1. Income inequality and the effect of public policies in the European Union: what happens with enlargement? 2. Inequalities, Employment and Income Convergence: Evidence from Regional Data Papers by: 1. Figari, Paulus, and Sutherland (FPS) 2. Galbraith and Garcilazo (GG) Comments by: Lars Osberg Economics, Dalhousie University Common Focus: Determinants of Inequality within the European Union FPS: impacts of tax/transfer policy on inequality & relative poverty EU15→EU19 GG: pay inequality (within/between regions) & unemployment rates for 187 European Regions 1984-2003. Motivating Concern: “Social Cohesion” & Inequality in a possibly fragile federation A shared problem of EU, Canada & others Quibble: both papers have rhetoric of “social cohesion” but only data is income inequality Is it vertical or horizontal equity that matters more for a sense of common citizenship? FPS: Income inequality and the effect of public policies in the European Union: what happens with enlargement? 15 pre-2004 EU states plus Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia Methodology: EUROMOD static micro-simulation model direct taxes, social contributions, cash benefits simulated in a comparable way using tax-benefit rules in place + info in survey datasets Income Concept & Measurement Pre-Tax Income [1] “market income” = pre-tax gross earnings (not including employer social insurance contributions) + self-employment income + capital income + private pensions & transfers [2] “market income plus public pensions” Adjustments modified OECD equivalence scale top and bottom coded/truncated Eurostat PPP indexes for GDP 5% confidence intervals - nonparametric bootstrap. 1000 for each country & 250 for EU Income inequality before and after taxes and benefits - Gini coefficient 0.60 0.55 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 Market income Market income & public pensions Disposable income Source: EUROMOD EU19 EU15 PT IT PL EE EL ES IE UK HU SI DE FR NL LU BE SE DK 0.20 FI 0.25 AT Gini coefficient 0.50 Diversity within the EU Public pensions play widely varying role in reducing inequality Tax/transfer systems EU-15:Gini (market income→PDI) = 0.50 → 0.30 Reduce inequality to differing degrees Netherlands, Southern European, Estonia & Anglo-Saxon redistribute the least Change inequality ordering inequality reduced by 39% EU-19:Gini (market income→PDI) = 0.52 → 0.33 inequality reduced by 35% Did enlargement imply a “big” change? Income inequality before and after taxes and benefits – Ge(0) & Ge(1) indices 0.70 0.60 0.50 Ge(0) Generalized Entropy Indices 0.40 0.30 0.20 Rankings change market income & public pensions 0.45 EU19 EU15 IT PT EL PL EE ES IE UK BE HU SI DE FR NL SE DK LU AT 0.00 FI 0.10 disposable income Ge(0) – low-end sensitive Ge(1) – more top-end sensitive But not much EU19 inequality > EU15 inequality always Source: EUROMOD 0.40 0.35 0.25 0.20 EU-15 0.15 0.10 0.05 disposable income Source: EUROMOD EU19 EU15 PT IT PL EE EL ES UK IE HU SI FI DE FR BE NL SE LU DK market income & public pensions Ge(0) by 66% Ge(1). by 49% EU-19: 0.00 AT Ge(1) 0.30 Taxes and benefits reduce inequality by ?? Ge(0) by 60% Ge(1) by 45% Sensitivities GINI DPI EU15 Euro 0.31 EU 15 PPP 0.3 EU19 -Euro 0.36 EU19 -PPP 0.33 Top & Bottom coding make little difference Equivalence scale Income per capita or OECD ? – slightly less decrease in Gini Inequality Decomposition EU-15 Essentially all of EU15 inequality in market income + public pensions explained within countries EU-19 More (2-14%) of total EU19 inequality explained by inequality between countries Which tax and benefit components make a difference? Household income composition: whole population 200 180 160 market income social insurance contributions means-tested benefits personal taxes public pensions non means-tested benefits 140 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 EU19 EU15 LU IE NL AT DK BE SE UK DE FI FR IT ES EL SI PT HU -80 EE -60 PL % of disposable income 120 Source: EUROMOD A buried gem! “Overall, market income at 100% of disposable income in Figure 4a means that direct taxes and cash benefits balance each other” Implication: the consumptive activities of the state are entirely financed by indirect taxation Household income composition: bottom decile group 180 market income social insurance contributions means-tested benefits 160 140 personal taxes public pensions non means-tested benefits 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 EU19 EU15 LU IE NL AT DK BE SE UK DE FI FR IT ES EL SI PT HU -60 EE -40 PL % of disposable income 120 Source: EUROMOD “Similar” individuals are not treated “similarly” by the state in EU nations. Does horizontal equity matter for a sense of common citizenship in a European polity? “Similar” treatment does NOT require identical treatment Net Fiscal Residuum similar? “reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation” 36(2) Constitution Act of Canada, 1982 Income poverty rates - Before & after taxes and benefits (Poverty line = 60% of national median equivalised household income) 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% Excl. all benefits(except public pensions) Excl. means-tested benefits Excl. non means-tested benefits Disposable income EU19 EU15 IE PT IT EL ES EE PL SI UK HU DE FI NL SE BE AT DK LU 5% FR 10% Source: EUROMOD Means tested benefits often target poverty gap – but to differing degrees! % Change in Poverty due to Means Tested Programs 90.0% 80.0% Rate FGT(0) 70.0% Intensity FGT(1) 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 19 EU K 15 EU U SI SE PT PL L N LU IT IE U H FR FI ES EL EE K D E D BE AT 0.0% Comments (LO) FPS recognize “rules ≠ reality” UK & other Anglo nations Nontake-up of benefits, evasion of taxes imply EUROMOD = idealized picture Big news 1980+ is the exploding share of top 1% Survey based micro-data can only track trends among ‘the middle 90%’ Can social cohesion survive the increasingly conspicuous consumption of the top 1% ? Quantitative impact & sociological impact? ‘Social Cohesion’ & quantitatively small stereotypes Addition of small, poor nations cannot move aggregate stats much – but can affect politics GG - Inequalities, Employment and Income Convergence: Evidence from Regional Data Focus: relationship of pay inequality & unemployment rates for 187 European Regions 1984-2003 Is there a tradeoff between cohesion and competitiveness ? inequality between 16 industrial sectors in each region & between regions No Less inter-industry pay inequality generally associated with lower regional unemployment Time effects & European Macro-environment Maastricht Treaty (1992) Euro (1998) 4 percentage point increase in unemployment rate General reduction in unemployment Lisbon Treaty (2000) Increase in unemployment Methodology: Theil Decomposition Time series payroll data 1984-2003 Wages & Employment LO: FT or PT? Time period? Wage Concept ? 16 Industries in 187 regions Theil’s entropy measure decomposed into: Between sectors, within region component Between region component Contribute to inequality ‘from below’ or ‘from above’? Within-Regions Between-Sectors Theil’s T Statistic, 1998 Regional Contribution to the Europewide Theil’s T Statistic, 1995 Regional Contribution to the Europewide Theil’s T Statistic, 2000 Between-Regions Component and Within-Regions Theil’s T Statistic, 1998 A Model of Regional Unemployment UN = a +B1Theil + B2 RelWage + B3 GDPG + B4 PopUn24 + Di Country + DjTime Reduced form model of regional unemployment rates 2 ‘supply’ and 2 ‘demand’ variables Supply Demand relative size of regional population of young workers Inter-industry inequality of wages (Theil) in region growth of regional GDP average wage rate of the region + Country and Time specific Fixed Effects assumes common EU business cycle - Coefficient Estimates: Linear Model (1984-2003) Model 1 Total tot_un Beta P>|t| wn_theil 4.326 0.002 pop24 54.715 0.000 relwage -0.084 0.077 g_gdp -10.255 0.000 constant -8.588 0.000 R^2 0.5695 N 1834 Model 2 Male Beta P>|t| 3.806 0.002 48.115 0.000 -0.025 0.615 -10.654 0.000 -8.696 0.000 0.568 1824 Model 3 Female Beta P>|t| 7.207 0.000 72.367 0.000 -0.079 0.276 -7.507 0.003 -11.736 0.000 0.5994 1829 Model 4 Youth Beta P>|t| 12.168 0.000 103.683 0.000 -0.250 0.110 -15.870 0.000 -10.881 0.000 0.603 1791 Model 5 Elderly Beta P>|t| 3.994 0.001 38.898 0.000 -0.031 0.444 -8.863 0.000 -6.246 0.000 0.5356 1833 Relative regional wage rate not significant More inequality between industry wages – more unemployment Country Fixed Effects in European Unemployment 8.000 6.000 4.000 2.000 0.000 -2.000 -4.000 -6.000 -8.000 -10.000 ie at pt nl hu* uk cz* se* gr* be* it de fi pl es Unemployment Time Fixed Effects in European Unemployment 6.000 Lisbon Treaty 4.000 Maastrich Treaty 2.000 0.000 -2.000 -4.000 Euro Single European Act -6.000 Years Total Male Female <25 Yrs >25 Yrs GG Conclusions: “ Positive impact of pay inequality on unemployment suggests that promoting cohesion in the structure of pay in lagging regions could lead to a catching-up process leading to territorial cohesion” Counter to argument that “pay flexibility’ is needed Specific Suggestions: “raising minimum wages, targeting industrial development policies in poor areas, active labor market polices for the unemployed, policies to improve workers’ skills such as on-the-job training, adult education, and assistance programs for people at the bottom” “expanding university enrollments is perhaps the proven effective route to reducing youth unemployment” Comments - LO Specific policies not part of modelling Very much a reduced form model of regional unemployment rates + causal interpretation Is it believable? What is causality? Very large coefficients on regional GDP growth -10.3 % point change U rate (all) if +1% growth GDP Causality ? – is this good news or bad (if true)? Inter-industry wage differentials are small part of level of pay inequality & trend to greater individual earnings inequality BIG NEWS – rising share of top 1% in Anglo nations “Middle 90%” - much less change in income shares but increased residual unexplained variance in individual earnings