EconStor >
Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (IZA), Bonn >
IZA Discussion Papers, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (IZA) >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10419/36109
  

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFrick, Joachim R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGrabka, Markus M.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-02-04en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-07-07T12:06:07Z-
dc.date.available2010-07-07T12:06:07Z-
dc.date.issued2009en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/36109-
dc.description.abstractUsing representative and consistent microdata from the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) from 1985-2007, we illustrate that capital income (CI = return on financial investments) and imputed rent (IR = return on investments in owner-occupied housing) have become increasingly important sources of economic inequality in Germany over the last two decades. Whereas the operationalization of CI in this paper is based on monetary returns on financial investments only, our definition of IR follows a regulation by the European Commission, (EC) which is currently being used to harmonize income measurement for the European Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) in Europe. While both of these components represent some kind of return on alternative private investments, our results indicate that they do not coincide in their impacts on income inequality and poverty. In line with the literature, net IR as defined according to the EC regulation tends to exert a dampening effect on inequality and relative poverty, very much driven by the increasing share of outright ownership among the elderly. On the other hand, inequality is boosted by CI especially when looking at the upper tail of the income distribution. As the German public pension scheme gradually loses its ability to maintain people's living standards into retirement, we find these effects to increase over time. The analyses presented here, exemplified for Germany, make a clear case for the joint consideration of all components of private investment income for the purpose of welfare analysis, be they of a monetary or non-monetary nature. This appears to be relevant in at least three dimensions of comparative research: (1) across time; (2) across space, regions, welfare regimes; (3) across the individual life course, thus analyzing the impact of investment income on intrapersonal mobility patterns.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherIZA Bonnen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesIZA Discussion Papers 4634en_US
dc.subject.jelD31en_US
dc.subject.jelD33en_US
dc.subject.jelI31en_US
dc.subject.ddc330en_US
dc.subject.keywordIncome inequalityen_US
dc.subject.keyworddecompositionen_US
dc.subject.keywordcapital incomeen_US
dc.subject.keywordimputed renten_US
dc.subject.keywordSOEPen_US
dc.subject.stwEinkommensverteilungen_US
dc.subject.stwKapitalertragen_US
dc.subject.stwWohneigentumen_US
dc.subject.stwBodenrenteen_US
dc.subject.stwDekompositionsverfahrenen_US
dc.subject.stwDeutschlanden_US
dc.titleAccounting for imputed and capital income flows in income inequality analysesen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
dc.identifier.ppn617851174en_US
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen-
Appears in Collections:IZA Discussion Papers, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (IZA)
Publikationen von Forscherinnen und Forschern des DIW

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
617851174.pdf214.04 kBAdobe PDF
No. of Downloads: Counter Stats
Show simple item record
Download bibliographical data as: BibTeX

Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.