Capital Accumulation, Private Property, and Rising Inequality in China, 1978–2015

Piketty, Thomas; Li, Yang; Zucman, Gabriel

doi:10.1257/aer.20170973

Cited by 264 publications

(186 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

149

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The increasingly higher thresholds reflect the growth of the wealthy class and the rise of income inequality in China. According to Piketty, Yang, and Zucman [2019], wealth concentration in China has sharply increased from being close to Nordic countries in the 1990s to a level now approaching the United States.…”

Section: The Hurun Richmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Attention and Auditor Behavior: The Case ofHurun Rich Listin China

Qing

2020

J of Accounting Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adverse client publicity can entail regulatory scrutiny over audited financial statements and impose political costs on auditors. We use the changes in client publicity caused by their controlling owners' presence on the Hurun Rich List (the rich listing) in China to test the hypothesis that auditor conservatism increases with client publicity. Our evidence indicates auditors issue more adverse audit opinions to clients and charge higher fees following the rich listing events. Moreover, we observe that auditors strategically respond to clients with different attributes-for clients whose owners accumulated wealth in a more questionable manner, auditors choose more stringent audit reporting to better defend themselves from regulatory scrutiny; for clients without such attributes, auditors primarily rely on increasing audit fees to cope with any post-listing increase in audit risks. Our analyses also suggest the impacts of rich listings tend to be concentrated among large audit firms with stronger reputation concerns or among engagement auditors with more conservative reporting styles. By showing how auditors manage political risks associated with heightened public scrutiny, we contribute to both the auditing and political cost literature. JEL codes: D72; L82; L84; M42

show abstract

Section: The Hurun Richmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Attention and Auditor Behavior: The Case ofHurun Rich Listin China

Qing

2020

J of Accounting Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Jenkins, 2017, p. 263) An indication of this issue is, for example, the difference in the magnitude of the inverted Pareto coefficient depending on the source that is utilized to estimate it. In Piketty, Yang and Zucman's analysis for China, for example, the inverted Pareto coefficient estimated with survey data is as low as 1.5 or less while it equals 2.5 or more if estimated with tax data (Piketty, Yang and Zucman, 2019).Recall that the higher the inverted Pareto coefficient, the more unequal the distribution. 53 As indicated before, formally, the support between a sample and a true distribution is not the same when !…”

Section: Combining Survey and External Information: Replacingmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…62 Figure 3 presents a schematic description of this method. 63 Figure 3: Combining Surveys, Tax Data and National Accounts: Summary of Steps 60 See, for example, Alvaredo, Assouad and Piketty (2018); Chancel and Piketty (2017); Novokment, Piketty, and Zucman (2017); Piketty, Yang and Zucman (2019). Morgan (2018) and Flores (2019) also apply this approach but use replacing and reweighting methods.…”

Section: Combining Survey and External Information: Replacingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They then apply the semi-parametric approach based on the generalized-Pareto-interpolation techniques to complete the distribution (Blanchet, Fournier, and Piketty, 2017). In the case of China, for example, Piketty, Yang, and Zucman (2019) correct the survey assuming that "… the survey data is reliable below percentile p1=0.9, the fiscal data is reliable above p1=0.995, and … assume that the quantile ratio upgrade factor f(p) rises linearly from f(p1)=1 to the observed fiscal/survey ratio f(p2) between p1 and p2." The authors then apply the generalized-Pareto-interpolation techniques to the corrected tabulations to obtain the percentiles for the distribution of income over the period of interest.…”

Section: Combining Survey and External Information: Replacingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The “Missing Rich” in Household Surveys: Causes and Correction Approaches

Lustig¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The CEQ Institute at Tulane University works to reduce inequality and poverty through rigorous tax and benefit incidence analysis and active engagement with the policy community. The studies published in the CEQ Working Paper series are pre-publication versions of peer-reviewed or scholarly articles, book chapters, and reports produced by the Institute. The papers mainly include empirical studies based on the CEQ methodology and theoretical analysis of the impact of fiscal policy on poverty and inequality. The content of the papers published in this series is entirely the responsibility of the author or authors. Although all the results of empirical studies are reviewed according to the protocol of quality control established by the CEQ Institute, the papers are not subject to a formal arbitration process. The CEQ Working Paper series is possible thanks to the generous support of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. For more information, visit www.commitmentoequity.org.The CEQ logo is a stylized graphical representation of a Lorenz curve for a fairly unequal distribution of income (the bottom part of the C, below the diagonal) and a concentration curve for a very progressive transfer (the top part of the C). ABSTRACTThis paper presents a survey of causes and correction approaches to address the "missing rich" problem in household surveys. "Missing rich" here is a catch-all term for the issues that affect the upper tail of the distribution of income: undercoverage, sparseness, unit and item nonresponse, underreporting and top coding. Upper tail issues can result in serious biases and imprecision of survey-based inequality measures. A number of correction approaches have been proposed. A main distinction is between those that rely on within-survey methods and those that combine survey data with information from external sources such as tax records, National Accounts, rich lists or other external information. Within each category, the methods can correct by replacing top incomes or increasing their weight (reweighting). Correction methods can be nonparametric and parametric. This survey aims to help researchers choose appropriate correction strategies and design robustness tests.

show abstract

“…But the differences are small when viewed from a global perspective, and inequality in China has since caught up; present generations in China and the US experience very similar levels of inequality, see e.g. Piketty et al (2019) and Li et al (2018). 4 The US, with income mobility comparable with selected emerging and developing countries, is notably less mobile than most high-income countries.…”

Section: Income Versus Education Mobilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

China and the United States: Different economic models but similarly low levels of socioeconomic mobility

Weide¹,

Narayan²

2019

WIDER Working Paper

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United States and China are the world's largest economies. Together they are responsible for about one-third of the world's economic output. This paper aims to examine whether the two economic giants are also lands of opportunity where resources are allocated in a way that minimizes unrealized human potential. Our analysis shows that despite stark differences in their levels of development, the US and China report remarkably similar levels of socioeconomic mobility; a level that is considered low by international standards. The US's level of socioeconomic mobility has historically been low, with little to no progress over the last three to four decades. Before it embarked on its transition from planned to market economy, socioeconomic mobility was relatively high in China. However, as it underwent a period of rapid economic growth, China's socioeconomic mobility declined significantly. The paper concludes that the world's two major economic powers have converged to a low level of socioeconomic mobility where talent from disadvantaged backgrounds is excluded from opportunities, plausibly implying unrealized human potential and misallocation of resources on a large scale.

show abstract

Capital Accumulation, Private Property, and Rising Inequality in China, 1978–2015

Cited by 264 publications

References 64 publications

Public Attention and Auditor Behavior: The Case ofHurun Rich Listin China

Public Attention and Auditor Behavior: The Case ofHurun Rich Listin China

The “Missing Rich” in Household Surveys: Causes and Correction Approaches

China and the United States: Different economic models but similarly low levels of socioeconomic mobility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About