The Fund has recognized in recent years that one cannot separate issues of economic growth and stability on one hand and equality on the other. Indeed, there is a strong case for considering inequality and an inability to sustain economic growth as two sides of the same coin. Central to the Fund’s mandate is providing advice that will enable members’ economies to grow on a sustained basis. But the Fund has rightly been cautious about recommending the use of redistributive policies given that such policies may themselves undercut economic efficiency and the prospects for sustained growth (the so-called “leaky bucket” hypothesis written about by the famous Yale economist Arthur Okun in the 1970s). This SDN follows up the previous SDN on inequality and growth by focusing on the role of redistribution. It finds that, from the perspective of the best available macroeconomic data, there is not a lot of evidence that redistribution has in fact undercut economic growth (except in extreme cases). One should be careful not to assume therefore—as Okun and others have—that there is a big tradeoff between redistribution and growth. The best available macroeconomic data do not support such a conclusion.

/pdf/redistribution-inequality-and-growth-4qzfeyvhw7.pdf

Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth

EU regional policy is an investment policy. It supports job creation, competitiveness, economic growth, improved quality of life and sustainable development. These investments support the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy. The present paper analysis two strategically different options of EU regional policy: place-neutral versus place-based policies for economic development. Our results suggest that in many EU regions the place-neutral policies may no be the best policy response to facing new challenges posed by deeper economic integration and globalisation.

An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations

Será que a desigualdade de rendimentos aumentou durante os últimos tempos? Quem ganhou e quem perdeu neste processo? Este processo afectou todos os países da OCDE uniformemente? Em que medida é que maiores desigualdades de rendimentos são a consequência de maiores diferenças nos rendimentos dos trabalhadores e até que ponto são afectados por outros factores? Finalmente, como é que a redistribuição governamental através do sistema de benefícios fiscais afecta estas tendências?

Book Review: OECD, Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries:

Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff

This paper aims to provide an introduction to the current state of the art of EUROMOD, the European Union tax-benefit microsimulation model. It explains the original motivations for building a multi-country EU-wide model and summarises its current organisation. It provides an overview of EUROMOD components, covering its policy scope, the input data, the validation process and some technical aspects such as the tax-benefit programming language and the user interface. The paper also reviews some recent applications of EUROMOD and, finally, considers future developments.

/pdf/euromod-the-european-union-tax-benefit-microsimulation-model-1rjrku56q1.pdf

EUROMOD: the European Union tax-benefit microsimulation model

The systems of direct taxes and cash benefits in the Member States of the European Union vary considerably in size and structure. We explore their direct impacts on cross-sectional income inequality (termed "redistributive effect" for the purpose of this paper) using EUROMOD, a tax-benefit microsimulation model for the European Union. This relies on harmonised household micro-data representative of each national population together with simulations of entitlements to cash benefits and liabilities for taxes and social contributions. It allows us to draw a more comprehensive – and comparable – picture of the combined effects of transfers and taxes than is usually possible. We decompose the redistributive effect of taxbenefit systems to assess and compare the effectiveness of individual policies at reducing income disparities. We derive results for the 15 "old" members of the European Union and present them for each country separately as well as for the EU-15 as a whole.

Household Incomes and Redistribution in the European Union: Quantifying the Equalising Properties of Taxes and Benefits. ENEPRI Working Paper, No. 48, 4 February 2007

The EUâ€™s Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), launched in 2003, was the first micro-level data set to provide comprehensive data on incomes and other social and economic domains over the enlarged EU. This paper draws on two programmes of research to ask how well the EU-SILC has met the objectives with which it was designed. We focus on three areas: sampling and design, household dynamics, and incomes. In each domain the EU-SILC forms a unique and useful resource, but we also find problems and shortcomings, some of which could be rectified relatively easily, for the majority of countries.

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/65951/1/686613252.pdf

Using EU-SILC data for cross-national analysis: Strengths, problems and recommendations

We compare the distributional effects of policy changes presented as fiscal consolidation measures in nine EU countries that experienced large budget deficits following the financial crisis of the late 2000s and subsequent economic downturn, using the EU microsimulation model EUROMOD. The nine countries, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania and the UK, chose different policy mixes to achieve varying degrees of fiscal consolidation. We find that the burden of fiscal consolidation brought about through the first round effects of increases in personal taxes, cuts in spending on cash benefits and reductions in public sector pay is shared differently across the income distribution in the nine countries. In Greece, Spain, Italy, Latvia, Romania and the UK the better off lose a higher proportion of their incomes than the poor. At the other extreme, in Estonia, the poor lose a higher proportion than the rich. In Lithuania and Portugal the burden of fiscal consolidation falls more heavily on the poor and the rich than it does on those with middle incomes. Including increases in VAT alters the comparative picture by making the policy packages appear more regressive, to varying extents.

/pdf/the-distributional-effects-of-fiscal-consolidation-in-nine-3e3689lww7.pdf

The distributional effects of fiscal consolidation in nine EU countries

We compare the distributional effects of austerity measures that have been introduced in 6 EU countries in the period of large government budget deficits following the 2007-8 financial crisis and subsequent economic downturn. We explore the effects of policy changes presented as â€œausterity measuresâ€ in Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal and the UK, using the EU microsimulation model EUROMOD and the Irish national model, SWITCH. The six countries have chosen different policy mixes to achieve varying degrees of fiscal consolidation. We focus on the first round effects of increases in personal taxes, cuts in spending on cash benefits and reductions in public sector pay across the distributions of household income. There is a range of important conceptual and consistency issues to be addressed when doing such analysis, particularly in a comparative setting. These include how to identify â€œausterity measuresâ€ in a consistent manner, the relevant time periods to consider, the assumptions behind the counterfactual scenarios and the scope of the policies considered. Using a set of common assumptions we find that the burden of fiscal consolidation brought about through changes in components of household disposable income is shared differently across the income distribution in the six countries. At one extreme, in Greece, the better off lose a higher proportion of their incomes than the poor and at the other, in Portugal, the poor lose a higher proportion than the rich. Bringing increases in indirect taxes into the picture can alter conclusions about the overall distributional effect, increasing the cost most for those with lower income and making the overall incidence of the measures more regressive.

/pdf/the-distributional-effects-of-austerity-measures-a-75lf1e5p4c.pdf

The distributional effects of austerity measures: A comparison of six EU countries

The authors use the European Union-wide tax-benefit model, EUROMOD, to establish baseline rates of relative poverty in 1998 for each of the Member States and then explore their sensitivity to (a) an increase in unemployment, (b) real income growth and (c) an increase in earnings inequality. They find that poverty rates are sensitive to such 'macro-level' changes but that the size-and in some cases the direction - of the effect varies across countries. If such indicators are to be used in judging the effectiveness of social policies, it is important that differences in responsiveness are fully understood. © 2006 Oxford University Press.

Horacio Levy

Papers

Household Incomes and Redistribution in the European Union: Quantifying the Equalising Properties of Taxes and Benefits. ENEPRI Working Paper, No. 48, 4 February 2007

Using EU-SILC data for cross-national analysis: Strengths, problems and recommendations

The distributional effects of fiscal consolidation in nine EU countries

The distributional effects of austerity measures: A comparison of six EU countries

The sensitivity of poverty rates to macro-level changes in the European Union