Objective Since 2008, the Standardized World Income Inequality Database (SWIID) has provided income inequality data that seek to maximize comparability while providing the broadest possible coverage of countries and years. This article describes the current SWIID's construction, highlighting differences from its original version, and reevaluates the SWIID's utility to cross‐national income inequality research in light of recently available alternatives. Methods Coverage of inequality data sets is assessed across country‐years; comparability is evaluated in terms of success in predicting the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), recognized in the field as the gold standard in comparability, before those data are released. Results The SWIID offers coverage double that of the next largest income inequality data set, and its record of comparability is three to eight times better than those of alternate data sets. Conclusions As its coverage and comparability far exceed those of the alternatives, the SWIID remains better suited for broadly cross‐national research on income inequality than other available sources.
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract Cross-national research on the causes and consequences of income inequality has been hindered by the limitations of existing inequality datasets: greater coverage across countries and over time is available from these sources only at the cost of significantly reduced comparability across observations. This article presents the Standardized World Income Inequality Database (SWIID), which standardizes the United Nations University database (UNU-WIDER 2008) while minimizing reliance on problematic assumptions by using as much information as possible from proximate years within the same country. The resulting series of gross and net income inequality data maximize comparability for the largest possible sample of countries and years and so are better suited to broadly cross-national research than other sources. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.
Objective: This article documents wide-ranging revisions to the Standardized World Income Inequality Database (SWIID), which seeks to maximize the comparability of income inequality estimates for the broadest possible coverage of countries and years. Methods: Two k-fold cross-validations, by observation and by country, are used to evaluate the SWIID's success in predicting the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), recognized in the field as setting the standard for comparability. Results: The cross-validations indicate that the new SWIID's estimates and their uncertainty are even more accurate than previous versions, extending its advantage in comparability over alternate income inequality datasets. Conclusion: Given its superior coverage and comparability, the SWIID remains the optimum source of data for broadly cross-national research on income inequality.
Nearly a half-century ago, E.E. Schattschneider wrote that the high abstention and large differences between the rates of electoral participation of richer and poorer citizens found in the United States were caused by high levels of economic inequality. Despite increasing inequality and stagnant or declining voting rates since then, Schattschneider's hypothesis remains largely untested. This article takes advantage of the variation in inequality across states and over time to remedy this oversight. Using a multilevel analysis that combines aspects of state context with individual survey responses in 144 gubernatorial elections, it finds that citizens of states with greater income inequality are less likely to vote and that income inequality increases income bias in the electorate, lending empirical support to Schattschneider's argument.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.