The increase in incomes of the wealthy should be a policy goal in itself? Most of those who answer yes to this question argue that the increase in higher income can encourage investment, to motivate the most talented or enhance state revenue. The increase in higher income is rarely described as a political end in itself but more often as a means.
In French public debate and I imagine in most other European countries, an end in itself for economic policy seems to be rising incomes of middle and lower classes. However, the indicator most frequently mentioned, growth of GDP (or its close relative Gross National Income), not only takes into account changes in income of middle and working classes but also those of more affluent. Yet if this is indeed the growth of income middle and lower classes is sought, an indicator of insulation income middle and lower classes is expected to judge more accurately the effectiveness different economic policies.
To my knowledge, such an indicator does not exist. Basing myself on the work of Piketty and Saez on income inequality, I created an indicator of income growth of 90% of the population with the lowest incomes, that is to say an indicator of growth excluding the 10% most affluent. I chose to call this indicator the People's Gross Product. The results are somewhat surprising and give another perspective on the economic history of the last thirty years. Having reliable figures on inequality of income until 2006, the study period will be 1980-2006, or roughly-speaking, the quarter century preceding the Great Depression.
To make a small international comparison, I chose six developed countries for which reliable data I: France, United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Italy and Sweden. First compare the evolution of the Gross National Income (GNI) for these 6 countries between 1980 and 2006. GNI is an indicator almost similar to GDP.
Base 100 = 1980, Source OECD 
Source OECD We see that in terms of growth, the U.S. has been by far the most successful between 1980 and 2006 with an increase of 120% of actual income against only 67% France and 82% for Sweden. The performance of the United Kingdom is also remarkable with real growth of 94% over this quarter century. Delivering
but now the same analysis on developments in the People's Gross Product.
Popular Product = Gross Income Available for 90% of the population with the lowest incomes
Base 100 = 1980, Source OECD & Piketty and Saez. For Japan, the SCH represents 95% of the lowest incomes.
Base 100 = 1980, Source OECD & Piketty and Saez. For Japan, the SCH represents 95% of the lowest incomes.
The results obtained are considerably different. The United States no longer ahead but now only slightly ahead of Sweden. The performance of the UK is now comparable to that of France or Japan with a 60% growth from 1980 to 2006 the real income of 90% of the population with lower incomes.
But dig further to properly measure the evolution of income for the vast majority of the population of these countries during this quarter century. The six countries studied had very different demographic trajectories during this period. The United States had a population dynamics, demographics moderate France and the United Kingdom, Japan, Sweden and Italy demographics soft. I compared the change in revenue of 90% of the lowest per capita income during this period. The results are even more surprising.
Base 100 = 1980, Source OECD & Piketty and Saez. For Japan, the SCH represents 95% of the lowest incomes. 
Base 100 = 1980, Source OECD & Piketty and Saez. For Japan, the SCH represents 95% of the lowest incomes. The members are middle class and middle-class Swedish folk who have seen their per capita income increased the most during these 26 years, despite the severe financial and economic crisis through which Sweden in the early 90s. Sweden is followed by the United Kingdom, Japan and France. The United States vie for last place with Italy, however, recognized worldwide for its sluggish growth. In short, for 90% of their population, it was better to be Swedish, Japanese, British and American or even French if they wanted to see its revenues increase. What these figures also show is that most of the growth differences between developed countries is explained by the enrichment of the 10% most affluent. When taking into account only 90% of the lowest revenues, the vast majority of the population, the differences are much less consistent.
0 comments:
Post a Comment