Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography

[Author’s Name]

Annotated Bibliography

Thomas Piketty, E. S. (2003, February 1). Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–1998. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1-41. DOI:10.1162/00335530360535135

The author Thomas, along with his fellow researcher, Emanuel, in their research paper, discussed the income and wages from the year 1913 to the year 1998 in the US. In their research, the authors utilized the Kuznet’s approach that is used to determine the income gap. The tax data is collected to depict what share of the income goes to the top one percent only. After analyzing the tax data along with considering the recession period in 1944 and 2008, results revealed that in 1928, the quarter of the total wealth belonged to the top one percent and by the year 2012, more than one-third of the total wealth was owned by the top one percent.

Frank, M. W. (2009). Inequality and growth in the United States: Evidence from a new state‐level panel of income inequality measures. Economic Inquiry, 47(1), 55-68.

The author, Mark in his research paper, explored the relationship between long-term inequality and its adverse effects on the growth of economy and society progress. According to the author, corruption is the root cause of income inequality. The author used a rich panel of annual income inequality measures of 48 states. The results revealed that measures of inequality are constructed only by tax filing data that was available in the IRS. However, the new inequality panel proposed in the paper, consists of both comprehensiveness and flexibility that aids in evaluating the income inequality based on tax filing data. The results revealed that higher income inequality results in lowering the growth of a nation’s economy that further places a nation at a risk of financial instability that hinders the country’s success.

Balcilar, M., Saint Akadiri, S., Gupta, R., & Miller, S. M. (2019). Partisan Conflict and Income Inequality in the United States: A Nonparametric Causality-in-Quantiles Approach. Social Indicators Research, 142(1), 65-82.

The author Mehmet, along with his fellow researchers, discussed in his research paper that globalization is the major cause of income inequality. This is because many manufacturers establish industries in regions where they are sure that they will get cheap labor thus making unemployment common in their own country. The author further discussed that an increase in wealth confers political power that further allows the economic winner to reward himself through interfering in government policies. The author also identified that lack of education as another reason for income inequality.

Castelló, A., & Doménech, R. (2002). Human capital inequality and economic growth: some new evidence. The economic journal, 112(478), C187-C200.

The author, Amparo, along with his fellow researchers, provided a new measure of human capital inequality for a broad panel of countries. The author discussed that countries where there is inequality in the distribution, depict lower investment rates than the countries where there is less inequality. The author further discussed that many countries in the world have reduced the inequality in human capital and there should be a way to measure human capital to provide robust results rather than using the typical inequality measures for estimating standard growth and investments.

Roex, K. L., Huijts, T., & Sieben, I. (2019). Attitudes towards income inequality:‘Winners’ versus ‘losers’ of the perceived meritocracy. Acta Sociologica, 62(1), 47-63.

The author, Karlijin, along with his fellow researchers, discussed in their research paper that income inequality adversely affects the people who are in a lower position as compared to the people in higher social positions. To test this hypothesis, the authors conducted a survey. For this purpose, data was collected from the International Social Survey Programme regarding social inequality. The results revealed that meritocratic perception is still prevalent in our society and social strata indeed influence the attitude towards income inequalities.

Gyimah-Brempong, K. (2002). Corruption, economic growth, and income inequality in Africa. Economics of Governance, 3(3), 183-209.

The author, Kwabena, in his research paper, discussed that corruption is the reason for income inequalities and therefore, hinders the economic growth of any country. According to the author, corruption can result in decreased investment in physical capital. The author analyzed the GDP rates of African countries and discussed that a unit increase in corruption can reduce the GDP per capita income to 0.39 - 0.41 percentage points per year. Additionally, corruption can negatively affect poor people.

Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lochner, K., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997). Social capital, income inequality, and mortality. American journal of public health, 87(9), 1491-1498.

A study was conducted by I. Kawachi on social capital, income inequality, and mortality. The research has significantly associated income inequality with mortality. It was postulated, in the research, that income disparity is connected to a decrease in communal consistency. This is ultimately linked with disinvestment in social capital that amplified mortality rates. It was a cross-sectional study in which data was collected from 39 states. It was evaluated that mortality rates are strongly correlated with income inequality with a proportion of (r = -46 and r = .76), with capital group membership and lack of social trust respectively.

Voitchovsky, S. (2005). Does the profile of income inequality matter for economic growth?. Journal of Economic growth, 10(3), 273-296.

The study performed by Sarah Voitchovsky has proposed that there is a strong link between income distribution and economic growth. The study was based on a statistical analysis of inequality on growth, and related complex factors were evaluated and analysis was performed using statistical methods. The study has utilized a Luxembourg income Study for comparing data. The research has assessed the distribution of income as an important factor for economic growth. The conclusions highlight possible limitations of an examination of growth influenced by income distribution utilizing a solitary inequality measurement.