Home > The Economy > Graph of the week: GINI index for 17 countries since WWII

Graph of the week: GINI index for 17 countries since WWII

 

Source: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/

About these ads
Categories: The Economy
  1. September 30, 2010 at 12:36 pm | #1

    The graph is a bit more legible here: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread614353/pg1

    … about 2/3 down the page. Not sure what to say about the “X-Files” nature of the hosting website…

  2. Travis Fast
    September 30, 2010 at 2:21 pm | #2

    Why don’t you just pull the data from Luxembourg Income Study. The Canadian plot looks wrong.

  3. Alice
    October 1, 2010 at 10:21 am | #3

    So does the Australian plot look wrong.

  4. Norwegian Guy
    October 1, 2010 at 8:51 pm | #4

    The data from Norway looks strange. Inequality in Norway has been rising for the last three decades or so. I’m pretty sure the same is the case in Sweden too.

  5. Merijn Knibbe
    October 2, 2010 at 2:47 pm | #5

    Luxemburg Income Study information can be found on:

    http://www.lisproject.org/key-figures/key-figures.htm

    The lay out will be horrible, but some of this information is provided below, which does indicate that there are differences between the graph (which however often runs only till about 1995!)and the LIS data. The main conclusions:

    A. Anglo-Saxon ineuqality increased much more than inequality in Europe
    B. Despite this rise, inequality in latin America and Russia is still much higher than even in the USA (though this last country seems to aquire more and more ‘Latin’ traits)
    C. Transition country information is mixed.

    Important to note: many transition countries suffered a massive amount of job losses after about 1990 and are only quite recently recovering from this; Gini indices are often only calculated for those people with an income. According to my data, the USA and the U.K. did not do particularly well with regard to jobs or production during the last decades. Total factor productivity seems to have increased somewhat faster in these countries – though this seems not to have been caused by additional productive investment but by laying off labor.

    The important question: did inequality rise because of historical developments, or because of policies aimed at increasing inequality? On this, of course: John Schmitt, “Inequality as Policy: The United States Since 1979”, real-world economics review, issue no. 51, 1 December 2009, pp. 2-9, http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue51/Schmitt51.pdf

    Gini Coefficient
    Australia Austria Belgium Canada Taiwan Denmark Finland

    1971 0,316
    1972
    1973
    1974
    1975 0,289
    1976
    1977
    1978
    1979
    1980
    1981 0,281 0,284 0,267
    1982
    1983
    1984
    1985 0,292 0,227 0,269
    1986
    1987 0,227 0,283 0,254 0,209
    1988 0,232
    1989 0,304
    1990
    1991 0,281 0,271 0,210
    1992 0,224 0,236
    1993
    1994 0,280 0,284
    1995 0,308 0,277 0,266 0,277 0,218 0,217
    1996
    1997 0,266 0,250 0,291 0,287
    1998 0,311
    1999
    2000 0,257 0,279 0,315 0,289 0,225 0,246
    2001 0,317
    2002
    2003 0,312
    2004 0,269 0,318 0,228 0,252
    2005 0,305

    France Germany Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Mexico

    1971
    1972
    1973 0,271
    1974
    1975
    1976
    1977
    1978 0,264
    1979 0,293 0,303
    1980
    1981 0,288 0,244
    1982
    1983 0,260
    1984 0,298 0,268 0,445
    1985
    1986 0,308 0,306
    1987 0,328 0,332
    1988
    1989 0,287 0,257 0,303 0,466
    1990
    1991 0,323 0,290
    1992 0,305 0,485
    1993 0,339
    1994 0,288 0,273 0,283 0,333 0,495
    1995 0,336 0,338
    1996 0,325 0,477
    1997 0,313 0,336
    1998 0,346 0,492
    1999 0,292
    2000 0,278 0,275 0,333 0,491
    2001 0,346
    2002 0,471
    2003
    2004 0,278 0,338 0,458
    2005 0,289 0,370

    Netherl. Poland Russia Spain U.K. USA

    1971
    1972
    1973
    1974 0,268 0,318
    1975
    1976
    1977
    1978
    1979 0,270 0,301
    1980 0,318
    1981
    1982
    1983 0,260
    1984
    1985
    1986 0,271 0,303 0,335
    1987 0,256
    1988
    1989
    1990 0,303
    1991 0,266 0,336 0,338
    1992 0,274 0,395
    1993
    1994 0,257 0,339 0,355
    1995 0,318 0,447 0,353 0,344
    1996
    1997 0,372
    1998
    1999 0,231 0,289 0,347
    2000 0,434 0,336 0,368
    2001
    2002
    2003
    2004 0,315 0,345 0,372

  6. Merijn Knibbe
    October 2, 2010 at 2:49 pm | #6

    The lay out is even more horrible than I expected, please consult the Excel file on the LIS website mentioned above.

  7. Alice
    October 4, 2010 at 6:12 am | #7

    The gini on its own is a notoriously fickle measure.

  8. Jon Cloke
    December 28, 2010 at 10:32 pm | #8

    Kind of interesting but one must surely be wary about reading too much into it… I mean, can you really measure the gini coefficient for China accurately? Are we really expected to believe that in Mexicothe gini coefficient is improving steadily, in the middle of the virtual dissolution of the state outside Mexico City and the awful social destruction going on there at the moment?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,506 other followers