IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/elsaab/96-en.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Income Distribution and Subjective Happiness: A Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Claudia Senik

    (Paris School of Economics)

Abstract

This survey summarises the insights that the new literature based on subjective data has shed on the issue of income inequality and income comparisons. It reviews the various channels that relate income distribution and subjective well-being. It considers the welfare effect of income gaps in general, both in terms of the difference between individual income and the income of some relevant other, and with regard to generic income distribution. Concerning income comparisons, the general lesson is that it is useful to distinguish status effects from signal effects: income comparisons hurt, but they may also increase life satisfaction when they mean good news; this is all the more likely as the reference group is made of people who most likely share a common destiny. Concerning income distribution in general, the relationship with subjective well-being is generally found to be negative, with higher societal inequality being associated with lower subjective well-being. There are many possible pathways which may lie behind such an empirical finding. The first type of aversion to income inequality derives from self-centred motives, such as risk-aversion and prospects for upward mobility (POUM). Both stem from a perception of the income distribution as a ladder that one risks falling from or has a chance to climb. Attitudes to inequality are also sometimes found to be based on other-regarding preferences such as fairness and reciprocity, which are generally independent of the income position of the individual himself. An important point is that subjective attitudes are the joint output of preferences and beliefs concerning income distribution in society. The demand for redistribution is higher whenever people have strong preferences for equal outcomes or opportunities but believe that in the society in which they live, outcomes or opportunities are actually not equal. As illustrated by several studies, preferences and beliefs concerning income distribution are context dependent and are thus heterogeneous across countries and groups of the population. Cet article présente une revue de la littérature consacrée au lien entre inégalités de revenu et bien-être subjectif. Elle résume les apports des études empiriques fondées sur l’exploitation des données subjectives disponibles dans les grandes enquêtes auprès de la population. Elle considère l’effet des écarts de revenu au sens étroit – comparaisons avec le revenu d’un groupe de référence – et au sens large – effet des inégalités de revenu en général. Les études relatives aux comparaisons de revenu mettent en lumière deux phénomènes différents : les effets de statut (envie), dont l’impact sur le bien-être subjectif est négatif, et les effets de signal, dont l’impact est positif. L’effet de signal est lié au contenu informationnel du revenu d’autrui ; il est d’autant plus important que les membres du groupe de référence partagent un grand nombre de caractéristiques productives, donc des perspectives professionnelles communes. Concernant la répartition générale des revenus dans la société, les travaux empiriques conduisent généralement à l’établissement d’une relation négative entre inégalité des revenus et bien-être subjectif. Les phénomènes en jeu sont multiples. Un premier type d’attitude vis-à-vis des inégalités de revenus relève de l’aversion au risque ou des perspectives de mobilité ascendante. Dans les deux cas, l’échelle des revenus est perçue par les individus d’un point de vue autocentré, en tant que chance d’ascension ou risque de chute. Cependant, un grand nombre de travaux empiriques suggère également l’existence de préférences concernant le revenu d’autrui. Plus précisément, l’attitude vis-à-vis des inégalités dépend de la conjonction entre les croyances et les préférences des agents concernant la formation des inégalités. La demande de redistribution est ainsi plus forte lorsque les agents expriment une préférence pour l’égalité des revenus ou des opportunités, mais estiment que cette égalité n’est pas réalisée dans les faits. Certaines études illustrent alors l’hétérogénéité des préférences et des croyances selon les pays et les groupes sociaux.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia Senik, 2009. "Income Distribution and Subjective Happiness: A Survey," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 96, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:elsaab:96-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/218860720683
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Conway & Véronique Janod & Giuseppe Nicoletti, 2005. "Product Market Regulation in OECD Countries: 1998 to 2003," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 419, OECD Publishing.
    2. Andrea Bassanini & Luca Nunziata & Danielle Venn, 2009. "Job protection legislation and productivity growth in OECD countries," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 24, pages 349-402, April.
    3. Bertola, Giuseppe & Rogerson, Richard, 1997. "Institutions and labor reallocation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1147-1171, June.
    4. Haltiwanger, John C. & Scarpetta, Stefano & Schweiger, Helena, 2006. "Assessing Job Flows across Countries: The Role of Industry, Firm Size and Regulations," IZA Discussion Papers 2450, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    5. Mortensen, Dale & Pissarides, Christopher, 2011. "Job Creation and Job Destruction in the Theory of Unemployment," Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 1, pages 1-19.
    6. Burgess, Simon & Lane, Julia & Stevens, David, 2000. "Job Flows, Worker Flows, and Churning," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 473-502, July.
    7. Andrea Bassanini & Ekkehard Ernst, 2002. "Labour market regulation, industrial relations and technological regimes: a tale of comparative advantage," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 391-426, June.
    8. Klepper, Steven & Simons, Kenneth L., 2005. "Industry shakeouts and technological change," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(1-2), pages 23-43, February.
    9. Haltiwanger, John C. & Vodopivec, Milan, 2002. "Gross worker and job flows in a transition economy: an analysis of Estonia," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 601-630, November.
    10. John Haltiwanger & Milan Vodopivec, 2003. "Worker flows, job flows and firm wage policies," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 11(2), pages 253-290, June.
    11. Winfried Koeniger & Julien Prat, 2007. "Employment Protection, Product Market Regulation and Firm Selection," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(521), pages 302-332, June.
    12. John M. Abowd & Patrick Corbel & Francis Kramarz, 1999. "The Entry And Exit Of Workers And The Growth Of Employment: An Analysis Of French Establishments," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(2), pages 170-187, May.
    13. Lucia Foster & John Haltiwanger & Chad Syverson, 2008. "Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency: Selection on Productivity or Profitability?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 394-425, March.
    14. Paul Ryan, 2001. "The School-to-Work Transition: A Cross-National Perspective: Corrigendum," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(3), pages 767-767, September.
    15. Eric Bartelsman & Stefano Scarpetta & Fabiano Schivardi, 2005. "Comparative analysis of firm demographics and survival: evidence from micro-level sources in OECD countries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 365-391, June.
    16. Fabien Postel-Vinay & Jean-Marc Robin, 2002. "Equilibrium Wage Dispersion with Worker and Employer Heterogeneity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, pages 2295-2350.
    17. Abowd, John M. & Vilhuber, Lars, 2005. "The Sensitivity of Economic Statistics to Coding Errors in Personal Identifiers," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 23, pages 133-152, April.
    18. Robert H. Topel & Michael P. Ward, 1992. "Job Mobility and the Careers of Young Men," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 439-479.
    19. Jovanovic, Boyan, 1982. "Selection and the Evolution of Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 649-670, May.
    20. John R. Baldwin & Wulong Gu, 2006. "Plant turnover and productivity growth in Canadian manufacturing," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, pages 417-465.
    21. Schivardi, Fabiano & Torrini, Roberto, 2008. "Identifying the effects of firing restrictions through size-contingent differences in regulation," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 482-511, June.
    22. Nicola Brandt, 2004. "Business Dynamics in Europe," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2004/1, OECD Publishing.
    23. Klepper, Steven, 1996. "Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 562-583, June.
    24. Aw, Bee Yan & Chen, Xiaomin & Roberts, Mark J., 2001. "Firm-level evidence on productivity differentials and turnover in Taiwanese manufacturing," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 51-86, October.
    25. Sylvie Le Minez & Sébastien Roux, 2002. "Les différences de carrières salariales à partir du premier emploi," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 351(1), pages 31-63.
    26. Steven J. Davis & R. Jason Faberman & John Haltiwanger, 2006. "The Flow Approach to Labor Markets: New Data Sources and Micro-Macro Links," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(3), pages 3-26, Summer.
    27. Burgess, Simon & Lane, Julia & Stevens, David, 2001. "Churning dynamics: an analysis of hires and separations at the employer level," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, January.
    28. Gomez-Salvador, Ramon & Messina, Julian & Vallanti, Giovanna, 2004. "Gross job flows and institutions in Europe," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 469-485, August.
    29. Etienne Wasmer, 2006. "General versus Specific Skills in Labor Markets with Search Frictions and Firing Costs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 811-831, June.
    30. Helen Connolly & Peter Gottschalk, 2008. "Wage Cuts as Investment in Future Wage Growth," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 22(1), pages 1-22, March.
    31. Steven J. Davis & John Haltiwanger, 1992. "Gross Job Creation, Gross Job Destruction, and Employment Reallocation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, pages 819-863.
    32. Benedetto, Gary & Haltiwanger, John & Lane, Julia & McKinney, Kevin, 2007. "Using Worker Flows to Measure Firm Dynamics," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 25, pages 299-313, July.
    33. Lucia Foster & John Haltiwanger & C. J. Krizan, 2006. "Market Selection, Reallocation, and Restructuring in the U.S. Retail Trade Sector in the 1990s," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 748-758, November.
    34. Griliches, Zvi & Regev, Haim, 1995. "Firm productivity in Israeli industry 1979-1988," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 175-203, January.
    35. Michael Pries & Richard Rogerson, 2005. "Hiring Policies, Labor Market Institutions, and Labor Market Flows," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(4), pages 811-839, August.
    36. Paul Ryan, 2001. "The School-to-Work Transition: A Cross-National Perspective," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(1), pages 34-92, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ifcher, John & Zarghamee, Homa & Graham, Carol Lee, 2016. "Income Inequality and Well-Being in the U.S.: Evidence of Geographic-Scale- and Measure-Dependence," IZA Discussion Papers 10155, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    2. Simone M. Schneider, 2016. "Income Inequality and Subjective Wellbeing: Trends, Challenges, and Research Directions," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 1719-1739, August.
    3. Guven, Cahit & Senik, Claudia & Stichnoth, Holger, 2012. "You can’t be happier than your wife. Happiness gaps and divorce," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, pages 110-130.
    4. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    5. Juliana Londoño, 2011. "Movilidad social, preferencias redistributivas y felicidad en Colombia," REVISTA DESARROLLO Y SOCIEDAD, UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES-CEDE, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    demand for income distribution; income comparisons; income distribution; subjective well-being;

    JEL classification:

    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers
    • H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being

    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:oec:elsaab:96-en. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/eloecfr.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.