Appraising cross-national income inequality databases: An introduction

Abstract

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. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R S E R I E ABSTRACTAppraising Cross-National Income Inequality Databases: An Introduction *In response to a growing interest in comparing inequality levels and trends across countries, a number of cross-national inequality databases are now available. These databases differ considerably in purpose, coverage, data sources, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and quality of documentation. A special issue of the Journal of Economic Inequality, which this paper introduces, is devoted to an assessment of the merits and shortcomings of eight such databases. Five of these sets are microdata-based: CEPALSTAT, Income Distribution Database (IDD), LIS, PovcalNet, and Socio-Economic Database for Latin America and the Caribbean (SEDLAC). Two are based on secondary sources: "All the Ginis" (ATG) and the World Income Inequality Database (WIID); and one is generated entirely through multipleimputation methods: the Standardized World Income Inequality Database (SWIID). Although there is much agreement across these databases, there is also a non-trivial share of country/year cells for which substantial discrepancies exist. In some cases, different databases would lead users to radically different conclusions about inequality dynamics in certain countries and periods. The methodological differences that lead to these discrepancies often appear to be driven by a fundamental trade-off between a wish for broader coverage on the one hand, and for greater comparability on the other. These differences across databases place considerable responsibility on both producers and users: on the former, to better document and explain their assumptions and procedures, and on the latter, to understand the data they are using, rather than merely taking them as true because available. 2A number of databases containing summary inequality statistics for multiple countries over many years are now publicly available. These cross-national inequality databases are being used by researchers, with increasing frequency, to document global or regional trends (e.g. Atkinson and Bourguignon, 2014;Atkinson, 2015;and Piketty, 2014), as well as by scholars interested in including inequality measures in cross-country regression analyses, either as dependent or independent variables (e.g. Acemoglu et al., 2013;and Ostry et al., 2014).Yet, these different databases are often designed for different purposes, and are constructed in very diffe...

The Determinants of Redistribution Around The World

“…(), rely on the SWIID (Solt, ), a collection that consists both of secondary inequality measurements and of imputations (which, given that multiple imputation is used, contain simulated data). Jenkins (), who compared the two sources, along with the authors of a synthesis paper for the datasets reviewed (Ferreira et al ., ), recommend using the WIID rather than the SWIID. The main reason for preferring the WIID over the SWIID is that the SWIID is extensively based on imputations, whereas with the WIID, users utilize only actual, not simulated, data.…”

“…In fact, Ferreira et al . () and Jenkins (), who have evaluated cross‐country inequality datasets, recommend using the WIID dataset, compiled and maintained by UNU‐WIDER, instead. More recent versions of the SWIID (see Solt, ) include corrections to some of the issues raised by Jenkins ().…”

Redistribution around the world: Causes and consequences

“…He came to the conclusion that the WIID is a reliable source for cross-country work on inequality. He, and the authors of a synthesis chapter for the datasets reviewed (Ferreira, Lustig, and Teles 2015), both recommend using the WIID rather than the SWIID. 5 .…”

“…The data are based on extensive imputations, where observations from the same countries in other years and other countries in the same year are used to impute both gross and net inequality indices for countries without the required data in a particular year. However, others have been very critical of the extensive use of imputations in general and the particular type of imputations the SWIID uses, and caution against using the dataset in econometric work (see Jenkins 2015a, andFerreira, Lustig, andTeles 2015). They recommend using the WIID dataset, compiled and maintained by UNU-WIDER, instead. This paper has three main goals.…”

Fiscal Policy, Income Redistribution, and Poverty Reduction: Evidence from Tunisia

“… Many low‐ and middle‐income countries collect information on consumption or expenditures only (Ferreira et al ., ). …”