2016
DOI: 10.1257/aer.p20161021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating the Top Tail of the Wealth Distribution

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… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
58
0
3

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
58
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The tails of the distribution could contain measurement errors, as their inclusion causes unpredictable swings in inequality measures which could drive results in an empirical analysis (Brewer and Wren-Lewis, 2016). In addition, wealth measurement at the upper tail of the distribution is biased due to nonresponse and underreporting (Vermeulen, 2016). A crude way to deal with this issue is to disregard the top and bottom 1% of distribution, if included in the primary data source (Mumtaz and Theophilopoulou, 2017) or use surveys that already exclude the very upper end of the distribution (Coibion et al, 2017;Inui et al, 2017).…”
Section: Data Challenges: Measuring Inequalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The tails of the distribution could contain measurement errors, as their inclusion causes unpredictable swings in inequality measures which could drive results in an empirical analysis (Brewer and Wren-Lewis, 2016). In addition, wealth measurement at the upper tail of the distribution is biased due to nonresponse and underreporting (Vermeulen, 2016). A crude way to deal with this issue is to disregard the top and bottom 1% of distribution, if included in the primary data source (Mumtaz and Theophilopoulou, 2017) or use surveys that already exclude the very upper end of the distribution (Coibion et al, 2017;Inui et al, 2017).…”
Section: Data Challenges: Measuring Inequalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7 Due to non-response, the most affluent households are likely to be underrepresented in the HFCS. This issue can be addressed by assuming that the upper tail of the wealth distribution approximates a Pareto distribution (Vermeulen 2016). However, this approach is not applicable for subordinate wealth components such as real estate.…”
Section: Methodology Of Statistical Matchingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, with respect to the top wealth distribution, household surveys have inherent, crucial drawbacks: non-response and under-reporting (Vermeulen 2016a(Vermeulen , 2018. Generally, personal wealth is considerably more concentrated than income and it is difficult to capture the top wealth distribution through small-scale voluntary surveys.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, non-response bias is probable as response rates tend to decrease with high income and wealth, especially at the top (Vermeulen 2018). The bias because of under-reporting is striking when comparing survey data with national accounts (Vermeulen 2016a;Chakraborty and Waltl 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%