Papers 9406, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. JaeYoul Shin, 2018. "Relative Deprivation, Satisfying Rationality, and Support for Redistribution," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 35-56, November.
    14. Laméris, Maite D. & Garretsen, Harry & Jong-A-Pin, Richard, 2020. "Political ideology and the intragenerational prospect of upward mobility," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    15. Vladimir Gimpelson & Daniel Treisman, 2018. "Misperceiving inequality," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 27-54, March.
    16. Pedro Rey-Biel & Roman Sheremeta & Neslihan Uler, 2018. "When Income Depends on Performance and Luck: The Effects of Culture and Information on Giving," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 167-203, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    17. Tao, Yong, 2015. "Universal laws of human society’s income distribution," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 435(C), pages 89-94.
    18. Julián Costas-Fernández & Simón Lodato, 2022. "Inequality, poverty and the composition of redistribution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(4), pages 925-967, November.
    19. Lefgren, Lars J. & Sims, David P. & Stoddard, Olga B., 2016. "Effort, luck, and voting for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 89-97.
    20. Choi, Sungmun, 2022. "Intergenerational mobility and voting in the presidential election: Evidence from U.S. counties," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1409.3979. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.