IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tul/ceqwps/84.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Redistributive Impacts of Fiscal Policies in Mexico: Corrections for Top Income Measurement Problems

Author

Listed:
  • Vladimir Hlasny

Abstract

This study assesses the redistributive impacts of fiscal instruments in a 2014 Mexican household budget survey (ENIGH) correcting for potential top-income measurement problems. We use two correction methods based on within-survey information to re-estimate the redistributive impacts of contributory pensions and cash-like transfers; direct taxes; indirect taxes and subsidies; and in-kind transfers. The two methods are: survey-sample reweighting for households’ nonresponse probability, and replacing of top incomes using synthetic values from the Pareto distribution. This replacing is implemented either on all core income concepts, or on net market income from which it is passed onto other incomes through fiscal rules. These corrections yield higher inequality as measured by the Gini (0–9 pc.pt. increase) and the top 1%- and 10%-income shares (0–5, and 1–5 pc.pt. increases), consistently between the reweighting and replacing methods, and consistently across all income concepts. Moving from pre-fiscal market income to post-fiscal final income, corrections for nonresponse fall slightly, while corrections for mismeasurement rise. Taxable income is subject to the highest inequality, which further undergoes the highest upward correction for top income problems, potentially consistent with evidence of earnings misreporting among the rich. Conversely, nontaxable income has a strong equalizing impact of 3.3–4.5 points of the Gini further accentuated under the top-income corrections. The corrections confirm the inequality-neutral impact of pensions in Mexico, and equalizing impacts of transfers, direct taxes, indirect taxes and subsidies, and in-kind transfers. In-kind transfers, cash-like transfers and direct taxes have the strongest equalizing impacts of 4.7–5.7, 1.6–1.9, and 1.2–2.2 points of the Gini, respectively. Indirect taxes and subsidies are weakly equalizing, by 0.4-0.6 points. Finally, top-income measurement challenges retain their magnitude across the 2010, 2012 and 2014 ENIGH, but household nonresponse becomes more positively selected over time, causing more serious biases.

Suggested Citation

  • Vladimir Hlasny, 2019. "Redistributive Impacts of Fiscal Policies in Mexico: Corrections for Top Income Measurement Problems," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 84, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:tul:ceqwps:84
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.tulane.edu/RePEc/ceq/ceq84.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2019
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raymundo Campos & Gerardo Esquivel & Nora Lustig, 2012. "The Rise and Fall of Income Inequality in Mexico, 1989–2010," Working Papers 267, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    2. Anthony B. Atkinson & Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2011. "Top Incomes in the Long Run of History," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 49(1), pages 3-71, March.
    3. Filip Novokmet & Thomas Piketty & Gabriel Zucman, 2018. "From Soviets to oligarchs: inequality and property in Russia 1905-2016," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 16(2), pages 189-223, June.
    4. Gerardo Esquivel, 2011. "The Dynamics of Income Inequality in Mexico since NAFTA," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Fall 2011), pages 155-188, August.
    5. Stephen P. Jenkins, 2017. "Pareto Models, Top Incomes and Recent Trends in UK Income Inequality," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(334), pages 261-289, April.
    6. Cornia, Giovanni Andrea (ed.), 2014. "Falling Inequality in Latin America: Policy Changes and Lessons," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198701804.
    7. Barbara Castelletti, 2013. "How Redistributive is Fiscal Policy in Latin America?: The Case of Chile and Mexico," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 318, OECD Publishing.
    8. Davidson, Russell & Flachaire, Emmanuel, 2007. "Asymptotic and bootstrap inference for inequality and poverty measures," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 141(1), pages 141-166, November.
    9. Lustig Nora, 2016. "Inequality and Fiscal Redistribution in Middle Income Countries: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru and South Africa," Journal of Globalization and Development, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 17-60, June.
    10. Raymundo Campos & Gerardo Esquivel & Nora Lustig, 2012. "The Rise and Fall of Income Inequality in Mexico, 1989–2010," Working Papers 267, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    11. Stephen P. Jenkins & Richard V. Burkhauser & Shuaizhang Feng & Jeff Larrimore, 2011. "Measuring inequality using censored data: a multiple‐imputation approach to estimation and inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(1), pages 63-81, January.
    12. Cowell, Frank A. & Flachaire, Emmanuel, 2007. "Income distribution and inequality measurement: The problem of extreme values," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 141(2), pages 1044-1072, December.
    13. Filip Novokmet & Thomas Piketty & Gabriel Zucman, 2017. "Appendix to "From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia, 1905-2016"," Working Papers 201710, World Inequality Lab.
    14. Butler, Richard J. & McDonald, James B., 1989. "Using incomplete moments to measure inequality," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 109-119, September.
    15. Nora Lustig & Carola Pessino & George Gray Molina & Wilson Jimenez & Veronica Paz & Ernesto Yanez & Claudiney Pereira & Sean Higgins & John Scott & Miguel Jaramillo, 2011. "Fiscal Policy and Income Redistribution in Latin America: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom," Working Papers 1124, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    16. John Scott, 2008. "Redistributive Constraints under High Inequality: The Case of Mexico," Working papers DTE 441, CIDE, División de Economía.
    17. Anand, Sudhir & Segal, Paul, 2017. "Who Are the Global Top 1%?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 111-126.
    18. Anand, Sudhir & Segal, Paul, 2017. "Who are the global top 1%?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101816, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Oscar Altimir, 1987. "Income Distribution Statistics In Latin America And Their Reliability," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 33(2), pages 111-155, June.
    20. Raymundo Campos-Vázquez & Nora Lustig & John Scott, 2018. "Inequality in Mexico: Labour markets and fiscal redistribution 1989–2014," WIDER Working Paper Series 188, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    21. Nora Lustig & Carola Pessino & John Scott, 2013. "The Impact of Taxes and Social Spending on Inequality and Poverty in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay: An Overview," Working Papers 1313, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    22. Korinek, Anton & Mistiaen, Johan A. & Ravallion, Martin, 2007. "An econometric method of correcting for unit nonresponse bias in surveys," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 213-235, January.
    23. François Bourguignon, 2018. "Simple adjustments of observed distributions for missing income and missing people," Post-Print halshs-01883896, HAL.
    24. François Bourguignon, 2018. "Simple adjustments of observed distributions for missing income and missing people," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 16(2), pages 171-188, June.
    25. Anton Korinek & Johan Mistiaen & Martin Ravallion, 2006. "Survey nonresponse and the distribution of income," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 4(1), pages 33-55, April.
    26. Stephen P. Jenkins, 2009. "Distributionally‐Sensitive Inequality Indices And The Gb2 Income Distribution," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 55(2), pages 392-398, June.
    27. repec:unu:wpaper:wp2012-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    28. Bruno Martorano, 2014. "Pre-crisis Conditions and Government Policy Responses: Chile and Mexico during the Great Recession," Papers inwopa729, Innocenti Working Papers.
    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. Vladimir Hlasny, 2020. "Parametric Representation of the Top of Income Distributions: Options, Historical Evidence and Model Selection," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 90, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    2. Vladimir Hlasny, 2020. "Parametric Representation of the Top of Income Distributions: Options, Historical Evidence and Model Selection," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 90, Tulane University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    fiscal incidence; redistribution; inequality; top income measurement problems; Pareto distribution; Mexico; ENIGH;

    JEL classification:

    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • H22 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Incidence
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
    • N36 - Economic History - - Labor and Consumers, Demography, Education, Health, Welfare, Income, Wealth, Religion, and Philanthropy - - - Latin America; Caribbean

    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:tul:ceqwps:84. 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: (Nora Lustig). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/detulus.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.

    If CitEc recognized a 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.

    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.