Suchergebnisse

It is widely thought that among the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), income inequality has become more widespread over the past decades. The authors show that this image is misleading. The OECD countries remain more diverse in their distributions of labor earnings and disposable income than they are in their distributions of market income. The larger and persistent cross-national variation in the distributions of work-related earnings and disposable income is attributable to the role of political actors (such as unions and political parties) as well as economic institutions. The way in which political parties are able to pursue their goals varies across forms of income. Political parties' capacities to shape the distribution of labor earnings is contingent on the degree of wage-bargaining coordination. In turn, political parties directly affect the distribution of disposable income through their choices about fiscal instruments.

Abstract. This article examines the development of tax regimes across OECD countries in the latter part of the twentieth century. It gives particular emphasis to taxes on labour income. Taxes on labour income represent a major drain on private households. They have become the mainstay of many of these countries' public sector finances. Taxes on labour income rather than on capital appear to be the preferred instrument of finance for those economic and political interests that advocate and support a strong (and thereby expensive) welfare state. There is little 'free lunch' to be had in these welfare states; if anything, 'socialism in one class' seems to be the rule. Coordinated market economies tend to impose higher tax rates on labour because they have higher levels of wage coordination, their governments are more likely to be oriented to the left and their executives are relatively weak in relation to their legislatures.

This paper analyzes the evolution of inequality and its determinants across different forms of income. A number of results emerge from this effort. First, OECD countries have been and continue to be much more diverse in their distributions of earnings and disposable income than they are in their distributions of market income. Second, the larger cross-national variation in the distributions of earnings and disposable income can be attributed to the role of political actors (such as unions and, more importantly, political parties) and economic institutions that allow actors to coordinate their activities. Third, the transmission of cross-national differences in wage inequality into market-based inequality appears to be muted relative to economic and demographic transformations that have gone on within the OECD countries. Fourth, the way in which political parties are able to pursue their goals varies across forms of income. Political parties' capacity to shape the distribution of earnings is contingent on the degree of wage bargaining coordination. Absent coordination between labor and capital, right-wing policy works to modestly increase inequality. Alternatively, the egalitarian efforts of left-wing parties have the undesired effect of raising earnings inequality. In contrast, when labor market actors are able to coordinate, left-wing policy reinforces the egalitarian effects of coordination whereas the impact of right-wing policy is institutionally constrained. In turn, political parties affect directly the distribution of disposable income through their choices about fiscal redistribution. ; In diesem Papier werden die Entwicklungen und die Determinanten der Ungleichheit verschiedener Einkommensarten untersucht. Als erstes Ergebnis lässt sicht feststellen, dass zwischen den OECD-Ländern größere Unterschiede in der Verteilung von Lohneinkommen und verfügbarem Einkommen als in der Verteilung von Markteinkommen bestanden und weiterhin bestehen. Zweitens kann die größere Variation der Einkommensverteilung über die Länder bezüglich Lohneinkommen und verfügbarem Einkommen der Rolle politischer Akteure, wie Gewerkschaften oder, noch wichtiger, politische Parteien, zugeschrieben werden. Auch ökonomische Institutionen, durch die die Akteure ihre Handlungen koordinieren, spielen eine Rolle. Drittens wird die Übertragung von Unterschieden in der Lohnungleichheit auf marktbasierte Ungleichheit von den ökonomischen und demografischen Transformationen verdeckt, denen die OECD-Länder unterliegen. Viertens variiert die Art und Weise, wie politische Parteien ihre Ziele verfolgen können zwischen den Einkommensarten. Die Möglichkeit, die Verteilung des Lohneinkommens zu beeinflussen, hängt vom Grad der Koordination der Lohnverhandlungen ab. Fehlt eine Koordination zwischen den Tarifparteien auf dem Arbeitsmarkt, resultiert aus konservativer Politik ein leichter Anstieg der Ungleichheit. Noch stärker tritt der unerwünschte Effekt, Lohnungleichheit zu erhöhen, bei den egalitären Bemühungen der linken Parteien auf. Im Gegensatz dazu verstärken in einer Situation mit koordinierten Arbeitsmarktstrukturen linke Politikmaßnahmen den egalitären Effekt der Koordination, während der Wirkung der Politikmaßnahmen rechter Parteien institutionell ein Riegel vorgeschoben ist. Die Verteilung des verfügbaren Einkommens wiederum wird von den politischen Parteien direkt durch ihre Wahl der fiskalischen Umverteilung bestimmt.

This paper examines the development of tax regimes across the OECD countries in the latter part of the 20th century. It pays particular attention to taxes on labor income. A number of results emerge from this examination. First, not only do taxes on labor income represent a major drain on private households; they have become the mainstay of many of these countries' public sector finances. Second, taxes on labor income, and not taxes on capital, appear to be the preferred instrument of finance for those economic and political interests that advocate and support a strong (and thereby expensive) welfare state. There is little "free lunch" to be had in these welfare states; if anything, "socialism in one class" seems to be the rule. Third, while the effort at financing the welfare state this way comes at cost in terms of loss in employment, the magnitude of such loss is inversely related to the degree of wage coordination in the labor market. ; In diesem Beitrag wird die Entwicklung der Steuersysteme in OECD-Ländern über die letzten Jahrzehnte des 20. Jahrhunderts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Steuern auf Arbeitseinkommen untersucht. Folgende Resultate können festgehalten werden. Erstens besteht nicht nur der Großteil der Abgabenbelastung für private Haushalte aus Steuern auf Arbeitseinkommen; sie sind vor allem der Grundstock der öffentlichen Finanzen in den betrachteten Ländern. Zweitens scheinen diese Steuern auf Arbeitseinkommen und nicht etwa Kapitalertragssteuern das bevorzugte Finanzierungsinstrument gerade der politischen und ökonomischen Interessenvertreter zu sein, die sich für einen starken und somit teuren Wohlfahrtsstaat aussprechen. Dabei existiert in den Wohlfahrtsstaaten kein sog. 'free lunch', vielmehr scheint der 'Sozialismus in einer Gesellschaftsklasse' an der Tagesordnung zu sein. Drittens lässt sich feststellen, dass diese Art der Finanzierung des Wohlfahrtsstaates Kosten in Form von Arbeitslosigkeit mit sich bringt, deren Höhe sich allerdings invers zum Grad der Koordination auf dem Arbeitsmarkt verhält.

The dominant theoretical approaches in the comparative political economy of the welfare state provide alternative accounts for why some governments spend more on social policies than others. In the first, poor voters seek to increase their current income by taxing the rich, and social policy serves to redistribute income from the rich to the poor. In the second account, voters seek social insurance against future job loss, and social policy serves as an insurance mechanism rather than a redistributive one. Both of these accounts share the assumption that voters can clearly distinguish between the redistributive and insurance elements of public policy and, therefore, that individual-level characteristics (income, labor market risks) systematically shape preferences over social policy. Our goal is to examine the soundness of that behavioral assumption. We do so with a laboratory experiment that involves economic production, voting on taxation and fiscal transfers. We treat subjects with social policies that vary in their level of redistribution and insurance to examine how this impacts their preferred tax rate. We complement the experimental evidence with data from original survey questions that assess voters' knowledge of the distributive characteristics of different social policies in the U.S. Evidence from both settings suggest only marginal support for behavioral underpinnings of the standard insurance model, particularly as the empirical setting more closely approximates the real world. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

Latin America's largest federations have significantly reduced their levels of income inequality in recent years, perhaps reflecting a structural change toward egalitarianism. However, we argue that the political geography of federalism in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico strongly shapes preferences against centralized redistribution likely to promote equity in the long term. While federalism does not necessary lead to lower redistribution in theory, the geographic spread of income and malapportioned political institutions limit egalitarianism in these nations. These dynamics help explain why fiscal structures are distinct in Latin American federations as compared to federations in high-income countries. First, we show that the territorial structure of inequality and malapportionment are associated with lower redistributive effort in the global context and that the Latin American federations have extreme values for both variables. Second, using a new data set of income distributions within and across Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico over time, we demonstrate that the conditions that favor fiscal transfers from the national to subnational governments are consistently strong, but conditions are rarely favorable for centralized policies to equilibrate national income. Unequal income patterns are reinforced by legislative malapportionment, which encourages interregional transfers to regions and limits the political voice of more populated and unequal regions that would benefit from centralized redistribution.

The dominant theoretical approaches in the comparative political economy of the welfare state provide alternative accounts for why some governments spend more on social policies than others. In the first, poor voters seek to increase their current income by taxing the rich, and social policy serves to redistribute income from the rich to the poor. In the second account, voters seek social insurance against future job loss, and social policy serves as an insurance mechanism rather than a redistributive one. Both of these accounts share the assumption that voters can clearly distinguish between the redistributive and insurance elements of public policy and, therefore, that individual-level characteristics (income, labor market risks) systematically shape preferences over social policy. Our goal is to examine the soundness of that behavioral assumption. We do so with a laboratory experiment that involves economic production, voting on taxation and fiscal transfers. We treat subjects with social policies that vary in their level of redistribution and insurance to examine how this impacts their preferred tax rate. We complement the experimental evidence with data from original survey questions that assess voters' knowledge of the distributive characteristics of different social policies in the U.S. Evidence from both settings suggest only marginal support for behavioral underpinnings of the standard insurance model, particularly as the empirical setting more closely approximates the real world.