Actual and counterfactual growth incidence and delta Lorenz curves: Estimation and inference

Abstract

Summary Different economic growth episodes display very different distributional characteristics, both across countries and over time. Growth is sometimes accompanied by rising and sometimes by falling inequality. Applied economists have come to rely on the growth incidence curve, which gives the quantile‐specific rate of income growth over a certain period, to describe these differences. This paper introduces a mean‐independent analogue, the delta Lorenz curve, which gives the cumulative change in income share up to each quantile. We also develop estimation and inference procedures for both functions of quantiles. We establish the limiting null distribution of the test statistics of interest for those functions, and propose resampling methods to implement inference in practice. The proposed methods are used to compare the growth processes in the USA and Brazil during 1995–2007. Although growth in the average real wages was disappointing in both countries, the distribution of that growth was markedly different. In the USA, wage growth was mediocre for the bottom 80% of the sample, but much more rapid for the top 20%. In Brazil, conversely, wage growth was rapid below the median, and negative at the top. Wage shares fell in the USA up to the 83rd percentile, and rose in Brazil up to the 65th percentile.

Pathways toward Inclusive Income Growth: A Comparative Decomposition of National Growth Profiles

“…Instead, they follow income growth at a given percentile of the income distribution, regardless of which specific households are situated at that percentile. This approach is consistent with prior applications of growth incidence curves (Alderson, Beckfield and Nielsen 2005, Ferreira, Firpo and Galvao 2019, Milanovic 2016, Ravallion and Chen 2003.…”

Quantile treatment effects in difference in differences models with panel data

“…where the last equality holds by a stochastic equicontinuity argument similar to those in van der Vaart and Wellner (2007) or Ferreira, Firpo, and Galvao (2019) and by Lemma B.4. Then the result holds by Proposition 3 and an application of the functional central limit theorem.…”

What’s behind pro-poor growth? The role of shocks and measurement error

“…Second, our results for both the actual and counterfactual mobility patterns have to be validated against the constant distribution and the distribution-neutral growth hypotheses. This inference procedure, based on the KS and CVM tests and recently applied by Ferreira et al (2018) in the context of anonymous GICs, checks whether (i) the actual and predicted income dynamics that we observe for any initial percentile are statistically different from zero, and (ii) these dynamics are not significantly different along the initial distribution, i.e. IGIC and CIGIC are equal to the average growth rate for all percentiles.…”

“…Ferreira (2012) shows that the individual income growth rate can be rewritten as the sum of different components, each of them measuring the impact of a specific determinant, such as changes in either worker characteristics or the return of these characteristics. This approach has been recently applied by Ferreira et al (2018), who estimate a counterfactual GIC to relate the distributional impact of economic growth to changes to the structure of the economy.…”