IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kyo/wpaper/1119.html

Robustly Estimating Japan's Gini Coefficient for Individual Earned Income Using Household Survey and Tax Agency Data

Author

Listed:
  • Naoki Tani

    (Institute of Economic Research, Kyoto University and Ministry of Finance)

  • Taro Ohno

    (Faculty of Economics and Law, Shinshu University)

Abstract

This study investigates the benefits and caveats of using tax agency data through a descriptive analysis, and estimates the robust Gini coefficient for individuals' earned income by applying statistical tools combining household survey and tax agency data. We show that the advantage of the tax agency data is that it captures top incomes, while its weak coverage of female non-regular workers can be complemented by combining it with the household survey data. Further, the descriptive results show that the Gini coefficient computed using the household survey is larger than that from using tax agency data, despite not covering top incomes. This indicates that capturing the distribution of the middle and low incomes is more important to estimate the inequality level than capturing the top incomes in Japan. Moreover, the robust estimate of the Gini coefficient indicates that combining top incomes does not substantially affect the overall Gini index computed solely from the household survey data, which is distinct from the results for other countries in the literature. However, when we decompose the Gini coefficient into between- and within-group components of gender and employment status, combining the tax agency and household survey data is important. Although both data show an increase in the between-group component from 2014 to 2019, the integrated data indicate that the between-group contribution actually decreases from 2014 to 2019, reflecting the increases in the incomes of regular female workers.

Suggested Citation

  • Naoki Tani & Taro Ohno, 2025. "Robustly Estimating Japan's Gini Coefficient for Individual Earned Income Using Household Survey and Tax Agency Data," KIER Working Papers 1119, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:kyo:wpaper:1119
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.kier.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/DP1119.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Paul Makdissi & Myra Yazbeck, 2012. "On the Measurement of Indignation," Working Papers 1213E, University of Ottawa, Department of Economics.
    2. Pablo García S. & Camilo Pérez N., 2017. "Desigualdad, inflación, ciclos y crisis en Chile," Estudios de Economia, University of Chile, Department of Economics, vol. 44(2 Year 20), pages 185-221, December.
    3. Onrubia Fernández, Jorge & Picos, Fidel & Rodado, María del Carmen, 2019. "Shifting tax burden to top income earners: What is the best way to reduce inequality?," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 13, pages 1-31.
    4. Torregrosa-Hetland, Sara, 2016. "Sticky Income Inequality In The Spanish Transition (1973-1990)," Revista de Historia Económica / Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 39-80, March.
    5. Mathias Silva, 2023. "Parametric models of income distributions integrating misreporting and non-response mechanisms," AMSE Working Papers 2311, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    6. Sean Higgins & Nora Lustig & Andrea Vigorito, 2018. "The Rich Underreport Their Income: Assessing Biases In Inequality Estimates And Correction Methods Using Linked Survey And Tax Data," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 70, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    7. Aaberge, Rolf & Atkinson, Anthony B. & Modalsli, Jørgen, 2020. "Estimating long-run income inequality from mixed tabular data: Empirical evidence from Norway, 1875–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    8. Rodríguez Weber, Javier, 2015. "Estimación de desigualdad de ingreso y otras variables relacionadas para Chile entre 1860 y 1970. Metodología y resultados obtenidos [Income inequality estimates for Chile between 1860 and 1970. Methodology and main results]," MPRA Paper 68400, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Javier Cortés Orihuela & Juan D. Díaz & Pablo Gutiérrez Cubillos & Pablo A. Troncoso & Gabriel I. Villarroel, 2024. "Intergenerational earnings mobility in Chile: the tale of the upper tail," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 67(5), pages 2411-2447, November.
    10. A. B. Atkinson & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2020. "A Different Perspective on the Evolution of UK Income Inequality," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 66(2), pages 253-266, June.
    11. Facundo Alveredo & Juliana Londoño Vélez, 2013. "High incomes and personal taxation in a developing economy: Colombia 1993-2010," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 12, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    12. Shantayanan Devarajan & Elena Ianchovichina, 2018. "A Broken Social Contract, Not High Inequality, Led to the Arab Spring," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(s1), pages 5-25, October.
    13. Walter Bossert & Conchita D’Ambrosio & Kohei Kamaga, 2021. "Extreme Values, Means, and Inequality Measurement," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 67(3), pages 564-590, September.
    14. Thomas Blanchet & Ignacio Flores & Marc Morgan, 2022. "The weight of the rich: improving surveys using tax data," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 20(1), pages 119-150, March.
    15. Frank Cowell & Emmanuel Flachaire, 2021. "Inequality Measurement: Methods and Data," Post-Print hal-03589066, HAL.
    16. Adriaan Van Velthoven & Jakob De Haan & Jan-Egbert Sturm, 2019. "Finance, income inequality and income redistribution," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(14), pages 1202-1209, August.
    17. Richard V. Burkhauser & Nicolas Hérault & Stephen P. Jenkins & Roger Wilkins, 2016. "What has Been Happening to UK Income Inequality Since the Mid-1990s? Answers from Reconciled and Combined Household Survey and Tax Return Data," NBER Working Papers 21991, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Erfurth, Philipp Emanuel & León, María Gómez & Gabbuti, Giacomo & Milanovic, Branko, 2026. "Historical Social Tables: Advantages, Methodology, and Problems," SocArXiv 5nsqm_v1, Center for Open Science.
    19. Channing Arndt & Kristi Mahrt, 2017. "Is inequality underestimated in Mozambique? Accounting for underreported consumption," WIDER Working Paper Series 153, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    20. Aaberge, Rolf & Modalsli, Jorgen Heibo & Francesconi, Marco & Vestad, Ola L., 2024. "How Business Income Measures Affect Income Inequality and the Tax Burden," IZA Discussion Papers 17458, IZA Network @ LISER.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C46 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Specific Distributions
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:kyo:wpaper:1119. 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: Makoto Watanabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iekyojp.html .

    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.