\n

\n \n 2023\n \n \n (5)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Monetary Policy and Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Andersen, A. L.; Johannesen, N.; Jørgensen, M.; and Peydró, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Journal of Finance. July 2023.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Monetary$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 7 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Andersenetal2023,\n  title = {Monetary Policy and Inequality},\n  author = {Andersen, Asger Lau and Johannesen, Niels and J{\\o}rgensen, Mia and Peydr{\\'o}, Jos{\\'e}-Luis},\n  year = {2023},\n  month = jul,\n  journal = {The Journal of Finance},\n  doi = {10.1111/jofi.13262},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13262},\n  abstract = {We analyze the distributional effects of monetary policy on income, wealth, and consumption. We use administrative household-level data covering the entire population in Denmark over the period 1987 to 2014 and exploit a long-standing currency peg as a source of exogenous variation in monetary policy. We find that gains from softer monetary policy in terms of income, wealth, and consumption are monotonically increasing in ex ante income. The distributional effects reflect systematic differences in exposure to the various channels of monetary policy, especially nonlabor channels (e.g., leverage and risky assets). Our estimates imply that softer monetary policy increases income inequality.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality Dynamics in Europe and the United States: Understanding the Determinants.\n \n \n\n\n \n Blanchet, T.; and Martínez-Toledano, Clara\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Monetary Economics, 133: 25–43. January 2023.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 26 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{BlanchetMartinez-Toledano2023,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality Dynamics in {{Europe}} and the {{United States}}: Understanding the Determinants},\n  author = {Blanchet, Thomas and {Mart{\\'i}nez-Toledano}, Clara},\n  year = {2023},\n  month = jan,\n  journal = {Journal of Monetary Economics},\n  volume = {133},\n  pages = {25--43},\n  doi = {10.1016/j.jmoneco.2022.11.010},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2022.11.010},\n  urldate = {2023-10-17},\n  abstract = {This paper studies the interaction between the long-term dynamics of aggregate household wealth and the wealth distribution in Europe and the United States. We do so by building the first Distributional Wealth Accounts for Europe, including households' assets, liabilities, investment flows, and the wealth distribution for most European countries from 1970\\textendash 2020. We find that although aggregate household wealth to income ratios have followed a similar increasing pattern in both Europe and the United States since 1970, wealth concentration has increased much faster in the United States. Using wealth accumulation decompositions and counterfactual simulations, we show that the weaker rise in labor income inequality and the stronger rise in house prices relative to financial assets in Europe versus the United States appear to explain why Europe has experienced a more moderate rise in wealth concentration since the mid-1980s.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Women in the Global Super Rich. An Analysis of the Forbes World's Billionaires List, 2010– 2023.\n \n \n\n\n \n Ischinsky, E.; and Tisch, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Australian Feminist Studies. August 2023.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Women$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{IschinskyTisch2023,\n  title = {Women in the Global Super Rich. {{An}} Analysis of the {{Forbes}} World's Billionaires List, 2010\\textendash 2023},\n  author = {Ischinsky, Emma and Tisch, Daria},\n  year = {2023},\n  month = aug,\n  journal = {Australian Feminist Studies},\n  doi = {10.1080/08164649.2023.2243649},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2023.2243649},\n  abstract = {Although wealth concentration and large fortunes have attracted increased scholarly attention in recent decades, this work has been largely gender-blind. This study examines changes in the gender composition of global billionaires over the last 14 years (Forbes world's billionaires list, 2010 \\textendash{} 2023) and asks how male and female billionaires differ in their likelihood to perpetuate their billionaire status. Between 2010 and 2023, we find a modest increase in the percentage share of female billionaires, from 9.0 to 12.8 percent. While the share of female self-made billionaires more than doubled, the share of female billionaire heirs increased only by 43 percent during the observed period, highlighting the importance to differentiate between the source of billionaires' wealth when studying gender differences. To examine differences in the long-term perpetuation of billionaire fortunes by gender and source of wealth of billionaires, we apply survival analyses. We find that men stay on the Forbes list significantly longer than women. Overall, this study contributes to the literature on gender wealth inequalities by showing how billionaires' wealth is structured by gender.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Quantitative Easing in the Euro Area: Implications for Income and Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Stojanović, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 760, CERGE-EI, August 2023.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Quantitative$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 7 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{Stojanovic2023,\n  type = {Working {{Paper Series}}},\n  title = {Quantitative Easing in the Euro Area: Implications for Income and Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Stojanovi{\\'c}, Du{\\v s}an},\n  year = {2023},\n  month = aug,\n  number = {760},\n  institution = {{CERGE-EI}},\n  url = {https://www.cerge-ei.cz/pdf/wp/Wp760.pdf},\n  urldate = {2023-08-29},\n  abstract = {This study examines how and to what extent quantitative easing of the ECB affects household income and wealth inequality in the euro area. Previous theoretical models have investigated the dynamics of inequality measures through differential access of households to financial/capital market (the portfolio rebalancing channel), neglecting the labor market differential (the earnings heterogeneity channel). Although the portfolio rebalancing channel may provide insight into wealth inequality and non-labor income inequality, this is not the case with labor (and thus total) income inequality. To be in line with the empirical evidence on labor income inequality, this study also considers segmented labor market on the basis of capital-skill complementarity in production and asymmetric real wage rigidities. When only financial market segmentation is considered, the quantitative results indicate a drop in total income inequality that is diminished over time, while wealth inequality experiences a rise that gradually becomes weaker. The introduction of the segmented labor market significantly mitigates the observed drop in total income inequality, while a rise in wealth inequality is largely amplified. Given the possible broadening of the ECB's mandate towards distributional issues in the future, the analysis of segmented labor and financial markets can be more beneficial to the ECB as it provides a clearer picture of the inequality effects.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Top Wealth and Its Historical Origins: Identifying Entrenched Fortunes by Linking Rich Lists over 100 Years.\n \n \n\n\n \n Tisch, D.; and Ischinsky, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Socius, 9. September 2023.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Top$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 7 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{TischIschinsky2023,\n  title = {Top Wealth and Its Historical Origins: Identifying Entrenched Fortunes by Linking Rich Lists over 100 Years},\n  author = {Tisch, Daria and Ischinsky, Emma},\n  year = {2023},\n  month = sep,\n  journal = {Socius},\n  volume = {9},\n  doi = {10.1177/23780231231192774},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231231192774},\n  abstract = {The authors examine the historical origins of Germany's 1,032 largest fortunes. The innovation of this research is to link a rich list from 2019 with rich lists from 1913 and genealogical data provided in Wikidata. The authors find a remarkable historical continuity of large fortunes despite two world wars, the Great Depression, regime changes, and different currency reforms. One third of the companies associated with today's largest fortunes were founded before World War I. About 8 percent of today's fortunes can be traced back to fortunes on rich lists from 1913. Regression analyses show that these entrenched fortunes rank on average higher on the rich list than fortunes of younger origin. Network analyses indicate that some of today's largest fortunes are intertwined through marital lines, hinting at social closure at the top. These findings indicate that the accumulation and perpetuation of fortunes over many generations is an important feature of top wealth in Germany.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2022\n \n \n (22)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Concentration of Personal Wealth in Italy 1995– 2016.\n \n \n\n\n \n Acciari, P.; Alvaredo, F.; and Morelli, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2022.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ file\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 11 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Acciarietal2022,\n  title = {The Concentration of Personal Wealth in {{Italy}} 1995\\textendash 2016},\n  author = {Acciari, Paolo and Alvaredo, Facundo and Morelli, Salvatore},\n  year = {2022},\n  abstract = {Italy is one the countries with the highest wealth-to-income ratio in the developed world. Despite the growing policy interest, knowledge about the size distribution of wealth is currently limited. In this paper we expand the windows of observation on the distribution of personal wealth using a novel source on the full records of inheritance tax files that we combine with surveys and national accounts, between 1995 and 2016, a period of economic turbulence and structural reforms. Our benchmark results rely on the distribution of the net wealth in the National Accounts balance sheets. Unlike available statistics estimated from household surveys, our results point to a strong rise in wealth inequality since the mid-1990s. Whereas the level of wealth concentration in Italy is in line with other European countries, its time trend appears more in line with the U.S. Moreover, Italy stands out as one of the countries with the strongest decline in the wealth share of the bottom 50\\% of the adult population. The paper also sheds light on the determinants on wealth inequality trends. We explore the role of age and the life-cycle, portfolio compositions, inheritance flows, including its concentration, and taxation patterns as main drivers of the observed trends. A range of alternative series of wealth concentration helps us better understand the role of adjustments and imputations, based on a multi-series approach, i.e., comparing the pieces of information given by different and competing sources.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_file = {Acciarietal2022.pdf},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Pension Reform and Wealth Inequality: Evidence from Denmark.\n \n \n\n\n \n Andersen, T. M.; Bhattacharya, J.; Grodecka-Messi, A.; and Mann, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 411, Sveriges Riksbank, February 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Pension$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 9 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{Andersenetal2022,\n  type = {Working {{Paper}}},\n  title = {Pension Reform and Wealth Inequality: Evidence from {{Denmark}}},\n  author = {Andersen, Torben M. and Bhattacharya, Joydeep and {Grodecka-Messi}, Anna and Mann, Katja},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = feb,\n  number = {411},\n  institution = {{Sveriges Riksbank}},\n  url = {https://www.riksbank.se/globalassets/media/rapporter/working-papers/2022/no.-411-pension-reform-and-wealth-inequality-evidence-from-denmark.pdf},\n  urldate = {2023-02-06},\n  abstract = {A growing literature explores reasons for rising wealth inequality, but disregards the role of pension systems despite their well-understood influence on life-cycle saving. In theory and according to available evidence, both pay-as-you-go (PAYG) and fully-funded (FF) pension schemes crowd out voluntary retirement saving. They differ because aggregate savings decrease in the former but increase under the latter system. Unlike most nations, Denmark has seen a decline in wealth inequality in recent decades. This paper studies a calibrated life-cycle model of Denmark and employs unique registry data to argue that a Danish pension system transition, from a mostly PAYG to a dominant, mandated FF scheme, explains much of this decline.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Anatomy of the Global Saving Glut.\n \n \n\n\n \n Bauluz, L.; Novokmet, F.; and Schularick, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 9732, CESifo, 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 9 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{Bauluzetal2022,\n  type = {Working {{Paper}}},\n  title = {The Anatomy of the Global Saving Glut},\n  author = {Bauluz, Luis and Novokmet, Filip and Schularick, Moritz},\n  year = {2022},\n  number = {9732},\n  institution = {{CESifo}},\n  doi = {10.2139/ssrn.4103945},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4103945},\n  abstract = {This paper provides a household-level perspective on the rise of global saving and wealth since the 1980s. We calculate asset-specific saving flows and capital gains across the wealth distribution for the G3 economies \\textendash{} the U.S., Europe, and China. In the past four decades, global saving inequality has risen sharply. The share of household saving flows coming from the richest 10\\% of household increased by 60\\% while saving of middle-class households has fallen sharply. The most important source for the surge in top-10\\% saving was the secular rise of global corporate saving whose ultimate owners the rich households are. Housing capital gains have supported wealth growth for middle-class households despite falling saving and rising debt. Without meaningful capital gains in risky assets, the wealth share of the bottom half of the population declined substantially in most G3 economies.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality Dynamics in Europe and the United States: Understanding the Determinants.\n \n \n\n\n \n Blanchet, T.; and Martínez-Toledano, Clara\n\n\n \n\n\n\n October 2022.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{BlanchetMartinez-Toledano2022,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality Dynamics in {{Europe}} and the {{United States}}: Understanding the Determinants},\n  author = {Blanchet, Thomas and {Mart{\\'i}nez-Toledano}, Clara},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = oct,\n  abstract = {This paper studies the interaction between the long-term dynamics of aggregate household wealth and the wealth distribution in Europe and the United States. We do so by building the first Distributional Wealth Accounts for Europe, including households' assets, liabilities, investment flows, and the wealth distribution for most European countries from 1970\\textendash 2020. We find that although aggregate household wealth to income ratios have followed a similar increasing pattern in both Europe and the United States since 1970, wealth concentration has increased much faster in the United States. Using wealth accumulation decompositions and counterfactual simulations, we show that the weaker rise in labor income inequality and the stronger rise in house prices relative to financial assets in Europe versus the United States appear to explain why Europe has experienced a more moderate rise in wealth concentration since the mid-1980s},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Winners and Losers from Agrarian Reform: Evidence from Danish Land Inequality 1682– 1895.\n \n \n\n\n \n Boberg-Fazlić, N.; Lampe, M.; Martinelli, P. L.; and Sharp, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Development Economics, 155. January 2022.\n 102813\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Winners$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Boberg-Fazlicetal2022,\n  title = {Winners and Losers from Agrarian Reform: Evidence from {{Danish}} Land Inequality 1682\\textendash 1895},\n  author = {{Boberg-Fazli{\\'c}}, Nina and Lampe, Markus and Martinelli, Pablo Lasheras and Sharp, Paul},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = jan,\n  journal = {Journal of Development Economics},\n  volume = {155},\n  doi = {10.1016/j.jdeveco.2021.102813},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2021.102813},\n  abstract = {Pro-market and pro-farmer agrarian reforms enacted in eighteenth century Denmark laid the basis for rural development but we demonstrate that they also resulted in increased inequality. We investigate this using a novel parish-level database spanning more than two centuries. We identify the impact of land quality on inequality following the reforms by instrumenting with soil type and find increases in areas with more productive land. We propose and find evidence for a mechanism whereby agrarian reforms allowed areas with better soil quality to realize greater productivity gains. This in turn led to greater population increases, and a larger share of smallholders and landless laborers. Finally, we demonstrate the impact on the winners and losers: more unequal areas witnessed increases in top incomes, but greater emigration of the rural poor, to the United States in particular. Thus, the losers were able to vote with their feet, in stark contrast to those who might lose from similar reforms in developing countries today.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {102813}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Polarization of Real Estate Ownership and Increasing Wealth Inequality in Spain.\n \n \n\n\n \n Boertien, D.; and López-Gay, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n January 2022.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{BoertienLopez-Gay2022,\n  title = {The Polarization of Real Estate Ownership and Increasing Wealth Inequality in {{Spain}}},\n  author = {Boertien, Diederik and {L{\\'o}pez-Gay}, Antonio},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = jan,\n  doi = {10.31235/osf.io/b4k8t},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/b4k8t},\n  abstract = {Recent research has shown that differences in the distribution of real estate wealth across households are the most important explanation for cross-national variation in wealth inequality. We extend this line of research by quantifying to what extent real estate wealth can also explain increases in wealth inequality over time. Our analysis is based on data from the Spanish survey Encuesta Financiera de Familias covering the period 2002-2017. We show how real estate ownership is becoming increasingly polarized: both the share of households without any property at all as well as the share of households with multiple properties is increasing. Decomposition models show, first, that inequality between home owners and non-owners is becoming a more important component of wealth inequality between households. Second, whereas real estate that is not used by households as their main residence constituted a relatively small part of wealth inequality in 2002, its absolute contribution had almost doubled by 2017. We conclude that household investments in non-residence real estate are an important channel through which wealth inequality increased over time in Spain.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Homeownership Regimes and Class Inequality among Young Adults.\n \n \n\n\n \n Cohen Raviv, O.; and Lewin-Epstein, N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n International Journal of Comparative Sociology. February 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Homeownership$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{CohenRavivLewin-Epstein2022,\n  title = {Homeownership Regimes and Class Inequality among Young Adults},\n  author = {Cohen Raviv, Or and {Lewin-Epstein}, Noah},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = feb,\n  journal = {International Journal of Comparative Sociology},\n  doi = {10.1177/00207152211070817},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/00207152211070817},\n  abstract = {In this study, we merge the literature on homeownership regimes, which focuses to a lesser extent on the consequences of wealth and social inequality, with the literature on wealth and social stratification, which overlooks the importance of homeownership regimes in contributing to those inequalities. Within this framework, we examine to what extent homeownership regimes shape class inequality in homeownership among young adults and the mortgage debt burden that usually accompanies it. We first develop an updated typology of homeownership regimes that incorporates the role of the family via intergenerational wealth transfers (IWT) such as gifts and housing assets. This dimension was theoretically underdeveloped and empirically absent from previous homeownership typologies. Second, we employ this typology to investigate class-based gaps in homeownership and mortgage debt burden within and between homeownership regimes. This is done by pooling data for a total of 20 countries from two sources: the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) 2013\\textendash 2014 (EuroStat) for EU countries, and the Household Expenditure Survey 2012\\textendash 2013 (CBS) for Israel. Using multivariate modeling, we find that homeownership regimes in which IWT in the form of financial support is common practice increase class inequality in homeownership compared to regimes in which IWT of assets is common practice. Contrary to the literature suggesting that liberal mortgage markets advance inclusion, it appears that in the homeownership regime characterized by the most liberal housing finance system (which includes Northern European countries and the Netherlands), class inequality in mortgaged homeownership is the widest but class inequality in mortgage debt burden is the narrowest. Homeownership regimes characterized by IWT of assets (which include Southern and Central Eastern European countries) reveal the opposite patterns. We discuss the implications of our findings for the literature on homeownership regimes and wealth inequality, with a specific focus on young adults.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n In this study, we merge the literature on homeownership regimes, which focuses to a lesser extent on the consequences of wealth and social inequality, with the literature on wealth and social stratification, which overlooks the importance of homeownership regimes in contributing to those inequalities. Within this framework, we examine to what extent homeownership regimes shape class inequality in homeownership among young adults and the mortgage debt burden that usually accompanies it. We first develop an updated typology of homeownership regimes that incorporates the role of the family via intergenerational wealth transfers (IWT) such as gifts and housing assets. This dimension was theoretically underdeveloped and empirically absent from previous homeownership typologies. Second, we employ this typology to investigate class-based gaps in homeownership and mortgage debt burden within and between homeownership regimes. This is done by pooling data for a total of 20 countries from two sources: the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) 2013– 2014 (EuroStat) for EU countries, and the Household Expenditure Survey 2012– 2013 (CBS) for Israel. Using multivariate modeling, we find that homeownership regimes in which IWT in the form of financial support is common practice increase class inequality in homeownership compared to regimes in which IWT of assets is common practice. Contrary to the literature suggesting that liberal mortgage markets advance inclusion, it appears that in the homeownership regime characterized by the most liberal housing finance system (which includes Northern European countries and the Netherlands), class inequality in mortgaged homeownership is the widest but class inequality in mortgage debt burden is the narrowest. Homeownership regimes characterized by IWT of assets (which include Southern and Central Eastern European countries) reveal the opposite patterns. We discuss the implications of our findings for the literature on homeownership regimes and wealth inequality, with a specific focus on young adults.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Correlation of Net and Gross Wealth across Generations: The Role of Parent Income and Child Age.\n \n \n\n\n \n Daysal, N. M.; Lovenheim, M. F.; and Wasser, D. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n AEA Papers and Proceedings, 112: 73–77. May 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Daysaletal2022,\n  title = {The Correlation of Net and Gross Wealth across Generations: The Role of Parent Income and Child Age},\n  author = {Daysal, N. Meltem and Lovenheim, Michael F. and Wasser, David N.},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = may,\n  journal = {AEA Papers and Proceedings},\n  volume = {112},\n  pages = {73--77},\n  doi = {10.1257/pandp.20221058},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20221058},\n  abstract = {We use Danish register data to examine intergenerational rank-rank correlations in net wealth and gross housing wealth by child age and parental income. Our results indicate that gross housing wealth correlations are more stable by child age than are net wealth correlations, which we argue is due to a downward bias in net wealth correlations from transitory debt. Intergenerational housing wealth correlations also are larger for lower-income families, while net wealth correlations do not vary much across the income distribution. Finally, we show that intergenerational net wealth and gross housing wealth correlations move in opposite directions across the income distribution.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Intergenerational Home Ownership in France over the Twentieth Century.\n \n \n\n\n \n Garbinti, B.; and Savignac, F.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Chetty, R.; Friedman, J. N.; Gornick, J. C.; Johnson, B.; and Kennickell, A., editor(s), Measuring Distribution and Mobility of Income and Wealth, volume 80, of National Bureau of Economic Research Studies in Income and Wealth, 13, pages 411–436. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intergenerational$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{GarbintiSavignac2022,\n  title = {Intergenerational Home Ownership in {{France}} over the Twentieth Century},\n  booktitle = {Measuring Distribution and Mobility of Income and Wealth},\n  author = {Garbinti, Bertrand and Savignac, Fr{\\'e}d{\\'e}rique},\n  editor = {Chetty, Raj and Friedman, John N. and Gornick, Janet C. and Johnson, Barry and Kennickell, Arthur},\n  year = {2022},\n  series = {National {{Bureau}} of {{Economic Research}} Studies in Income and Wealth},\n  volume = {80},\n  pages = {411--436},\n  publisher = {{University of Chicago Press}},\n  address = {{Chicago}},\n  url = {https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/measuring-distribution-and-mobility-income-and-wealth/intergenerational-home-ownership-france-over-twentieth-century},\n  urldate = {2022-09-29},\n  isbn = {978-0-226-81604-3},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  chapter = {13}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Intergenerational Wealth Transmission and Mobility in Great Britain: What Components of Wealth Matter?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Gregg, P.; and Kanabar, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 22-01, Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, February 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intergenerational$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{GreggKanabar2022,\n  type = {{{CEPEO Working Paper}}},\n  title = {Intergenerational Wealth Transmission and Mobility in {{Great Britain}}: What Components of Wealth Matter?},\n  author = {Gregg, Paul and Kanabar, Ricky},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = feb,\n  number = {22-01},\n  institution = {{Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities}},\n  url = {https://repec-cepeo.ucl.ac.uk/cepeow/cepeowp22-01r1.pdf},\n  urldate = {2022-02-24},\n  abstract = {The rapid widening of intergenerational wealth inequalities has led to sharp differences in living standards in Great Britain. Understanding which components of wealth are driving such inequalities is important for improving wealth and social mobility. We show the change in the intergenerational persistence in wealth in Great Britain is due to inequality in offspring housing wealth and that offspring homeownership has become increasingly stratified by parental wealth even after controlling for individual's own characteristics. Our findings imply the intergenerational wealth elasticity in housing wealth is set to double in approximately one century and highlight the increasingly important role parental wealth has for determining whether offspring hold and the rate at which they accumulate particular types of wealth.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Nonlinear Effect of Financial Literacy on Wealth: Evidence from Germany.\n \n \n\n\n \n Hou, J.; and Schuler, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Empirica. May 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{HouSchuler2022,\n  title = {The Nonlinear Effect of Financial Literacy on Wealth: Evidence from {{Germany}}},\n  author = {Hou, Jia and Schuler, Sebastian},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = may,\n  journal = {Empirica},\n  doi = {10.1007/s10663-022-09541-0},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-022-09541-0},\n  abstract = {This paper investigates the nonlinearity in the relationship of financial literacy and wealth and addresses the potentially inadequate measurement of financial literacy. Using data from the Panel on Household Finances, a nationally representative survey for Germany, we show a positive relationship between financial literacy and wealth that declines in wealth. Among households with positive wealth, which constitute approximately 94\\% of the observations in the sample and represent 91\\% of the whole population, we find the highest positive correlation at the 5th percentile of wealth. Furthermore, we provide evidence that the current measurement of financial literacy may not be adequate to differentiate among households above approximately the 80th percentile of wealth. By exploiting an additional question on the compound interest rate, we highlight the sensitivity of the coefficients of interest to the measurement of financial literacy.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth as One of the ``Big Four'' SES Dimensions in Intergenerational Transmissions.\n \n \n\n\n \n Hällsten, M.; and Thaning, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Social Forces, 100(4): 1533–1560. June 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 9 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{HallstenThaning2022,\n  title = {Wealth as One of the ``Big Four'' {{SES}} Dimensions in Intergenerational Transmissions},\n  author = {H{\\"a}llsten, Martin and Thaning, Max},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = jun,\n  journal = {Social Forces},\n  volume = {100},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {1533--1560},\n  doi = {10.1093/sf/soab080},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soab080},\n  abstract = {Recent scholarship on mobility has increasingly incorporated wealth. We ask if wealth brings anything new to mobility research or is just a standard socioeconomic status (SES) dimension in disguise. We exploit Swedish administrative registers, which contain rich SES measures over individuals' lives for both parents' and children's generations. Using sibling correlations to estimate a baseline of shared family background influence, we then perform a total decomposition for each SES dimension and their overlaps. We find that wealth is a distinct dimension of SES that is very different from education, occupation, and income. Parental wealth cannot be substituted for other SES dimensions in understanding child's wealth attainment. Moreover, parental wealth substantially moderates intergenerational reproduction in other dimensions: The wealthiest have higher reproduction rates in all child outcomes, but in particular for children's income and wealth. Excluding wealth leads to underestimating intergenerational inequality, aggravated by its qualitatively unique status as an SES resource. We conclude that\\textemdash alongside the SES resources education, occupation, and income\\textemdash wealth emerges as an integral and unique dimension of what we choose to call the ``big four'' of social stratification.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Marry into New or Old Money? The Distributional Impact of Marital Decisions from an Intergenerational Perspective.\n \n \n\n\n \n Häner, M.; Salvi, M.; and Schaltegger, C. A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 2022-11, Institute of Public Finance, Fiscal Law and Law & Economics, January 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Marry$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{Haneretal2022,\n  type = {{{IFF-HSG Working Papers}}},\n  title = {Marry into New or Old Money? {{The}} Distributional Impact of Marital Decisions from an Intergenerational Perspective},\n  author = {H{\\"a}ner, Melanie and Salvi, Michele and Schaltegger, Christoph A.},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = jan,\n  number = {2022-11},\n  institution = {{Institute of Public Finance, Fiscal Law and Law \\& Economics}},\n  url = {https://iff.unisg.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/WP-11-Haener-Salvi-Schaltegger.pdf},\n  urldate = {2022-02-28},\n  abstract = {This paper examines the distributional consequences of marital decisions on family wealth and potential inheritances. We use a large administrative dataset from Switzerland that contains detailed wealth information and enables us to identify spouses and their parents. We find that marital sorting is particularly pronounced at the tails of the wealth distribution. However, the financial similarity of couples' parents is much smaller. The distributional effect on parental wealth is only half the size. We identify intergenerational social mobility as the mechanism behind this attenuation over generations. Consequently, chances of making a "good match" depend much more on one's own wealth than on potential inheritances.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth, Race, and Place: How Neighborhood (Dis)Advantage from Emerging to Middle Adulthood Affects Wealth Inequality and the Racial Wealth Gap.\n \n \n\n\n \n Levy, B. L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Demography, 59(1): 293–320. January 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth,$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Levy2022,\n  title = {Wealth, Race, and Place: How Neighborhood (Dis)Advantage from Emerging to Middle Adulthood Affects Wealth Inequality and the Racial Wealth Gap},\n  author = {Levy, Brian L.},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = jan,\n  journal = {Demography},\n  volume = {59},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {293--320},\n  doi = {10.1215/00703370-9710284},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9710284},\n  abstract = {Do neighborhood conditions affect wealth accumulation? This study uses the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort and a counterfactual estimation strategy to analyze the effect of prolonged exposure to neighborhood (dis)advantage from emerging adulthood through middle adulthood. Neighborhoods have sizable, plausibly causal effects on wealth, but these effects vary significantly by race/ethnicity and homeownership. White homeowners receive the largest payoff to reductions in neighborhood disadvantage. Black adults, regardless of homeownership, are doubly disadvantaged in the neighborhood\\textendash wealth relationship. They live in more-disadvantaged neighborhoods and receive little return to reductions in neighborhood disadvantage. Findings indicate that disparities in neighborhood (dis)advantage figure prominently in wealth inequality and the racial wealth gap.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Monetary Policy and Inequality: The Finnish Case.\n \n \n\n\n \n Mäki-Fränti, P.; Silvo, A.; Gulan, A.; and Kilponen, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 3/2022, Bank of Finland, January 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Monetary$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{Maki-Frantietal2022,\n  type = {Bank of {{Finland Research Discussion Paper}}},\n  title = {Monetary Policy and Inequality: The {{Finnish}} Case},\n  author = {{M{\\"a}ki-Fr{\\"a}nti}, Petri and Silvo, Aino and Gulan, Adam and Kilponen, Juha},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = jan,\n  number = {3/2022},\n  institution = {{Bank of Finland}},\n  url = {https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=4014139},\n  urldate = {2022-02-23},\n  abstract = {We use Finnish household-level registry and survey data to study the effects of ECB's monetary policy on the distribution of income and wealth. We find that monetary easing has a large positive effect on aggregate economic activity in Finland, but its overall net impact on income and wealth inequality is negligible. Monetary easing increases households' gross income by reducing unemployment and leading to a general rise in wages, while at the same time it boosts asset prices. These different channels have counteracting effects on income and wealth inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient and the ratios of income and wealth of the 90th percentile to the 50th percentile. The reduction in aggregate unemployment benefits especially households in lower income quintiles, where the initial rate of unemployment is high. Households in the upper income quintiles, where the rate of employment is higher, benefit relatively more from an increase in wages. An increase in house prices benefits all homeowners. In terms of net wealth, households with large mortgages, in the lower wealth quintiles, benefit the most from an increase in house prices due to a leverage effect. An increase in stock prices, in turn, benefits mainly households in the top wealth quintile.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Income and Wealth Inequality in Hong Kong, 1981– 2020: The Rise of Pluto-Communism?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Piketty, T.; and Yang, L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The World Bank Economic Review, 36(4): 803–834. November 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Income$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Income$ appendix\n \n \n \n $\"Income$ data files\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 9 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{PikettyYang2022,\n  title = {Income and Wealth Inequality in {{Hong Kong}}, 1981\\textendash 2020: The Rise of Pluto-Communism?},\n  author = {Piketty, Thomas and Yang, Li},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = nov,\n  journal = {The World Bank Economic Review},\n  volume = {36},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {803--834},\n  doi = {10.1093/wber/lhac019},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhac019},\n  abstract = {The objective of this paper is to better understand the evolution and institutional roots of Hong Kong's growing economic inequality and political cleavages. By combining multiple sources of data (household surveys, fiscal data, wealth rankings, national accounts) and methodological innovations, two main findings are obtained. First, he evidence suggests a very large rise in income and wealth inequality in Hong Kong over the last four decades. Second, based on the latest opinion poll data, business elites, who carry disproportionate weight in Hong Kong's Legislative Council, are found to be more likely to vote for the pro-establishment camp (presumably to ensure that policies are passed that protect their political and economic interests). This paper argues that the unique alliance of government and business elites in a partially democratic political system is the plausible institutional root of Hong Kong's rising inequality and political cleavages.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_appendix = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/piketty-yang-incomeandwealthinequalityinhongkong19812020theriseofplutocommunismappendix-2021},\n  url_data_files = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/piketty-yang-incomeandwealthinequalityinhongkong19812020theriseofplutocommunismdatafiles-2021}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Heterogeneity in Macroeconomics: The Compositional Inequality Perspective.\n \n \n\n\n \n Ranaldi, M.; and Palagi, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 57, Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality, October 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Heterogeneity$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{RanaldiPalagi2022,\n  type = {Stone {{Center Working Paper Series}}},\n  title = {Heterogeneity in Macroeconomics: The Compositional Inequality Perspective},\n  author = {Ranaldi, Marco and Palagi, Elisa},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = oct,\n  number = {57},\n  institution = {{Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality}},\n  doi = {10.31235/osf.io/fjcxb},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/fjcxb},\n  abstract = {This work presents a framework to jointly study individuals' heterogeneity in terms of their capital and labor endowments (endowment heterogeneity) and of their saving and consumption behaviors (behavioral heterogeneity), from an empirical perspective. By adopting a newly developed synthetic measure of compositional inequality, this work classifies more than 20 economies across over two decades on the basis of their heterogeneity characteristics. Modern economies are far from being characterized by agents with same propensities to save and consume and same endowments (Representative Agent systems), or by the existence of rich capital-abundant savers and poor hand-to-mouth consumers (Kaldorian systems). Our framework and results are discussed in light of the heterogeneity assumptions underlying several types of macroeconomic models with heterogeneous agents (Kaldorian, TANK \\& HANK, OLG, and ABM models). A negative relationship between behavioral heterogeneity and the economy's saving rate is also documented. (Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality Working Paper)},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Has the Global Financial Crisis Increased Wealth Inequality?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Shchepeleva, M.; Stolbov, M.; and Weill, L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n International Economics, 169: 148–160. May 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Has$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Shchepelevaetal2022,\n  title = {Has the Global Financial Crisis Increased Wealth Inequality?},\n  author = {Shchepeleva, Maria and Stolbov, Mikhail and Weill, Laurent},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = may,\n  journal = {International Economics},\n  volume = {169},\n  pages = {148--160},\n  doi = {10.1016/j.inteco.2021.12.004},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2021.12.004},\n  abstract = {This paper examines the impact of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) on wealth inequality. We investigate this question, using data for 143 countries for the period 2010\\textendash 2018. We find no significant impact of the occurrence of the crisis on wealth inequality. We show limited evidence that the severity of the banking crisis affects the change in wealth inequality. Furthermore, the impact of the GFC on the change in wealth inequality is influenced by the country characteristics: the GFC has more enhanced wealth inequality in countries with higher levels of economic and financial development as well as lower initial levels of wealth inequality. We therefore contribute to a better understanding of the real effects of banking crises by providing evidence of the distributional effects of the GFC.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Poverty, Wealth Inequality and Financial Inclusion among Castes in Hindu and Muslim Communities in Uttar Pradesh, India.\n \n \n\n\n \n Tiwari, C.; Goli, S.; Siddiqui, M. Z.; and Salve, P. S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of International Development. February 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Poverty,$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Tiwarietal2022,\n  title = {Poverty, Wealth Inequality and Financial Inclusion among Castes in {{Hindu}} and {{Muslim}} Communities in {{Uttar Pradesh}}, {{India}}},\n  author = {Tiwari, Chhavi and Goli, Srinivas and Siddiqui, Mohammad Zahid and Salve, Pradeep S.},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = feb,\n  journal = {Journal of International Development},\n  doi = {10.1002/jid.3626},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3626},\n  abstract = {This study estimates poverty, wealth inequality and financial inclusion, for the first time, at the sub-caste level in both Hindus and Muslims using a unique survey data collected from 7124 households in Uttar Pradesh, India, during 2014\\textendash 2015. The results confirm the existing hypothesis that Brahmins, Thakurs and other Hindu general castes have higher wealth accumulation, lower poverty and lesser exclusion from formal financial services than Dalits. Exclusion from formal financial services forces Dalits to depend primarily on informal financial sources for borrowing\\textemdash which leads to financial misfortune and further dragging them into a vicious cycle of poverty.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Accounting for Wealth Inequality and Its Change: Decomposition Analyses for the US, 1995-2019.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wang, Z.; Dong, L.; and Li, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Applied Economics Letters. June 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Accounting$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Wangetal2022,\n  title = {Accounting for Wealth Inequality and Its Change: Decomposition Analyses for the {{US}}, 1995-2019},\n  author = {Wang, Zuobao and Dong, Lin and Li, Dongxue},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = jun,\n  journal = {Applied Economics Letters},\n  doi = {10.1080/13504851.2022.2091743},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2022.2091743},\n  abstract = {This paper decomposes the components of wealth inequality and its change in the United States during the period 2006\\textendash 2016. The results show that wealth inequality in the US is extremely high. Real estate, non-housing assets and financial investments are the first three important components of equivalent wealth and overall inequality. Financial investments, real estate liabilities and nonhousing liabilities have positive marginal impacts on overall inequality, while other assets' marginal impacts are negative. Financial investments changes had the largest impact on the aggregate trends of wealth inequality.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Stock Market and the Evolution of Top Wealth Shares in the United States.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wolff, E. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Journal of Economic Inequality, 20(1): 53–66. March 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Wolff2022,\n  title = {The Stock Market and the Evolution of Top Wealth Shares in the {{United States}}},\n  author = {Wolff, Edward N.},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = mar,\n  journal = {The Journal of Economic Inequality},\n  volume = {20},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {53--66},\n  doi = {10.1007/s10888-022-09535-9},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-022-09535-9},\n  abstract = {The mean wealth of the top wealth percentile surged more than two-and-a-half fold in real terms from 1983 to 2019. Changes in wealth over time can be decomposed into capital gains and savings. Capital gains in turn depend on asset price movements and portfolio composition. Using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances, the paper provides a decomposition of the change in the mean wealth and wealth share of the top percentile into a capital gains and savings effect. It then analyzes how much stock price movements and movements in other asset prices individually affect changes in the wealth of the top percentile. It finds that the rise in the stock market accounted for about a third of the advance in the wealth holdings of the super-rich, while increased business values explained about a quarter and gains in non-home real estate about a sixth.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality in Pre-Industrial Europe: What Role Did Associational Organizations Have?.\n \n \n\n\n \n van Bavel , B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Economic History Review. January 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{vanBavel2022,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality in Pre-Industrial {{Europe}}: What Role Did Associational Organizations Have?},\n  author = {{van Bavel}, Bas},\n  year = {2022},\n  month = jan,\n  journal = {The Economic History Review},\n  doi = {10.1111/ehr.13137},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.13137},\n  abstract = {A host of studies on wealth inequality in pre-industrial Europe has recently been published. Out of these, a narrative emerges of rising inequality in a context of emerging markets and growing state taxation, punctuated by calamities. By surveying the available material, this article highlights an element that is less systematically discussed in this literature: the role of associational organizations. They developed less regressive forms of taxation and redistribution, embedded the transfer and use of land and capital in coordination systems that curtailed accumulation, and sometimes even imposed maximums of wealth ownership. The article tentatively argues that the resulting downward effect on wealth inequality was found most conspicuously in societies where associations of middling groups of owners-producers held strong positions in economic and political life, even despite the exclusive character of their organizations. Such societies were gradually eroded in the early modern period, most notably as a result of the emergence of factor markets and state centralization, and the associated processes of proletarianization and scale enlargement. This did not happen without opposition and conflict, however, as the process was sometimes halted and showed distinct geographical patterns, which in turn influenced patterns of wealth inequality.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2021\n \n \n (28)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Intergenerational Effects of a Large Wealth Shock: White Southerners after the Civil War.\n \n \n\n\n \n Ager, P.; Boustan, L.; and Eriksson, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n American Economic Review, 111(11): 3767–3794. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 8 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Ageretal2021,\n  title = {The Intergenerational Effects of a Large Wealth Shock: White {{Southerners}} after the {{Civil War}}},\n  author = {Ager, Philipp and Boustan, Leah and Eriksson, Katherine},\n  year = {2021},\n  journal = {American Economic Review},\n  volume = {111},\n  number = {11},\n  pages = {3767--3794},\n  doi = {10.1257/aer.20191422},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191422},\n  abstract = {The nullification of slave wealth after the US Civil War (1861\\textendash 1865) was one of the largest episodes of wealth compression in history. We document that White Southern households that owned more slaves in 1860 lost substantially more wealth by 1870, relative to Southern households that had been equally wealthy before the war. Yet, their sons almost entirely recovered from this wealth shock by 1900, and their grandsons completely converged by 1940. Marriage networks and connections to other elite families may have aided in recovery, whereas transmission of entrepreneurship and skills appear less central.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth in Spain 1900– 2017 A Country of Two Lands.\n \n \n\n\n \n Artola Blanco, M.; Bauluz, L.; and Martínez-Toledano, Clara\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Economic Journal, 131(633): 129–155. January 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 14 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{ArtolaBlancoetal2021,\n  title = {Wealth in {{Spain}} 1900\\textendash 2017 {{A}} Country of Two Lands},\n  author = {Artola Blanco, Miguel and Bauluz, Luis and {Mart{\\'i}nez-Toledano}, Clara},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = jan,\n  journal = {The Economic Journal},\n  volume = {131},\n  number = {633},\n  pages = {129--155},\n  doi = {10.1093/ej/ueaa103},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueaa103},\n  abstract = {This study reconstructs Spain's national wealth from 1900 to 2017. By combining new sources with existing accounts, we estimate the wealth of both private and government sectors and use a new asset-specific decomposition of the long-run accumulation of wealth. We find that, during the twentieth century, the national wealth-to-income ratio remained within a relatively narrow range\\textemdash between 400\\% and 600\\%\\textemdash until the housing boom of the early 2000s led to an unprecedented rise to 800\\% in 2007. Our results highlight the importance of land, housing capital gains and international capital flows as key elements of wealth accumulation.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n A Tale of Two Countries: The Long Shadow of the Crisis on Income and Wealth in Germany and Italy.\n \n \n\n\n \n Bartels, C.; and Morelli, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Modern European History, 19(1): 33–39. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 9 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{BartelsMorelli2021,\n  title = {A Tale of Two Countries: {{The}} Long Shadow of the Crisis on Income and Wealth in {{Germany}} and {{Italy}}},\n  author = {Bartels, Charlotte and Morelli, Salvatore},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = feb,\n  journal = {Journal of Modern European History},\n  volume = {19},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {33--39},\n  doi = {10.1177/1611894420974299},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1611894420974299},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Testing the Efficacy of Three Informational Interventions for Reducing Misperceptions of the Black– White Wealth Gap.\n \n \n\n\n \n Callaghan, B.; Harouni, L.; Dupree, C. H.; Kraus, M. W.; and Richeson, J. A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(38). September 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Testing$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Callaghanetal2021,\n  title = {Testing the Efficacy of Three Informational Interventions for Reducing Misperceptions of the Black\\textendash White Wealth Gap},\n  author = {Callaghan, Bennett and Harouni, Leilah and Dupree, Cydney H. and Kraus, Michael W. and Richeson, Jennifer A.},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = sep,\n  journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},\n  volume = {118},\n  number = {38},\n  doi = {10.1073/pnas.2108875118},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108875118},\n  abstract = {Americans remain unaware of the magnitude of economic inequality in the nation and the degree to which it is patterned by race. We exposed a community sample of respondents to one of three interventions designed to promote a more realistic understanding of the Black\\textendash White wealth gap. The interventions conformed to recommendations in messaging about racial inequality drawn from the social sciences yet differed in how they highlighted data-based trends in Black\\textendash White wealth inequality, a single personal narrative, or both. Data interventions were more effective than the narrative in both shifting how people talk about racial wealth inequality\\textemdash eliciting less speech about personal achievement\\textemdash and, critically, lowering estimates of Black\\textendash White wealth equality for at least 18 mo following baseline, which aligned more with federal estimates of the Black\\textendash White wealth gap. Findings from this study highlight how data, along with current recommendations in the social sciences, can be leveraged to promote more accurate understandings of the magnitude of racial inequality in society, laying the necessary groundwork for messaging about equity-enhancing policy.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Evaluating Homeownership as the Solution to Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Carroll, D.; and Cohen-Kristiansen, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 2021-22, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, December 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Evaluating$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{CarrollCohen-Kristiansen2021,\n  type = {Economic {{Commentary}}},\n  title = {Evaluating Homeownership as the Solution to Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Carroll, Daniel and {Cohen-Kristiansen}, Ross},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = dec,\n  number = {2021-22},\n  institution = {{Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland}},\n  doi = {10.26509/frbc-ec-202122},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.26509/frbc-ec-202122},\n  abstract = {Homeownership presents an opportunity to accumulate wealth, making it an appealing vehicle for reducing wealth inequality. In this Commentary, we explore the investment side of homeownership. The opportunity for leveraged returns can lead to wealth gains among lower-income households; however, we note that homeownership for low-income homeowners carries three types of risk that are higher for them than for high-income homeowners: location, timing, and liquidity. Thus, policies that incentivize purchasing homes to reduce wealth inequality or close racial wealth gaps should be adopted only after great care has been taken to protect against these risks.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Taxation of Land and Economic Growth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Che, S.; Kumar, R. R.; and Stauvermann, P. J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Economies, 9(2): 61–80. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Taxation$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Cheetal2021,\n  title = {Taxation of Land and Economic Growth},\n  author = {Che, Shulu and Kumar, Ronald Ravinesh and Stauvermann, Peter J.},\n  year = {2021},\n  journal = {Economies},\n  volume = {9},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {61--80},\n  doi = {10.3390/economies9020061},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.3390/economies9020061},\n  abstract = {In this paper, we theoretically analyze the effects of three types of land taxes on economic growth using an overlapping generation model in which land can be used for production or consumption (housing) purposes. Based on the analyses in which land is used as a factor of production, we can confirm that the taxation of land will lead to an increase in the growth rate of the economy. Particularly, we show that the introduction of a tax on land rents, a tax on the value of land or a stamp duty will cause the net price of land to decline. Further, we show that the nationalization of land and the redistribution of the land rents to the young generation will maximize the growth rate of the economy.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n A Quantitative Assessment of the Net Wealth Tax: The Spanish Experience.\n \n \n\n\n \n Durán-Cabré, J. M.; and Esteller Moré, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n CESifo Economic Studies. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 8 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Duran-CabreEstellerMore2021,\n  title = {A Quantitative Assessment of the Net Wealth Tax: The Spanish Experience},\n  author = {{Dur{\\'a}n-Cabr{\\'e}}, Jos{\\'e} M. and Esteller Mor{\\'e}, Alejandro},\n  year = {2021},\n  journal = {CESifo Economic Studies},\n  doi = {10.1093/cesifo/ifab004},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifab004},\n  abstract = {There is growing debate, both social and academic, about the possibility of levying an annual net wealth tax. Until a few years ago, such a proposal appeared difficult to both implement and control, but recent technological innovations, which could greatly facilitate the periodic valuation of wealth, combined with improvements in international tax information sharing could make a ``modern wealth tax'' possible. Nonetheless, a number of challenges regarding its design still need to be addressed. Taking advantage of the Spanish experience\\textemdash the only EU country to levy a wealth tax\\textemdash we undertake a quantitative analysis of various key legal elements of the current tax (exemptions and the common income and wealth tax ceiling) by means of a tax simulator we have developed; we also analyze its redistributive power. Our results show that the family business exemption and the common ceilings are highly regressive. We also assess the effectiveness of alternative reforms with more comprehensive tax bases.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Accounting for Wealth-Inequality Dynamics: Methods, Estimates, and Simulations for France.\n \n \n\n\n \n Garbinti, B.; Goupille-Lebret, J.; and Piketty, T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of the European Economic Association, 19(1): 620–663. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Accounting$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Accounting$ file\n \n \n \n $\"Accounting$ appendix\n \n \n \n $\"Accounting$ data appendix\n \n \n \n $\"Accounting$ 2017 online appendix\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 21 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Garbintietal2021,\n  title = {Accounting for Wealth-Inequality Dynamics: Methods, Estimates, and Simulations for {{France}}},\n  author = {Garbinti, Bertrand and {Goupille-Lebret}, Jonathan and Piketty, Thomas},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = feb,\n  journal = {Journal of the European Economic Association},\n  volume = {19},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {620--663},\n  doi = {10.1093/jeea/jvaa025},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvaa025},\n  abstract = {Measuring and understanding the evolution of wealth inequality is a key challenge for researchers, policy makers, and the general public. This paper breaks new ground on this topic by presenting a new method to estimate and study wealth inequality. This method combines fiscal data with household surveys and national accounts in order to provide annual wealth distribution series, with detailed breakdowns by percentiles, age, and assets. Using the case of France as an illustration, we show that the resulting series can be used to better analyze the evolution and the determinants of wealth-inequality dynamics over the 1970\\textendash 2014 period. We show that the decline in wealth inequality ends in the early 1980s, marking the beginning of a rise in the top 1\\% wealth share, though with significant fluctuations due largely to asset price movements. Rising inequality in savings rates coupled with highly stratified rates of returns has led to rising wealth concentration in spite of the opposing effect of house price increases. We develop a simple simulation model highlighting how changes in the combination of unequal savings rates, rates of return, and labor earnings that occurred in the early 1980s generated large multiplicative effects that led to radically different steady-state levels of wealth inequality. Taking advantage of the joint distribution of income and wealth, we show that top wealth holders are almost exclusively top capital earners, and increasingly fewer are made up of top labor earners; it has become increasingly difficult in recent decades to access top wealth groups with one's labor income only.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_file = {Garbintietal2021.pdf},\n  url_appendix = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/garbinti-goupillelebret-piketty-accountingforwealthinequalitydynamicsmethodsestimatesandsimulationsforfranceappendix-2020},\n  url_data_appendix = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/garbinti-goupillelebret-piketty-accountingforwealthinequalitydynamicsmethodsestimatesandsimulationsforfrancedataappendix-2021},\n  url_2017_online_appendix = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/garbinti-goupillelebret-piketty-accountingforwealthinequalitydynamicsmethodsestimatesandsimulationsforfrance18002014appendix-2017}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Intergenerational Homeownership in France over the 20th Century.\n \n \n\n\n \n Garbinti, B.; and Savignac, F.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 808, Banque De France, March 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intergenerational$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{GarbintiSavignac2021,\n  type = {Working {{Paper}}},\n  title = {Intergenerational Homeownership in {{France}} over the 20th Century},\n  author = {Garbinti, Bertrand and Savignac, Fr{\\'e}d{\\'e}rique},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = mar,\n  number = {808},\n  institution = {{Banque De France}},\n  doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3800751},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3800751},\n  urldate = {2023-02-21},\n  abstract = {We estimate the intergenerational correlation in homeownership status between two generations for cohorts covering the 20th century. First, we find higher intergenerational correlation in France compared to previous results obtained for the U.K. for similar cohorts. Second, the intergenerational correlation is increasing across cohorts, with a relatively stable probability of being a homeowner for children of homeowners over time, and a decreasing probability for children whose parents were not homeowners. Third, the effect of parents' tenure status is persistent over the children's life cycle. Fourth, when isolating two subpopulations based on the receipt of intergenerational transfers, we find significant intergenerational correlation in tenure status for children who did not receive any gift or inheritance, as well as for children who received intergenerational transfers, suggesting that other factors such as intergenerational income correlation or the transmission of preferences might also explain this intergenerational correlation.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n On the Long-Run Dynamics of Income and Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Ghoshray, A.; Malki, I.; and Ordóñez, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Empirical Economics. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"On$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Ghoshrayetal2021,\n  title = {On the Long-Run Dynamics of Income and Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Ghoshray, Atanu and Malki, Issam and Ord{\\'o}{\\~n}ez, Javier},\n  year = {2021},\n  journal = {Empirical Economics},\n  doi = {10.1007/s00181-021-02043-1},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-021-02043-1},\n  abstract = {We analyse top income and wealth shares data, by conducting a robust estimation of trends, tests for structural breaks, and tests for determining persistence. We include Anglo-Saxon countries, continental Europe and Asian countries, grouped under different percentiles and deciles, spanning a period that is at least close to a century. We find that the top income shares for almost all countries are characterised by broken trends, or level shifts. The preponderance of trend breaks appears in the 1970s and 1980s where after a negative trend changes in magnitude or direction. Finally, shocks to the top income share data are not transitory, which have consequences for policy such as advocating redistributive measures.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Accumulation and Retirement Preparedness in Cross-National Perspective: A Gendered Analysis of Outcomes among Single Adults.\n \n \n\n\n \n Gornick, J. C.; and Sierminska, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of European Social Policy, 31(5): 549–564. December 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{GornickSierminska2021,\n  title = {Wealth Accumulation and Retirement Preparedness in Cross-National Perspective: {{A}} Gendered Analysis of Outcomes among Single Adults},\n  author = {Gornick, Janet C. and Sierminska, Eva},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = dec,\n  journal = {Journal of European Social Policy},\n  volume = {31},\n  number = {5},\n  pages = {549--564},\n  doi = {10.1177/09589287211056174},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287211056174},\n  abstract = {Wealth is an increasingly important dimension of economic well-being and is attracting rising attention in discussions of social inequality. In this article, we compare \\textendash{} within and across countries \\textendash{} wealth outcomes, and link those to both employment-related factors and policy solutions that have the potential to improve wealth creation and retirement security for women. By constructing country-specific portraits of wealth outcomes and `retirement preparedness', we reveal extensive cross-national variation in multiple facets of wealth. Our regression analysis finds a statistically significant and positive effect of work experience on wealth, with that effect, in general, increasing over time. The effect of work experience for single women is greater than for single men, suggesting that, among men, other, stronger forces are at work in creating wealth. The retirement preparedness outcomes indicate that single women in all three countries are in a precarious position at retirement, with much lower expected annual wealth levels than single men. The second preparedness indicator, which links expected annual wealth to income, demonstrates that men have the potential to cover larger shares of their income at retirement \\textendash{} and thus are more able, than their female counterparts, to maintain standards of living achieved earlier in life. Our policy discussion indicates that employment remains a viable option for ultimately bolstering women's wealth accumulation. Many scholars, gender equality advocates and policymakers have argued for raising women's employment rates \\textendash{} for a multitude of reasons \\textendash{} but few, if any, have made the case for strengthening women's employment in order to ultimately bolster women's wealth building. We hope to help reduce the gap in the literature on policy supports for women's employment and re-open the discussion on how women can create more wealth.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n What Do Data on Millions of U.S. Workers Reveal about Lifecycle Earnings Dynamics?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Guvenen, F.; Karahan, F.; Ozkan, S.; and Song, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Econometrica, 89(5): 2303–2339. September 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"What$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Guvenenetal2021,\n  title = {What Do Data on Millions of {{U}}.{{S}}. Workers Reveal about Lifecycle Earnings Dynamics?},\n  author = {Guvenen, Fatih and Karahan, Fatih and Ozkan, Serdar and Song, Jae},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = sep,\n  journal = {Econometrica},\n  volume = {89},\n  number = {5},\n  pages = {2303--2339},\n  doi = {10.3982/ECTA14603},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA14603},\n  abstract = {We study individual male earnings dynamics over the life cycle using panel data on millions of U.S. workers. Using nonparametric methods, we first show that the distribution of earnings changes exhibits substantial deviations from lognormality, such as negative skewness and very high kurtosis. Further, the extent of these nonnormalities varies significantly with age and earnings level, peaking around age 50 and between the 70th and 90th percentiles of the earnings distribution. Second, we estimate nonparametric impulse response functions and find important asymmetries: Positive changes for high-income individuals are quite transitory, whereas negative ones are very persistent; the opposite is true for low-income individuals. Third, we turn to long-run outcomes and find substantial heterogeneity in the cumulative growth rates of earnings and the total number of years individuals spend nonemployed between ages 25 and 55. Finally, by targeting these rich sets of moments, we estimate stochastic processes for earnings that range from the simple to the complex. Our preferred specification features normal mixture innovations to both persistent and transitory components and includes state-dependent long-term nonemployment shocks with a realization probability that varies with age and earnings.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Accumulation and Opportunity Hoarding: Class-Origin Wealth Gaps over a Quarter of a Century in a Scandinavian Country.\n \n \n\n\n \n Hansen, M. N.; and Toft, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n American Sociological Review, 86(4): 603–638. August 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{HansenToft2021,\n  title = {Wealth Accumulation and Opportunity Hoarding: Class-Origin Wealth Gaps over a Quarter of a Century in a {{Scandinavian}} Country},\n  author = {Hansen, Marianne Nordli and Toft, Maren},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = aug,\n  journal = {American Sociological Review},\n  volume = {86},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {603--638},\n  doi = {10.1177/00031224211020012},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224211020012},\n  abstract = {Although the Scandinavian countries are often considered to epitomize social democratic governance, Scandinavia's profound wealth inequalities, seen in relation to the more modest income differences, constitutes a fascinating paradox. Drawing on class theoretical concerns with strategies for reproduction and a Bourdieusian emphasis on class fractions, we explore how class-origin wealth gaps evolved over the past 25 years in Norway, and how they compare to class-origin income gaps. First, we find that class-origin wealth gaps have increased in recent years, whereas income inequalities are fairly persistent among men, and increasing among women. We find that educational attainment is important for channeling income inequality, but that education is less important for understanding wealth gaps. Second, we document differences between people whose family contexts were most highly endowed with economic capital and those who grew up in families that were engaged in cultural fields or the professions. Finally, we highlight how analyses based solely on net worth neglect important ways class origin perpetuates and accelerates wealth inequalities via the acquisition of debt. We argue that recent decades have fostered new instruments for opportunity hoarding that are most successfully used by the sons and daughters of the economic upper class.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n A European Wealth Tax for a Fair and Green Recovery.\n \n \n\n\n \n Kapeller, J.; and Wildauer, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2021.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 8 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{KapellerWildauer2021,\n  title = {A {{European}} Wealth Tax for a Fair and Green Recovery},\n  author = {Kapeller, Jakob and Wildauer, Rafael},\n  year = {2021},\n  url = {https://www.gre.ac.uk/business/research/centres/gperc/pubreports/greenwich-papers-in-political-economy},\n  abstract = {The European Union faces the twin crises of Covid-19 and climate change. Confronting both crises leads to an unprecedented demand on public resources which in turn leads to the question of how to raise the required funds a) without jeopardising a weak economy recovering from the pandemic and b) without undermining broad political support for climate action. This policy study investigates the potential of a European net wealth tax to raise substantial revenues while supporting the economy and the consensus on climate action. To achieve this, household survey data from the European Central Bank (covering 22 EU countries) are analysed. To address the problem of under-reporting of wealth at the top of the distribution in survey data, a Pareto distribution is fitted to the right tail of the data and used to create an amended data set which also represents these missing rich, whose wealth goes unreported.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Poverty in the EU Using Augmented Measures of Financial Resources: The Role of Assets and Debt.\n \n \n\n\n \n Kuypers, S.; and Marx, I.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of European Social Policy, 31(5): 496–516. December 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Poverty$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{KuypersMarx2021,\n  title = {Poverty in the {{EU}} Using Augmented Measures of Financial Resources: The Role of Assets and Debt},\n  author = {Kuypers, Sarah and Marx, Ive},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = dec,\n  journal = {Journal of European Social Policy},\n  volume = {31},\n  number = {5},\n  pages = {496--516},\n  doi = {10.1177/09589287211040421},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287211040421},\n  abstract = {Despite clear limitations, poverty research in the rich world overwhelmingly relies on income-based measures. Households may have significant savings and assets that they can draw on to boost their living standards, but may also have debts that depress the living standard they can actually achieve with their disposable income. Using data from the Eurosystem Household Finance and Consumption Survey (HFCS), this article offers a picture of poverty in 17 EU countries that takes into account assets and debt, using various approaches. While earlier studies have found that poverty rates tend to be lower when wealth is accounted for, this study highlights the situation of those who become or remain poor even when savings and assets are included. It focuses both on within-country patterns of joint income\\textendash wealth poverty and on cross-country differences. It is shown that the elderly are generally less prone to being poor once assets are accounted for. However, for renter households with a young, female, low educated, unemployed or inactive and single head, the risk of being poor when assets and debt are accounted for remains high and in some cases even increases. That is generally the case because they have few assets, rather than because of high debts. The substantial variation in poverty rates observed across countries can to some extent be accounted for by socio-demographic factors, but a lot of variation still remains unaccounted for.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Parental Separation during Childhood and Adult Children's Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Lersch, P. M.; and Baxter, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Social Forces, 99(3): 1176–1208. March 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Parental$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{LerschBaxter2021,\n  title = {Parental Separation during Childhood and Adult Children's Wealth},\n  author = {Lersch, Philipp M. and Baxter, Janeen},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = mar,\n  journal = {Social Forces},\n  volume = {99},\n  number = {3},\n  pages = {1176--1208},\n  doi = {10.1093/sf/soaa021},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaa021},\n  abstract = {This study examines the association between parental separations during childhood and economic wealth of adult children. We provide a new test of this relationship and address two unresolved debates in the literature concerning (1) the pathways linking parental separation and adult children's wealth and (2) the relevance of the timing of exposure. We use data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey on 16,652 individuals and estimate mixed effects models after matching to predict adult children's wealth. We find that parental separation is associated with about 46 percent less net wealth for adult children. The negative association is limited to adult children who experienced parental divorce before age 15. The association does not differ between children who experienced parental divorce before age 6 and between age 6 and 14. We identify reduced education and earning capacities, unstable family structures among adult children and less future-oriented time preferences as likely mechanisms through which parental separation influences adult children's wealth.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Inheritance, Gifts and the Accumulation of Wealth for Low-Income Households.\n \n \n\n\n \n Morelli, S.; Nolan, B.; Palomino, J. C.; and Van Kerm, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of European Social Policy, 31(5): 533–548. December 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inheritance,$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Morellietal2021,\n  title = {Inheritance, Gifts and the Accumulation of Wealth for Low-Income Households},\n  author = {Morelli, Salvatore and Nolan, Brian and Palomino, Juan C. and Van Kerm, Philippe},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = dec,\n  journal = {Journal of European Social Policy},\n  volume = {31},\n  number = {5},\n  pages = {533--548},\n  doi = {10.1177/09589287211040419},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287211040419},\n  abstract = {Many low-income households in rich countries have very little wealth, but the role of intergenerational wealth transmission in underpinning this deficit is not known. This article seeks to fill that gap by investigating patterns of past wealth transfer receipt for low-income versus other households in seven rich countries and assessing the contribution that these transfers, or their absence, make to current wealth levels. We find that households on low incomes are relatively disadvantaged in terms of intergenerational transfers received in the past, both in terms of the likelihood of having received any and the amounts received by those who do benefit from such transfers. The role that this disadvantage plays in the linkage between current low-income and low wealth is assessed and evidence presented that it is significant. Simulation of a universal wealth transfer scheme or `capital endowment' on reaching adulthood for two countries shows that such a policy could lead to a marked decline in the proportion of low-income adults with negative or no wealth. This and alternative or complementary policy responses to these wealth deficits merit the most serious attention.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Intergenerational Wealth Transfers and Wealth Inequality in Rich Countries: What Do We Learn from Gini Decomposition?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Nolan, B.; Palomino, J. C.; Van Kerm, P.; and Morelli, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Economics Letters, 199. February 2021.\n 109701\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intergenerational$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Nolanetal2021,\n  title = {Intergenerational Wealth Transfers and Wealth Inequality in Rich Countries: What Do We Learn from {{Gini}} Decomposition?},\n  author = {Nolan, Brian and Palomino, Juan C. and Van Kerm, Philippe and Morelli, Salvatore},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = feb,\n  journal = {Economics Letters},\n  volume = {199},\n  doi = {10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109701},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109701},\n  abstract = {The role of intergenerational transfers of wealth via inheritance and gifts inter vivos in the accumulation of household wealth and the generation of wealth inequality has been hotly debated. This paper uses data from household wealth surveys for six rich countries \\textendash{} Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the US \\textendash{} to assess the contribution of intergenerational wealth transfers to wealth inequality using decomposition methods for the Gini coefficient. The results show that transfer wealth is consistently a good deal more unequally distributed than non-transfer wealth and total wealth. Transfer wealth accounts for only about one-tenth of overall wealth inequality for the US compared to one-third for Germany and Italy. This mirrors the importance of transfer wealth in total wealth in each country, with differences in inequality in transfer wealth and its correlation with total wealth having only a modest impact. We find that a marginal percentage increase in all transfers reduces total wealth inequality in Britain, Germany and the US, while it would increase total wealth inequality in France, Italy and Spain.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  note = {109701}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Wealth Inequality of Nations.\n \n \n\n\n \n Pfeffer, F. T.; and Waitkus, N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 35, Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality, April 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{PfefferWaitkus2021,\n  type = {Stone {{Center Working Paper Series}}},\n  title = {The Wealth Inequality of Nations},\n  author = {Pfeffer, Fabian T. and Waitkus, Nora},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = apr,\n  number = {35},\n  institution = {{Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality}},\n  doi = {10.31235/osf.io/6msuf},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/6msuf},\n  abstract = {Comparative research on income inequality has produced several coherent frameworks to study the institutional determinants of income stratification. In contrast, no such framework and much less empirical evidence exist to explain cross-national differences in wealth inequality. This situation is particularly lamentable as cross-national patterns of inequality in wealth diverge sharply from those in income. We seek to pave the way for new explanations of cross-national differences in wealth inequality by tracing them to the influence of different wealth components. Drawing on the literatures on financialization and housing, we argue that housing equity should be the central building block of the comparative analysis of wealth inequality. Using harmonized data on fifteen countries included in the Luxembourg Wealth Study (LWS), we first demonstrate a lack of association between national levels of income and wealth inequality and concentration. Using decomposition approaches, we then estimate the degree to which national levels of wealth inequality and concentration relate to cross-national differences in wealth portfolios and the distribution of specific asset components. Considering the role of housing equity, financial assets, non-housing real assets, and non-housing debt, we reveal that cross-national variation in wealth inequality and concentration is centrally determined by the distribution of housing equity.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Heterogeneous Saving Behavior and Permanent Income.\n \n \n\n\n \n Raya-Munté, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n November 2021.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Heterogeneous$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Raya-Munte2021,\n  title = {Heterogeneous Saving Behavior and Permanent Income},\n  author = {{Raya-Munt{\\'e}}, Albert},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = nov,\n  url = {https://www.albertrayamunte.com/research.html},\n  urldate = {2022-02-23},\n  abstract = {Do high permanent income households tend to accumulate a larger amount of wealth relative to income over the life cycle? Using Spanish household-level panel data from the Survey of Household Finances, I estimate permanent income for each household and document a positive and strong relationship between the latter and wealth-to-income ratios over the life cycle. In particular, the median household in the 8th decile and above of the permanent income distribution tends to exhibit wealth-to-income ratios at least 50\\% larger than the median household in the 2nd decile. To study the determinants of this nonhomothetic behavior, I build a standard partial equilibrium life-cycle model of homothetic household consumption and saving behavior which, by construction, features homogeneous wealth accumulation relative to income. This serves as a benchmark to help investigate the quantitative contribution of different sources of non-homothetic behavior: the pension system, accidental and voluntary bequests, intergenerational transmission of ability, and preference heterogeneity. A calibrated version of this model for Spain shows that nonhomotheticities stemming from the pension system and the transmission of wealth via bequests account, on average, for 70\\% of documented wealth-to-income ratios differences. However, these sources are not able to account for the large amount of wealth - relative to income - the top 20\\% of households accumulate. To this end, the model calibration approach requires a sizable amount of preference heterogeneity at the top of the permanent income distribution.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Examining the Racial Wealth Gap: The Impact of Income, Homeownership, Intergenerational Transfers, and Financial Investments on Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Samra, S. K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Master's thesis, California State University, Sacramento, 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Examining$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@mastersthesis{Samra2021,\n  title = {Examining the Racial Wealth Gap: The Impact of Income, Homeownership, Intergenerational Transfers, and Financial Investments on Wealth},\n  author = {Samra, Sarajit Kaur},\n  year = {2021},\n  url = {https://www.proquest.com/docview/2611650213/abstract/7EDBC84C3ECA49FBPQ/1},\n  urldate = {2022-02-24},\n  abstract = {Using data from the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances and the 2013 to 2017 Panel Study of Income Dynamics, I explore the racial wealth gap between white, Black, Hispanic or Latino, and Asian households in the United States. To examine the wealth disparities between these different racial groups, I focus on multiple factors including differences in income, homeownership, private intergenerational transfers, and financial investments. My thesis consists of four different regression models, which include ordinary least squares (OLS), weighted least squares, time fixed effects, and state fixed effects. The OLS results suggest Black households, on average, hold \\$588,690 less net wealth than white households and Hispanic or Latino households hold \\$15,190 less, after control variables are added to the regression. When transforming net wealth using an inverse hyperbolic sine transformation, I find that Black households hold 173 percent less net wealth than white households. In addition, after separating net wealth into quartiles, the racial wealth gap continues to be persistent at all quartiles. Overall, the large and statistically significant results indicate that a wealth gap is present between white and non-white households, and these results can be partially explained by financial risk taking, homeownership, education, and income variables.},\n  school = {California State University, Sacramento},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Wealth Gap between Ageing Immigrants and Native-Born in Ten European Countries.\n \n \n\n\n \n Semyonov, M.; and Lewin-Epstein, N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Czech Sociological Review, 57(6): 639–660. October 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{SemyonovLewin-Epstein2021,\n  title = {The Wealth Gap between Ageing Immigrants and Native-Born in Ten {{European}} Countries},\n  author = {Semyonov, Moshe and {Lewin-Epstein}, Noah},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = oct,\n  journal = {Czech Sociological Review},\n  volume = {57},\n  number = {6},\n  pages = {639--660},\n  doi = {10.13060/csr.2021.033},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.13060/csr.2021.033},\n  abstract = {Using data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe from 10 European countries, this study contributes to the research on immigrants' economic incorporation by focusing on the nativity wealth gaps in mid and late life. Three origin groups of immigrants were distinguished: non-European, post-communist, and West, Central, and South European countries. We estimated the size of the wealth gap between each immigrant population and natives, the sources of the gap, and the trajectory of wealth convergence. The data revealed that the mean net worth of native-born groups was higher than that of all immigrant sub-groups. The gap was widest for non-European immigrants and lowest for West, Central, and South European immigrants. Differences in the rate of homeownership accounted for the largest portion of the gap, while neither differential levels of income nor education accounted for much of the gap between native-born and either non-European immigrants or immigrants from post-communist countries. Reception of gifts or inheritances did not account for a meaningful portion of the gaps. Estimation of the rate of convergence suggests that it would take an average of 85 years after arrival for an average immigrant household to bridge the wealth gap between it and an average native-born household. The rate of wealth convergence was somewhat faster for non-Europeans and slower for West, Central, and South Europeans.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Super-Rich: Origin, Reproduction, and Social Acceptance.\n \n \n\n\n \n Storti, L.; and Dagnes, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Sociologica, 15(2): 5–23. September 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{StortiDagnes2021,\n  title = {The Super-Rich: Origin, Reproduction, and Social Acceptance},\n  author = {Storti, Luca and Dagnes, Joselle},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = sep,\n  journal = {Sociologica},\n  volume = {15},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {5--23},\n  doi = {10.6092/issn.1971-8853/13546},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/13546},\n  abstract = {What is the sociological understanding of the super-rich? To address this question, we propose and further elaborate three interconnected lines of investigation. After highlighting some plausible criteria for identifying the super-rich, we deal first with the generative and reproductive mechanisms underpinning the huge wealth concentration emerging over the last decades. Second, we dissect the nexus between the super-rich and places, i.e., how the super-rich shape the~spaces to implement their housing strategies, consumption patterns, and lifestyle. By doing so, we will also show how the super-rich transform spaces into social arenas in which they stand out through an original form of distinction made up of recognition and invisibility. Third, we will focus on the dynamics and the behaviours that help the super-rich gain social acceptance. This three-step analysis allows us to pinpoint in the conclusions some regressive outcomes in economic, social, and political terms fostered by the increasing concentration of private wealth.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Shifting the Tax Burden Away from Labour towards Inheritances and Gifts – Simulation Results for Germany.\n \n \n\n\n \n Thiemann, A.; Ognyanova, D.; Narazani, E.; Palvolgyi, B.; Kalyva, A.; and Leodolter, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 16/2021, Joint Research Centre, December 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Shifting$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 18 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{Thiemannetal2021,\n  type = {{{JRC Working Papers}} on {{Taxation}} and {{Structural Reforms}}},\n  title = {Shifting the Tax Burden Away from Labour towards Inheritances and Gifts \\textendash{} Simulation Results for {{Germany}}},\n  author = {Thiemann, Andreas and Ognyanova, Diana and Narazani, Edlira and Palvolgyi, Balazs and Kalyva, Athena and Leodolter, Alexander},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = dec,\n  number = {16/2021},\n  institution = {{Joint Research Centre}},\n  url = {https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/thematic-research-publications-fiscal-policy/jrc-working-papers-taxation-and-structural-reforms_en},\n  urldate = {2022-02-23},\n  abstract = {Germany's tax system places a relatively strong emphasis on direct taxes, particularly on labour. At the same time, revenues from the inheritance and gift tax are relatively low. This points towards a large-scale transfer of wealth from one generation to the next that is largely untaxed and thereby maintaining the high degree of wealth inequality observed in Germany. This is due mainly to the wide-ranging tax exemptions for business assets, which make the system complex, inefficient and regressive. This paper presents three hypothetical budget-neutral scenarios of broadening the inheritance and gift tax base while reducing the tax burden on labour income. Keeping the current progressive rates but abolishing tax exemptions would lead to about EUR 9-12 billion additional annual inheritance and gift tax revenue. Replacing the current tax regime by a flat rate of 10\\% or 15\\% could yield about EUR 0.5-2.3 billion or EUR 4-6.5 billion. Using EUROMOD, the microsimulation model of the EU, we show that these additional revenues could be used to reduce the tax burden on labour, which would improve income equality. Furthermore, estimations of labour supply responses to these reforms, based on the EUROLAB labour supply model, indicate that lowering the tax burden on labour may also lead to a slight increase in labour supply in particular for low-income earners.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,{Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes}}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality: A Hybrid Approach toward Multidimensional Distributional National Accounts in Europe.\n \n \n\n\n \n Waltl, S. R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Review of Income and Wealth. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Waltl2021,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality: {{A}} Hybrid Approach toward Multidimensional Distributional National Accounts in {{Europe}}},\n  author = {Waltl, Sofie R.},\n  year = {2021},\n  journal = {Review of Income and Wealth},\n  doi = {10.1111/roiw.12519},\n  url = {https://liser.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/wealth-inequality-a-hybrid-approach-toward-multidimensional-distr},\n  abstract = {This article proposes a practically feasible framework for compiling Multidimensional Distributional National Accounts (MDINA) serving two functions: a comprehensive measure of (components of) net worth and their distribution, and a link to macroeconomic statistics. I break down twelve components of marketable wealth by wealth and income groups, and three functions of wealth for Austria, Finland, France, Germany and Spain. MDINA complemented by summary indicators reveal large heterogeneity in the degree of inequality, and shed light on differences in the structure of wealth portfolios across and within countries. I combine data collected in the largely harmonized HFCS survey and adjust for remaining differences in survey modes regarding the treatment of the top tail using (Generalized) Pareto models estimated from rich lists or top wealth shares derived from tax data and leaked information on wealth held in offshore tax havens. Measured inequality increases strongest in countries where surveys refrain from appropriate top-tail corrections.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Impact of Inheritance on the Distribution of Wealth: Evidence from China.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wei, H.; and Yang, Z.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Review of Income and Wealth. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{WeiYang2021,\n  title = {The Impact of Inheritance on the Distribution of Wealth: Evidence from {{China}}},\n  author = {Wei, Hongyao and Yang, Zhengyi},\n  year = {2021},\n  journal = {Review of Income and Wealth},\n  doi = {10.1111/roiw.12513},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12513},\n  abstract = {Using the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study, we investigate household inheritances' structural characteristics and their effects on wealth distribution. First, we find that the proportion of households receiving inheritances in China is slightly lower than that of some European countries and the United States, and the inheritance scale, especially the proportion of inheritances in household net worth, is much lower. Second, inheritances can significantly promote wealth accumulation, and wealthy households are more likely to receive larger-scale inheritances. Therefore, inheritances can aggravate class stratification and reduce social mobility. Third, inheritances reduce relative wealth inequality but widen the absolute wealth gap. This effect's duality is that although wealthy households have inheritances on a larger scale, the relative importance of the inheritance is more significant for poorer households, who inherit more relative to their household net worth. Altruistic motivations of inheritance donors can help explain this phenomenon.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Household Wealth Trends in the United States, 1962 to 2019: Median Wealth Rebounds... but Not Enough.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wolff, E. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 28383, National Bureau of Economic Research, January 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Household$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Household$ file\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 11 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{Wolff2021,\n  type = {Working {{Paper}}},\n  title = {Household Wealth Trends in the {{United States}}, 1962 to 2019: Median Wealth Rebounds... but Not Enough},\n  author = {Wolff, Edward N.},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = jan,\n  number = {28383},\n  institution = {{National Bureau of Economic Research}},\n  doi = {10.3386/w28383},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.3386/w28383},\n  abstract = {Median household wealth shot up by 21.2 percent in real terms between 2016 and 2019, as asset prices continued to rebound. However, 2007 still remains the watershed year, and median wealth was down 20.4 percent relative to 2007, though mean wealth more than fully recovered. There was a modest remission in wealth inequality, with the share of the top one percent down by 1.4 percentage points, that of the top 20 percent down by 1.0 percentage points, the Gini coefficient down by 0.008, and the mean wealth of the top one percent also down by 1.9 percent. The homeownership rate finally rebounded a bit, by 1.2 percentage points, to 64.9 percent. The stock ownership rate advanced by 0.4 percentage points to 49.6 percent, though still down from its 2001 peak. Though the mean debt of the middle class rose by 10.7 percent in real terms, the debt-income and debt-net worth ratios remained largely unchanged. The black-white gap in mean net worth remained unchanged, as did the Hispanic-white wealth gap. The wealth of households under age 35 continued to deteriorate in both absolute and relative terms between 2016 and 2019.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_file = {Wolff2021.pdf}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Difference in Housing Finance Usage and Its Impact on Housing Wealth Inequality in Urban China.\n \n \n\n\n \n Yu, S.; and Cui, C.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Land, 10(12). December 2021.\n 1404\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Difference$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{YuCui2021,\n  title = {Difference in Housing Finance Usage and Its Impact on Housing Wealth Inequality in Urban {{China}}},\n  author = {Yu, Shan and Cui, Can},\n  year = {2021},\n  month = dec,\n  journal = {Land},\n  volume = {10},\n  number = {12},\n  doi = {10.3390/land10121404},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/land10121404},\n  abstract = {With the increasing importance of financial loans in home purchases in urban China, the role of housing loans in the accumulation of housing wealth needs to be unraveled. Using the data from the 2017 China Household Finance Survey (CHFS), this study investigates the use of housing loans and their impact on housing wealth inequality. It has been found that people with higher socioeconomic status and institutional advantages benefit more from housing provident fund loans and are more likely to fully invoke different financing channels to accumulate housing wealth. On the contrary, disadvantaged groups have to resort to costly market-based mortgages to finance their home purchases. This leads them to fall further behind in housing wealth accumulation. The spatial stratification of housing wealth accompanying the urban hierarchy was also observed and found to be closely linked to the type of housing loans. In this increasingly financialized era, relying on financial instruments in the process of household asset accumulation may further amplify the existing wealth inequality among social groups.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {1404}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2020\n \n \n (32)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Paraísos Fiscales, Wealth Taxation, and Mobility.\n \n \n\n\n \n Agrawal, D. R.; Foremny, D.; and Martínez-Toledano, Clara\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2020.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Paraísos$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Agrawaletal2020,\n  title = {Para\\'isos Fiscales, Wealth Taxation, and Mobility},\n  author = {Agrawal, David R. and Foremny, Dirk and {Mart{\\'i}nez-Toledano}, Clara},\n  year = {2020},\n  url = {https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:wilwps:halshs-03093674},\n  abstract = {This paper analyzes the effect of wealth taxation on mobility and the consequences for tax revenue and wealth inequality. We exploit the unique decentralization of the Spanish wealth tax system in 2011\\textemdash after which all regions levied positive tax rates except for Madrid\\textemdash using linked administrative wealth and income tax records. We find that five years after the reform, the stock of wealthy individuals in the region of Madrid increases by 10\\% relative to other regions, while smaller tax differentials between other regions do not matter for mobility. We rationalize our findings with a theoretical model of evasion and migration, which suggests that evasion is the mechanism most consistent with all of the mobility response being driven by the para\\'iso fiscal. Combining new subnational wealth inequality series with our estimated elasticities, we show that Madrid's status as a tax haven reduces the effectiveness of raising tax revenue and exacerbates regional wealth inequalities.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Epidemics, Inequality and Poverty in Preindustrial and Early Industrial Times.\n \n \n\n\n \n Alfani, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 23, Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality, October 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Epidemics,$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{Alfani2020,\n  type = {Stone {{Center Working Paper Series}}},\n  title = {Epidemics, Inequality and Poverty in Preindustrial and Early Industrial Times},\n  author = {Alfani, Guido},\n  year = {2020},\n  month = oct,\n  number = {23},\n  institution = {{Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality}},\n  doi = {10.31235/osf.io/36cqf},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/36cqf},\n  abstract = {Recent research has explored the distributive consequences of major historical epidemics, and the current crisis triggered by Covid-19 prompts us to look at the past for insights about how pandemics can affect inequalities in income, wealth, and health. The fourteenth-century Black Death, which is usually believed to have led to a significant reduction in economic inequality, has attracted the greatest attention. However, the picture becomes much more complex if other epidemics are considered. This article covers the worst epidemics of preindustrial times, from Justinian's Plague of 540-41 to the last great European plagues of the seventeenth century, as well as the cholera waves of the nineteenth. It shows how the distributive outcomes of lethal epidemics do not only depend upon mortality rates, but are mediated by a range of factors, chief among them the institutional framework in place at the onset of each crisis. It then explores how past epidemics affected poverty, arguing that highly lethal epidemics could reduce its prevalence through two deeply different mechanisms: redistribution towards the poor, or extermination of the poor. It concludes by recalling the historical connection between the progressive weakening and spacing in time of lethal epidemics and improvements in life expectancy, and by discussing how epidemics affected inequality in health and living standards.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Redistribution in Bubbles and Crashes.\n \n \n\n\n \n An, L.; Bian, J.; Lou, D.; and Shi, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2020.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 8 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Anetal2020,\n  title = {Wealth Redistribution in Bubbles and Crashes},\n  author = {An, Li and Bian, Jiangze and Lou, Dong and Shi, Donghui},\n  year = {2020},\n  doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3402254},\n  url = {https://ssrn.com/abstract=3402254},\n  abstract = {Using comprehensive administrative data from China, we document a substantial increase in inequality of wealth held in risky assets by Chinese households in the 2014-15 bubble-crash episode: the largest 0.5\\% households in the equity market gain, while the bottom 85\\% lose, 250B RMB through active trading in this period, or 30\\% of either group's initial equity wealth. In comparison, the return differential between the top and bottom groups in 2012-14, a period of a relatively calm market, is an order of magnitude smaller. We examine a number of possible explanations for these findings and discuss their implications.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Intergenerational Wealth Inequality: The Role of Demographics.\n \n \n\n\n \n Antunes, A.; and Ercolani, V.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2020.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intergenerational$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{AntunesErcolani2020,\n  title = {Intergenerational Wealth Inequality: The Role of Demographics},\n  author = {Antunes, Ant{\\'o}nio and Ercolani, Valerio},\n  year = {2020},\n  url = {https://www.bportugal.pt/en/paper/intergenerational-wealth-inequality-role-demographics},\n  abstract = {During the last three decades in the US, the older part of the population has become significantly richer, in contrast with the younger part, which has not. We show that demographics account for a significant part of this intergenerational wealth gap rise. In particular, we develop a general equilibrium model with an OLG structure which is able to mimic the wealth distribution of the household sector in the late 1980s, conditional on its age structure. Inputting the observed rise of life expectancy and the fall in population growth rate into the model generates an increase in wealth inequality across age groups which is between one third and one half of that actually observed. Furthermore, the demographic factors help explain the change of the wealth concentration conditional on the age structure; for example, they account for more than one third of the rise of the share of the elderly within the top 5\\% wealthiest households. Finally, consistent with a stronger life-cycle motive and an increase of the capital-labor ratio, the model produces an interest rate fall of 1 percentage point.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Genetic Endowments and Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Barth, D.; Papageorge, N. W.; and Thom, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Political Economy, 128(4): 1474–1522. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Genetic$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 8 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Barthetal2020,\n  title = {Genetic Endowments and Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Barth, Daniel and Papageorge, Nicholas W. and Thom, Kevin},\n  year = {2020},\n  journal = {Journal of Political Economy},\n  volume = {128},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {1474--1522},\n  publisher = {{University of Chicago Press}},\n  doi = {10.1086/705415},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1086/705415},\n  abstract = {We show that genetic endowments linked to educational attainment strongly and robustly predict wealth at retirement. The estimated relationship is not fully explained by flexibly controlling for education and labor income. We therefore investigate a host of additional mechanisms that could account for the gene-wealth gradient, including inheritances, mortality, risk preferences, portfolio decisions, beliefs about the probabilities of macroeconomic events, and planning horizons. We provide evidence that genetic endowments related to human capital accumulation are associated with wealth not only through educational attainment and labor income but also through a facility with complex financial decision-making.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The College Wealth Divide: Education and Inequality in America, 1956-2016.\n \n \n\n\n \n Bartscher, A. K.; Kuhn, M.; and Schularick, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 102(1): 1–50. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Bartscheretal2020,\n  title = {The College Wealth Divide: Education and Inequality in America, 1956-2016},\n  author = {Bartscher, Alina K. and Kuhn, Moritz and Schularick, Moritz},\n  year = {2020},\n  journal = {Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review},\n  volume = {102},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {1--50},\n  doi = {10.20955/r.102.19-49},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.20955/r.102.19-49},\n  abstract = {Using new long-run microdata, this article studies wealth and income trends of households with a college degree (college households) and without a college degree (noncollege households) in the United States since 1956. We document the emergence of a substantial college wealth premium since the 1980s, which is considerably larger than the college income premium. Over the past four decades, the wealth of college households has tripled. By contrast, the wealth of noncollege households has barely grown in real terms over the same period. Part of the rising wealth gap can be traced back to systematic portfolio differences between college and noncollege households that give rise to different exposures to asset price changes. Noncollege households have lower exposure to the equity market and have profited much less from the recent surge in the stock market. We also discuss the importance of financial literacy and business ownership for the increase in wealth inequality between college and noncollege households.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Poor Little Rich Kids? The Role of Nature versus Nurture in Wealth and Other Economic Outcomes and Behaviours.\n \n \n\n\n \n Black, S. E; Devereux, P. J; Lundborg, P.; and Majlesi, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Review of Economic Studies, 87(4): 1683–1725. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Poor$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Blacketal2020,\n  title = {Poor Little Rich Kids? {{The}} Role of Nature versus Nurture in Wealth and Other Economic Outcomes and Behaviours},\n  author = {Black, Sandra E and Devereux, Paul J and Lundborg, Petter and Majlesi, Kaveh},\n  year = {2020},\n  journal = {The Review of Economic Studies},\n  volume = {87},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {1683--1725},\n  doi = {10.1093/restud/rdz038},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdz038},\n  abstract = {Wealth is highly correlated between parents and their children; however, little is known about the extent to which these relationships are genetic or determined by environmental factors. We use administrative data on the net wealth of a large sample of Swedish adoptees merged with similar information for their biological and adoptive parents. Comparing the relationship between the wealth of adopted and biological parents and that of the adopted child, we find that, even prior to any inheritance, there is a substantial role for environment and a much smaller role for pre-birth factors and we find little evidence that nature/nurture interactions are important. When bequests are taken into account, the role of adoptive parental wealth becomes much stronger. Our findings suggest that wealth transmission is not primarily because children from wealthier families are inherently more talented or more able but that, even in relatively egalitarian Sweden, wealth begets wealth. We further build on the existing literature by providing a more comprehensive view of the role of nature and nurture on intergenerational mobility, looking at a wide range of different outcomes using a common sample and method. We find that environmental influences are relatively more important for wealth-related variables such as savings and investment decisions than for human capital. We conclude by studying consumption as an overall measure of welfare and find that, like wealth, it is more determined by environment than by biology.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Self-Fulfilling Prophecies, Quasi Non-Ergodicity and Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Bouchaud, J.; and Farmer, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n ,1–36. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Self-Fulfilling$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{BouchaudFarmer2020,\n  title = {Self-Fulfilling Prophecies, Quasi Non-Ergodicity and Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Bouchaud, Jean-Philippe and Farmer, Roger},\n  year = {2020},\n  series = {Test1},\n  pages = {1--36},\n  url = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.09445},\n  abstract = {We construct a model where people trade assets contingent on an observable signal that reflects public opinion. The agents in our model are replaced occasionally and each person updates beliefs in response to observed outcomes. We show that the distribution of the observed signal is described by a quasi non-ergodic process and that people continue to disagree with each other forever. Our model generates large wealth inequalities that arise from the multiplicative nature of wealth dynamics which makes successful bold bets highly profitable. The flip side of this statement is that unsuccessful bold bets are ruinous and lead the person who makes such bets into poverty. People who agree with the market belief have a low expected subjective gain from trading. People who disagree may either become spectacularly rich, or spectacularly poor.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Why Wealth Inequality Differs between Post-Socialist Countries?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Brzeziński, M.; and Sałach, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2020.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Why$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{BrzezinskiSalach2020,\n  title = {Why Wealth Inequality Differs between Post-Socialist Countries?},\n  author = {Brzezi{\\'n}ski, Micha{\\l} and Sa{\\l}ach, Katarzyna},\n  year = {2020},\n  url = {https://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/en/faculty/publications/working-papers/working-papers/2020/},\n  abstract = {We provide the first attempt to understand how differences in households' sociodemographic and economic characteristics account for disparities in wealth inequality between five post-socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We use 2013/2014 data from the second wave of the Household Finance and Consumption Survey (HFCS) and the reweighted Oaxaca-Blinder-like decompositions based on recentered influence function (RIF) regressions. Our results show that the differences in homeownership rates account for up to 42\\% of the difference in wealth inequality measured with the Gini index and for as much as 63-109\\% in case of the P50/P25 percentile ratio. Differences in homeownership rates are related to alternative designs of housing tax policies but could be also driven by other factors. We correct for the problem of the `missing rich' in household surveys by calibrating the HFCS survey weights to top wealth shares adjusted using wealth data from national rich lists. Empirically, the correction procedure strengthens the importance of homeownership rates in accounting for cross-country wealth inequality differences, which suggests that our results are not sensitive to the significant underestimation of top wealth observations in the HFCS.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n What Do We Know on Household Wealth?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Caprara, D.; De Bonis, R.; and Infante, L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Rivista di Storia Economica, (1/2020): 43–85. April 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"What$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Capraraetal2020,\n  title = {What Do We Know on Household Wealth?},\n  author = {Caprara, Diego and De Bonis, Riccardo and Infante, Luigi},\n  year = {2020},\n  month = apr,\n  journal = {Rivista di Storia Economica},\n  number = {1/2020},\n  pages = {43--85},\n  doi = {10.1410/99051},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1410/99051},\n  abstract = {We provide an in-depth analysis of household wealth in the main advanced countries. We start by analyzing the evolution of household wealth in Italy since 1950, looking at real and financial assets. Then we compare financial and real assets of households in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, the USA and Japan. We distinguish between price and quantity effects as determinants of changes in financial wealth. We study the differences in the composition of household financial wealth across countries, looking at deposits, bonds, shares, mutual funds, and insurance/pension instruments. We summarize the main trends of household debt and conclude comparing net household wealth per capita.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Unconventional Monetary Policy and Wealth Inequalities in Great Britain.\n \n \n\n\n \n Evgenidis, A.; and Fasianos, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Unconventional$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{EvgenidisFasianos2020,\n  title = {Unconventional Monetary Policy and Wealth Inequalities in Great Britain},\n  author = {Evgenidis, Anastasios and Fasianos, Apostolos},\n  year = {2020},\n  journal = {Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics},\n  publisher = {{Blackwell Publishing Ltd}},\n  doi = {10.1111/obes.12397},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12397},\n  abstract = {This paper explores whether unconventional monetary policy operations have redistributive effects on household wealth. Drawing on household balance sheet data from the Wealth and Asset Survey, we construct monthly time series indicators on the distribution of different asset types held by British households for the period that the monetary policy switched, as the policy rate reached the zero-lower bound. Using this series, we estimate the response of wealth inequalities on monetary policy, taking into account the effect of unconventional policies conducted by the Bank of England in response to the Global Financial Crisis. Our evidence reveals that unconventional monetary policy shocks have significant and lingering effects on wealth inequality: the shock raises wealth inequality across households, as measured by their Gini coefficients, percentile shares and other standard inequality indicators. Additionally, we explore the effects of different transmission channels simultaneously. We find that the portfolio rebalancing channel and house price effects widen the wealth gap, outweighing the counterbalancing impact of the savings redistribution and inflation channels. The findings of our analysis help to raise awareness of central bankers about the redistributive effects of their monetary policy decisions.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Unconventional Monetary Policy and Wealth Inequalities in Great Britain.\n \n \n\n\n \n Evgenidis, A.; and Fasianos, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2020.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Unconventional$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{EvgenidisFasianos2020a,\n  title = {Unconventional Monetary Policy and Wealth Inequalities in Great Britain},\n  author = {Evgenidis, Anastasios and Fasianos, Apostolos},\n  year = {2020},\n  url = {www.cepr.org},\n  abstract = {This paper explores whether unconventional monetary policy operations have redistributive effects on household wealth. Drawing on household balance sheet data from the Wealth and Asset Survey, we construct monthly time series indicators on the distribution of different asset types held by British households for the period that the monetary policy switched, as the policy rate reached the zero-lower bound. Using this series, we estimate the response of wealth inequalities on monetary policy, taking into account the effect of unconventional policies conducted by the Bank of England in response to the Global Financial Crisis. Our evidence reveals that unconventional monetary policy shocks have significant and lingering effects on wealth inequality: the shock raises wealth inequality across households, as measured by their Gini coefficients, percentile shares, and other standard inequality indicators. Additionally, we explore the effects of different transmission channels simultaneously. We find that the portfolio rebalancing channel and house price effects widen the wealth gap, outweighing the counterbalancing impact of the savings redistribution and inflation channels. The findings of our analysis help to raise awareness of central bankers about the redistributive effects of their monetary policy decisions.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Life on the Edge: Elites, Wealth, and Inequality in Sonora 1871– 1910.\n \n \n\n\n \n Garza, D. C.; and Krozer, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2020.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Life$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{GarzaKrozer2020,\n  title = {Life on the Edge: Elites, Wealth, and Inequality in Sonora 1871\\textendash 1910},\n  author = {Garza, Diego Casta{\\~n}eda and Krozer, Alice},\n  year = {2020},\n  url = {https://cee.colmex.mx/502-2026},\n  abstract = {This paper's contribution is a reconstruction of the distribution of wealth employing a sample of wills from El Colegio de Sonora database for the years 1871-1910. We show that the rapid industrialisation/modernisation process that ensued in northern Mexico during the late 19th and early 20th century lead to a continuous increment in wealth concentration at the top of the distribution, going from a Gini index measure of 0.48 in 1871 to 0.79 in 1910. Rather than a fundamental (kuznetsian) necessity, however, our data suggests a critical role played by the political economy at the time in a gerschenkronian fashion and highlight the importance of the control of natural resources on inequality dynamics. The paper hereby engages with and contributes to the ongoing discussion about the role of economic and political elites in inequality dynamics and their reproduction over time},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n A Q-theory of Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Gomez, M.; and Gouin-Bonenfant, É.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2020.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{GomezGouin-Bonenfant2020,\n  title = {A {{Q-theory}} of Inequality},\n  author = {Gomez, Matthieu and {Gouin-Bonenfant}, {\\'E}milien},\n  year = {2020},\n  url = {https://www.matthieugomez.com/},\n  abstract = {We study the effect of interest rates on top wealth inequality. While lower rates decrease the average growth rate of existing fortunes, they increase the growth rate of new fortunes by making it cheaper to raise capital. We evaluate the relative importance of these two forces in a parsimonious model of wealth accumulation. Using a sufficient statistic approach, we show that the second effect dominates whenever individuals in the right tail of the wealth distribution are on average net equity issuers. Quantitatively, we find that the secular decline in real interest rates has been a major contributor to the rise of top wealth inequality in the U.S.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Sources of U.S. Wealth Inequality: Past, Present, and Future.\n \n \n\n\n \n Hubmer, J.; Krussell, P.; and Smith\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2020.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Sources$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Hubmeretal2020,\n  title = {Sources of {{U}}.{{S}}. Wealth Inequality: Past, Present, and Future},\n  author = {Hubmer, Joachim and Krussell, Per and Smith, Jr., Anthony A.},\n  year = {2020},\n  url = {https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/nber-macroeconomics-annual-2020-volume-35/sources-us-wealth-inequality-past-present-and-future},\n  abstract = {This paper employs a benchmark heterogeneous-agent macroeconomic model to examine a number of plausible drivers of the rise in wealth inequality in the U.S. over the last forty years. We find that the significant drop in tax progressivity starting in the late 1970s is the most important driver of the increase in wealth inequality since then. The sharp observed increases in earnings inequality and the falling labor share over the recent decades fall far short of accounting for the data. The model can also account for the dynamics of wealth inequality over the period-in particular the observed U-shape-and here the observed variations in asset returns are key. Returns on assets matter because portfolios of households differ systematically both across and within wealth groups, a feature in our model that also helps us to match, quantitatively, a key long-run feature of wealth and earnings distributions: the former is much more highly concentrated than the latter.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Accumulation of Wealth in Marriage: Over-Time Change and within-Couple Inequalities.\n \n \n\n\n \n Kapelle, N.; and Lersch, P. M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n European Sociological Review, 36(4): 580–593. August 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{KapelleLersch2020,\n  title = {The Accumulation of Wealth in Marriage: Over-Time Change and within-Couple Inequalities},\n  author = {Kapelle, Nicole and Lersch, Philipp M.},\n  year = {2020},\n  month = aug,\n  journal = {European Sociological Review},\n  volume = {36},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {580--593},\n  doi = {10.1093/esr/jcaa006},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcaa006},\n  abstract = {This study examines the accumulation of personal wealth of husbands and wives and investigates the development of within-couple wealth inequalities over time in marriage. Going beyond previous research that mostly studied the marriage wealth premium using household-level wealth data and that conceptualized marriage as an instantaneous transition with uniform consequences over time, we argue that entry into marriage is a gendered life-course event that dynamically shapes husbands' and wives' wealth accumulation. Using high-quality data from the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017), we apply fixed-effects regression models to describe wealth accumulation within marriage. We find evidence that wealth premiums are lower during early years of marriage, but increase steadily thereafter. The premium is mostly concentrated in housing wealth. Results from supplementary analyses with limited data, however, suggest that the premium may not be causal for men. Regarding within-couple wealth inequalities, we find a pronounced within-couple wealth gap prior to marriage during pre-marital cohabitation. This gap remains stable over time in marriage. In contrast to findings regarding income, our study indicates that the institution of marriage may not amplify within-couple wealth inequalities further.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in China.\n \n \n\n\n \n Knight, J.; Li, S.; and Wan, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Sicular, T.; Li, S.; and Yue, X., editor(s), Changing Trends in China's Inequality: Evidence, Analysis, and Prospects, 4. Oxford University Press, New York, 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Knightetal2020,\n  title = {The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in {{China}}},\n  booktitle = {Changing Trends in {{China}}'s Inequality: Evidence, Analysis, and Prospects},\n  author = {Knight, John and Li, Shi and Wan, Haiyuan},\n  editor = {Sicular, Terry and Li, Shi and Yue, Ximing},\n  year = {2020},\n  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},\n  address = {{New York}},\n  doi = {10.1093/oso/9780190077938.003.0004},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190077938.003.0004},\n  abstract = {The inequality of wealth in China has increased rapidly in recent years. Prior to 1978 all Chinese households possessed negligible wealth. China therefore presents a fascinating case study of how inequality of household wealth increases with economic reforms, marketization, and capital accumulation. Wealth inequality and its growth are measured and decomposed by using data from the CHIP 2002 and 2013 survey datasets. Techniques for estimating the top tail of the income distribution by using a Pareto approximation are applied to measure the sensitivity of wealth inequality to plausible assumptions about the underrepresentation of the wealthy and underreporting by the wealthy. The rising wealth inequality is explained in terms of the relationships between income and wealth, house price inflation, and differential savings.},\n  isbn = {978-0-19-007793-8},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  chapter = {4}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Income and Wealth Inequality in America, 1949– 2016.\n \n \n\n\n \n Kuhn, M.; Schularick, M.; and Steins, U. I.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Political Economy, 128(9): 3469–3519. July 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Income$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Income$ working paper\n \n \n \n $\"Income$ appendix\n \n \n \n $\"Income$ data archive\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Kuhnetal2020,\n  title = {Income and Wealth Inequality in {{America}}, 1949\\textendash 2016},\n  author = {Kuhn, Moritz and Schularick, Moritz and Steins, Ulrike I.},\n  year = {2020},\n  month = jul,\n  journal = {Journal of Political Economy},\n  volume = {128},\n  number = {9},\n  pages = {3469--3519},\n  doi = {10.1086/708815},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1086/708815},\n  abstract = {This paper introduces a new long-run data set based on archival data from historical waves of the Survey of Consumer Finances. Studying the joint distribution of household income and wealth, we expose the central importance of portfolio composition and asset prices for wealth dynamics in postwar America. Asset prices shift the wealth distribution because of systematic differences in household portfolios along the wealth distribution. Middle-class portfolios are dominated by housing, while rich households predominantly own business equity. Differential changes in equity and house prices shaped wealth dynamics in postwar America and decoupled the income and wealth distribution over extended periods.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_working_paper = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/kuhn-schularick-steins-incomeandwealthinequalityinamerica19492016-2018},\n  url_appendix = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/kuhn-schularick-steins-appendixforonlinepublicationincomeandwealthinequalityinamerica19492016-2019},\n  url_data_archive = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/kuhn-schularick-steins-incomeandwealthinequalityinamerica19492016dataarchive-2020}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Modigliani Meets Minsky: Inequality, Debt, and Financial Fragility in America, 1950– 2016.\n \n \n\n\n \n Kuhn, M.; Schularick, M.; Steins, U.; and Bartscher, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2020.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Modigliani$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Kuhnetal2020a,\n  title = {Modigliani Meets Minsky: Inequality, Debt, and Financial Fragility in America, 1950\\textendash 2016},\n  author = {Kuhn, Moritz and Schularick, Moritz and Steins, Ulrike and Bartscher, Alina},\n  year = {2020},\n  url = {https://cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=14667},\n  abstract = {This paper studies the secular increase in U.S. household debt and its relation to growing income inequality and financial fragility. We exploit a new household-level dataset that covers the joint distributions of debt, income, and wealth in the United States over the past seven decades. The data show that increased borrowing by middle-class families with low income growth played a central role in rising indebtedness. Debt-to-income ratios have risen most dramatically for households between the 50th and 90th percentiles of the income distribution. While their income growth was low, middle-class families borrowed against the sizable housing wealth gains from rising home prices. Home equity borrowing accounts for about half of the increase in U.S. household debt between the 1970s and 2007. The resulting debt increase made balance sheets more sensitive to income and house price fluctuations and turned the American middle class into the epicenter of growing financial fragility.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Saving Glut of the Rich.\n \n \n\n\n \n Mian, A. R.; Straub, L.; and Sufi, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 26941, National Bureau of Economic Research, April 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{Mianetal2020,\n  type = {Working {{Paper}}},\n  title = {The Saving Glut of the Rich},\n  author = {Mian, Atif R. and Straub, Ludwig and Sufi, Amir},\n  year = {2020},\n  month = apr,\n  number = {26941},\n  institution = {{National Bureau of Economic Research}},\n  doi = {10.3386/w26941},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.3386/w26941},\n  abstract = {There has been a large rise in savings by Americans in the top 1\\% of the income or wealth distribution over the past 40 years, which we call the saving glut of the rich. Instead of financing investment, this saving glut has been associated with dissaving by the non-rich and dissaving by the government. An unveiling of the financial sector reveals that rich households have accumulated substantial financial assets that are direct claims on U.S. government and household debt. State-level analysis shows that the rise in top income shares has been important in generating the rise in savings by the rich.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Dynamics of Wealth Concentration: Thoughts on Tony Atkinson's Contributions.\n \n \n\n\n \n Morelli, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Italian Economic Journal,197–205. March 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Morelli2020,\n  title = {The Dynamics of Wealth Concentration: Thoughts on {{Tony Atkinson}}'s Contributions},\n  author = {Morelli, Salvatore},\n  year = {2020},\n  month = mar,\n  journal = {Italian Economic Journal},\n  pages = {197--205},\n  doi = {10.1007/s40797-019-00119-7},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40797-019-00119-7},\n  abstract = {Following new evidence on increasing wealth concentration across several advanced countries, the topic has been attracting a great deal of attention. Estimating the size distribution of wealth and understanding its determinants is an exercise surrounded with high levels of uncertainty and substantial controversies, but remains crucial to guide policy interventions. This short note attempts to link Tony Atkinson's body of work on wealth concentration to the fast expanding empirical research on wealth measurement as well as on the determinants of its growing concentration.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Monetary Policy and Wealth Inequality over the Great Recession in the UK. an Empirical Analysis.\n \n \n\n\n \n Mumtaz, H.; and Theophilopoulou, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n European Economic Review, 130. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Monetary$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{MumtazTheophilopoulou2020,\n  title = {Monetary Policy and Wealth Inequality over the Great Recession in the {{UK}}. an Empirical Analysis},\n  author = {Mumtaz, Haroon and Theophilopoulou, Angeliki},\n  year = {2020},\n  journal = {European Economic Review},\n  volume = {130},\n  publisher = {{Elsevier}},\n  doi = {10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103598},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103598},\n  abstract = {We use detailed micro information at household level from the Wealth and Assets Survey to construct measures of wealth inequality from 2006 to 2018 at the monthly frequency. We investigate the dynamic relationship between monetary policy and the evolution of wealth inequality measures. Our findings suggest that expansionary monetary policy shocks lead to an increase in wealth inequality and contributed significantly to its fluctuations. This effect is heterogenous across the wealth distribution with the monetary shock affecting the median household relative to the 10th and 20th percentile by a larger amount than the right tail. Our results suggest that the shock is transmitted through changes in net property and financial wealth.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Intergenerational Transfers by Size and Wealth Inequality in Rich Countries.\n \n \n\n\n \n Nolan, B.; Palomino, J.; Van Kerm, P.; and Morelli, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 21, Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality, September 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intergenerational$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{Nolanetal2020,\n  type = {Stone {{Center Working Paper Series}}},\n  title = {Intergenerational Transfers by Size and Wealth Inequality in Rich Countries},\n  author = {Nolan, Brian and Palomino, Juan and Van Kerm, Philippe and Morelli, Salvatore},\n  year = {2020},\n  month = sep,\n  number = {21},\n  institution = {{Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality}},\n  doi = {10.31235/osf.io/eyh8s},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/eyh8s},\n  abstract = {This paper uses household wealth surveys to compare patterns of intergenerational wealth transfers across six rich countries and assess the relationships between transfers, current levels of net wealth, and wealth inequality. The paper examines four Euro Area countries, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain and extends the systematic comparison to the US and the UK. It finds that many of those currently at the top of the wealth distribution did not benefit from intergenerational transfers, but those who did received particularly large amounts while those toward the bottom of the wealth distribution received very little. A substantial gap in net wealth is seen between those who received or did not receive some wealth transfer. Controlling for age, gender, education and household size reduces the size of that gap but it remains substantial, especially in the US. We further look at how a marginal increase in the proportion of recipients of transfers of differing sizes would contribute to the shape of the overall wealth distribution using influence function regressions. Crucially, we show that the impact depends not only on the locations in the wealth distributions of recipients versus non-recipients, but also on the size of the receipt, an aspect which has been overlooked to date. In most countries, increasing the proportion of recipients of large transfers generally increases overall wealth inequality. In contrast, having more recipients of small or medium-sized transfers would be expected to reduce wealth inequality modestly, as they are more concentrated around the middle of the wealth distribution than non-recipients.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality, Intergenerational Transfers and Socioeconomic Background.\n \n \n\n\n \n Palomino, J. C.; Marrero, G. A.; Nolan, B.; and Rodríguez, Juan G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2020.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Palominoetal2020,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality, Intergenerational Transfers and Socioeconomic Background},\n  author = {Palomino, Juan C. and Marrero, Gustavo A. and Nolan, Brian and Rodr{\\'i}guez, Juan G.},\n  year = {2020},\n  url = {https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/publications/no-2020-15-wealth-inequality-intergenerational-transfers-and-socioeconomic-background/},\n  abstract = {This paper estimates the contribution of intergenerational transfers (inheritances and gifts) and socioeconomic background to wealth inequality in four OECD countries: France, Spain, Great Britain and the United States. We compare the observed wealth distribution with a non-parametric counterfactual distribution where all differences in wealth associated with the intergenerational transfers received and the socioeconomic background have been removed. Despite the diversity of the four countries analysed, we find similar patterns in the results. The combined contribution of intergenerational transfers and socioeconomic background to wealth inequality is sizeable in the four countries, ranging from 37\\% in Great Britain to 48\\% in the US. When interactions between the two factors are accounted for, the net contribution of inheritances and gifts is between 23\\% and 30\\%, while the net contribution of family background lies between 4\\% and 11\\%. These values are substantial and reveal that the importance of intergenerational transfers in wealth inequality, across all these countries, is at least twice that of socioeconomic background.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Differential Rates of Return and Racial Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Petach, L.; and Tavani, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2020.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Differential$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{PetachTavani2020,\n  title = {Differential Rates of Return and Racial Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Petach, Luke and Tavani, Daniele},\n  year = {2020},\n  url = {https://www.boeckler.de/en/faust-detail.htm?sync_id=8958},\n  abstract = {Using data on household balance sheets from the Survey of Consumer Finances and data on macroeconomic rates of return from Jord\\`a et al. (2019) we construct two alternate series for household rates of return by race from 1989 to 2016. Our estimates suggest a persistent racial gap in the rate of return on assets between 1 and 6 percentage points. The gap in returns remains even after conditioning on demographic factors, labor market factors, credit history, portfolio composition, household attitudes toward savings, financial literacy, and inheritance\\textemdash suggestive of a role for discrimination. Oaxaca-Blinder decompositions indicate that differential rates of return may explain up to 50\\% of the racial wealth gap. Finally, our data on differential rates of return allow us to effectively rule out explanations for the racial wealth gap based on myopia or excessive time preference. Given observed series for consumption and rates of return, a standard lifecyle model requires non-White households to discount the future less than White households in order to match the data.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Capital and Ideology.\n \n \n\n\n \n Piketty, T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Capital$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 8 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Piketty2020,\n  title = {Capital and Ideology},\n  author = {Piketty, Thomas},\n  translator = {Goldhammer, Arthur},\n  year = {2020},\n  publisher = {{The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press}},\n  address = {{Cambridge, MA}},\n  url = {http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/fr/ideology},\n  urldate = {2022-03-16},\n  isbn = {978-0-674-24507-5},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,{Data Sources: Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes},Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,{Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes},Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Social Security Wealth, Inequality, and Lifecycle Saving.\n \n \n\n\n \n Sabelhaus, J.; and Volz, A. H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 27110, National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Social$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{SabelhausVolz2020,\n  type = {Working {{Paper}}},\n  title = {Social {{Security}} Wealth, Inequality, and Lifecycle Saving},\n  author = {Sabelhaus, John and Volz, Alice Henriques},\n  year = {2020},\n  month = may,\n  number = {27110},\n  institution = {{National Bureau of Economic Research}},\n  doi = {10.3386/w27110},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.3386/w27110},\n  abstract = {Wealth inequality in the US is high and rising, but Social Security is generally not considered in those wealth measures. Social Security Wealth (SSW) is the present value of future benefits that an individual will receive less the present value of future taxes they will pay. When an individual enters the labor force, they generally face a lifetime of taxes to pay before they will receive any benefits, and thus their initial SSW is generally low or negative. As an individual works and pays into the system their SSW grows and generally peaks somewhere around typical Social Security benefit claim ages. The accrual of SSW over the working life is most important for lower-income workers because the progressive Social Security benefit formula means that taxes paid while working are associated with proportionally higher benefits in retirement. We estimate SSW for individuals in the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1995 through 2016 and use a pseudo-panel approach to empirically demonstrate those lifecycle patterns. We also show that including SSW in a comprehensive wealth measure generally reduces estimated levels of wealth inequality but does not reverse the upward trend in top wealth shares.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Rise of Income and Wealth Inequality in America: Evidence from Distributional Macroeconomic Accounts.\n \n \n\n\n \n Saez, E.; and Zucman, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(4): 3–26. September 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n \n $\"The$ working paper\n \n \n \n $\"The$ data file\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{SaezZucman2020a,\n  title = {The Rise of Income and Wealth Inequality in {{America}}: Evidence from Distributional Macroeconomic Accounts},\n  author = {Saez, Emmanuel and Zucman, Gabriel},\n  year = {2020},\n  month = sep,\n  journal = {Journal of Economic Perspectives},\n  volume = {34},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {3--26},\n  doi = {10.1257/JEP.34.4.3},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.34.4.3},\n  abstract = {This paper studies inequality in America through the lens of distributional macroeconomic accounts\\textemdash comprehensive distributions of the aggregate amount of income and wealth recorded in the official macroeconomic accounts of the United States. We use these distributional macroeconomic accounts to quantify the rise of income and wealth concentration since the late 1970s, the change in tax progressivity, and the direct redistributive effects of government intervention in the economy. Between 1978 and 2018, the share of pre-tax income earned by the top 1 percent rose from 10 percent to about 19 percent, and the share of wealth owned by the top 0.1 percent rose from 7 percent to about 18 percent. In 2018, the tax system was regressive at the top-end; the top 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower average tax rate than the macroeconomic tax rate of 29 percent. We confront our methods and findings with those of other studies, pinpoint the areas where more research is needed, and describe how additional data collection could improve inequality measurement.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality},\n  url_working_paper = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/saez-zucman-theriseofincomeandwealthinequalityinamericaevidencefromdistributionalmacroeconomicaccountsworkingpaper-2020},\n  url_data_file = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/saez-zucman-theriseofincomeandwealthinequalityinamericaevidencefromdistributionalmacroeconomicaccountsdatafile-2020}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Role of Private Wealth and Debt in Shaping Social and Economic Inequality in the United States.\n \n \n\n\n \n Spieker, J. L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Ph.D. Thesis, 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@phdthesis{Spieker2020,\n  title = {The Role of Private Wealth and Debt in Shaping Social and Economic Inequality in the United States.},\n  author = {Spieker, Jan Ludwig},\n  year = {2020},\n  url = {https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/102903},\n  abstract = {This dissertation advances the sociological understanding of how privately held wealth and debt have become central to social mobility and well-being in 21st-century America. Chapter one adds to an emerging field of studying intergenerational wealth mobility by relating parents' intragenerational wealth trajectories to children's wealth standing in early to mid-adulthood. Children from continuously wealthy households have more wealth and higher net financial assets than children from any other group. This early divide is remarkable and can be expected to cement the wealth position of children from wealthy households due to compound interest and higher rates of appreciation as well as higher returns of financial assets. The second chapter focuses on the relationship between wealth transfers and transitioning into homeownership. Specifically, poorer households are less likely to receive a gift or inheritance of \\$10,000 or more but, compared to households with more economic resources, are more likely to leverage this wealth transfer into a transition to homeownership. However, these associations have changed substantially: before the Great Recession, wealth transfers increased transitions into homeownership more among poor households than well-off households, but after the Great Recession, the transfer ``boost'' converged; likely as a result of changes in housing markets, stricter mortgage lending conditions, and large scale wealth destruction among working-class households. The last chapter addresses the psychological costs of a sub-phenomenon of financialization, that is, the tremendous surge in privately held debt since the 1980s. The analysis distinguishes eight kinds of debt including credit card debt, outstanding medical and legal bills, other (secured) consumer debt, student debt, family loans, mortgage loans and business debt. There are two culprits for the loss in well-being associated with going into the red. First, any kind of consumer debt \\textendash{} secured or unsecured \\textendash{} exerts a statistically significant negative impact on subjective well-being. Second, increases in student debt robustly lead to a loss in subjective well-being. Contextualizing the results, the magnitude of the loss in subjective well-being stemming from consumer debt and student loans is comparable to the boost in well-being from major life events such as marriage and finding employment.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n This dissertation advances the sociological understanding of how privately held wealth and debt have become central to social mobility and well-being in 21st-century America. Chapter one adds to an emerging field of studying intergenerational wealth mobility by relating parents' intragenerational wealth trajectories to children's wealth standing in early to mid-adulthood. Children from continuously wealthy households have more wealth and higher net financial assets than children from any other group. This early divide is remarkable and can be expected to cement the wealth position of children from wealthy households due to compound interest and higher rates of appreciation as well as higher returns of financial assets. The second chapter focuses on the relationship between wealth transfers and transitioning into homeownership. Specifically, poorer households are less likely to receive a gift or inheritance of $10,000 or more but, compared to households with more economic resources, are more likely to leverage this wealth transfer into a transition to homeownership. However, these associations have changed substantially: before the Great Recession, wealth transfers increased transitions into homeownership more among poor households than well-off households, but after the Great Recession, the transfer ``boost'' converged; likely as a result of changes in housing markets, stricter mortgage lending conditions, and large scale wealth destruction among working-class households. The last chapter addresses the psychological costs of a sub-phenomenon of financialization, that is, the tremendous surge in privately held debt since the 1980s. The analysis distinguishes eight kinds of debt including credit card debt, outstanding medical and legal bills, other (secured) consumer debt, student debt, family loans, mortgage loans and business debt. There are two culprits for the loss in well-being associated with going into the red. First, any kind of consumer debt –{} secured or unsecured –{} exerts a statistically significant negative impact on subjective well-being. Second, increases in student debt robustly lead to a loss in subjective well-being. Contextualizing the results, the magnitude of the loss in subjective well-being stemming from consumer debt and student loans is comparable to the boost in well-being from major life events such as marriage and finding employment.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Multidimensional Wealth Inequality: A Hybrid Approach toward Distributional National Accounts in Europe.\n \n \n\n\n \n Waltl, S. R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2020.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Multidimensional$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Waltl2020,\n  title = {Multidimensional Wealth Inequality: {{A}} Hybrid Approach toward Distributional National Accounts in {{Europe}}},\n  author = {Waltl, Sofie R.},\n  year = {2020},\n  address = {{Vienna}},\n  url = {https://epub.wu.ac.at/7560/},\n  abstract = {Distributional National Accounts (DINA) link macroeconomic aggregates with distributional information enabling a better understanding of distributional implications of macroeconomic developments and facilitate cross-country comparisons of inequality. This article proposes a practically feasible framework to allocate components of wealth to different sections of society and serves two functions: a comprehensive measure of net worth and its distribution, and a link to macroeconomic statistics. The article compiles DINA by breaking down twelve components of marketable wealth by wealth and income groups, as well as three major functions of wealth for Austria, Finland, France, Germany and Spain. The three functions of wealth considered are (i) precautionary saving, (ii) own use of housing assets and (iii) income generation via the ownership of businesses or landlordship. The resulting multidimensional wealth distributions reveal large heterogeneity in inequality and help understand (institutional) differences across countries and time. Results are top-tail adjusted using Pareto and Generalized Pareto models, and combining survey data (HFCS) with rich lists, or top wealth shares derived from tax data and leaked information on wealth held in offshore tax havens.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality in the US: The Role of Heterogeneous Returns.\n \n \n\n\n \n Xavier, I.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2020.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Xavier2020,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality in the {{US}}: The Role of Heterogeneous Returns},\n  author = {Xavier, In{\\^e}s},\n  year = {2020},\n  url = {https://www.inesxavier.com/research},\n  abstract = {Why is wealth so concentrated in the United States? In this paper, I investigate the role of return heterogeneity as a source of wealth inequality. Using household-level data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (1989-2019), I provide new empirical evidence on returns to wealth in the United States, and find that wealthier households earn, on average, higher returns: moving from the 20th to the 99th percentile of the wealth distribution raises the average yearly return from 3.6\\% to 8.3\\%. To understand how these return differences shape the distribution of wealth, I introduce realistic return heterogeneity in a partial equilibrium model of household saving behavior. This exercise suggests that considering both earnings and return heterogeneity can fully account for the top 10\\% wealth share observed in the data (76\\%), which cannot be explained by earnings differences alone.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality and Financial Inclusion: Evidence from South African Tax and Survey Records.\n \n \n\n\n \n von Fintel , D.; and Orthofer, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Economic Modelling, 91: 568–578. September 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Wealth$ online supplementary materials\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{vonFintelOrthofer2020,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality and Financial Inclusion: Evidence from {{South African}} Tax and Survey Records},\n  author = {{von Fintel}, Dieter and Orthofer, Anna},\n  year = {2020},\n  month = sep,\n  journal = {Economic Modelling},\n  volume = {91},\n  pages = {568--578},\n  doi = {10.1016/j.econmod.2020.02.001},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2020.02.001},\n  abstract = {Theoretical models show that financial inclusion reduces wealth inequality. Existing empirical models are restricted to estimates using income inequality because of a lack of cross country wealth inequality data. We used 2010-11 and 2014-5 waves of the National Income Dynamics Study combined with South African tax records to estimate wealth and income inequality. Using Re-centered Influence Function regressions on the micro-level records, we confirmed the negative cross-country relationship between financial inclusion and income inequality. Wealth inequality is different. Financial inclusion improved wealth shares of only the middle class. Because of predatory lending, expansion of credit reduced the wealth share of the poor. Improved savings by the middle class, providing better oversight over financial services targeted at the poor and removing impediments to the small business sector are pre-conditions for financial inclusion to reduce wealth inequality.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_online_supplementary_materials = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/vonfintel-orthofer-wealthinequalityandfinancialinclusionevidencefromsouthafricantaxandsurveyrecordsonlinesupplementarymaterials-2020}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2019\n \n \n (17)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Distribution and Social Mobility in the US: A Quantitative Approach.\n \n \n\n\n \n Benhabib, J.; Bisin, A.; and Luo, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n American Economic Review, 109(5): 1623–1647. 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Benhabibetal2019,\n  title = {Wealth Distribution and Social Mobility in the {{US}}: {{A}} Quantitative Approach},\n  author = {Benhabib, Jess and Bisin, Alberto and Luo, Mi},\n  year = {2019},\n  journal = {American Economic Review},\n  volume = {109},\n  number = {5},\n  pages = {1623--1647},\n  doi = {10.1257/aer.20151684},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151684},\n  abstract = {We quantitatively identify the factors that drive wealth dynamics in the United States and are consistent with its skewed cross-sectional distribution and with social mobility. We concentrate on three critical factors: (i) skewed earnings, (ii) differential saving rates across wealth levels, and (iii) stochastic idiosyncratic returns to wealth. All of these are fundamental for matching both distribution and mobility. The stochastic process for returns which best fits the cross-sectional distribution of wealth and social mobility in the United States shares several statistical properties with those of the returns to wealth uncovered by Fagereng et al. (2017) from tax records in Norway.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Macroeconomic Determinants of Wealth Inequality Dynamics.\n \n \n\n\n \n Berisha, E.; and Meszaros, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Economic Modelling, (Forthcoming): 1–13. 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Macroeconomic$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{BerishaMeszaros2019,\n  title = {Macroeconomic Determinants of Wealth Inequality Dynamics},\n  author = {Berisha, Edmond and Meszaros, John},\n  year = {2019},\n  journal = {Economic Modelling},\n  number = {Forthcoming},\n  pages = {1--13},\n  doi = {10.1016/j.econmod.2019.10.001},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2019.10.001},\n  abstract = {The evolution of wealth inequality over the long run depends on income growth, inflation, and interest rates. In this paper, we examine, in a dynamic setting, the effect of these three macroeconomic variables on wealth inequality in the United States over the periods 1929\\textendash 2009 and 1962\\textendash 2009. The results show that these macroeconomic factors explain a significant amount of the changes in wealth inequality. The results indicate that increases in inflation and income growth contribute positively to net wealth shares of adults in the bottom 50\\% and middle 40\\% of the wealth distribution, leading to decreases in overall wealth inequality. Interestingly, the results show increases in interest rates contribute to lower wealth inequality in the U.S. although this result does not hold across all the inequality measures.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Poor Little Rich Kids? The Role of Nature versus Nurture in Wealth and Other Economic Outcomes and Behaviors.\n \n \n\n\n \n Black, S. E.; Devereux, P. J.; Lundborg, P.; and Majlesi, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2019.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Poor$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Blacketal2019,\n title = {Poor Little Rich Kids? {{The}} Role of Nature versus Nurture in Wealth and Other Economic Outcomes and Behaviors},\n author = {Black, Sandra E. and Devereux, Paul J. and Lundborg, Petter and Majlesi, Kaveh},\n year = {2019},\n url = {https://www.nber.org/papers/w21409},\n abstract = {Wealth is highly correlated between parents and their children; however, little is known about the extent to which these relationships are genetic or determined by environmental factors. We use administrative data on the net wealth of a large sample of Swedish adoptees merged with similar information for their biological and adoptive parents. Comparing the relationship between the wealth of adopted and biological parents and that of the adopted child, we find that, even prior to any inheritance, there is a substantial role for environment and a much smaller role for pre-birth factors and we find little evidence that nature/nurture interactions are important. When bequests are taken into account, the role of adoptive parental wealth becomes much stronger. Our findings suggest that wealth transmission is not primarily because children from wealthier families are inherently more talented or more able but that, even in relatively egalitarian Sweden, wealth begets wealth. We further build on the existing literature by providing a more comprehensive view of the role of nature and nurture on intergenerational mobility, looking at a wide range of different outcomes using a common sample and method. We find that environmental influences are relatively more important for wealth-related variables such as savings and investment decisions than for human capital. We conclude by studying consumption as an overall measure of welfare and find that, like wealth, it is more determined by environment than by biology.},\n keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Income and Wealth above the Median: New Measurements and Results for Europe and the United States.\n \n \n\n\n \n Chauvel, L.; Hartung, A.; Bar-Haim, E.; and Van Kerm, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Decancq, K.; and Van Kerm, P., editor(s), What Drives Inequality?, Ch. 6, pages 89–104. Emerald Publishing Limited, 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Income$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 7 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Chauveletal2019,\n  title = {Income and Wealth above the Median: New Measurements and Results for {{Europe}} and the {{United States}}},\n  booktitle = {What Drives Inequality?},\n  author = {Chauvel, Louis and Hartung, Anne and {Bar-Haim}, Eyal and Van Kerm, Philippe},\n  editor = {Decancq, Koen and Van Kerm, Philippe},\n  year = {2019},\n  pages = {89--104},\n  publisher = {{Emerald Publishing Limited}},\n  doi = {10.1108/S1049-258520190000027007},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1108/S1049-258520190000027007},\n  abstract = {The study of the upper tail of the income and wealth distributions is important to the understanding of economic inequality. By means of the `isograph', a new tool to describe income or wealth distributions, the authors compare wealth and income and wealth-to-income ratios in 16 European countries and the United States using data for years 2013/2014 from the Eurozone Household Finance and Consumption Survey and the US Survey on Consumer Finance. Focussing on the top half of the distribution, the authors find that for households in the top income quintile, wealth-to-income ratios generally increase rapidly with income; the association between high wealth and high incomes is highest among the highest percentiles. There is generally a positive relationship between median wealth in the country and the wealth of the top 1\\%. However, the United States is an outlier where the median wealth is relatively low but the wealth of the top 1\\% is extremely high.},\n  chapter = {Ch. 6},\n  isbn = {978-1-78973-378-5},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Hidden Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Cummins, N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2019.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Hidden$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Cummins2019a,\n  title = {Hidden Wealth},\n  author = {Cummins, Neil},\n  year = {2019},\n  doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3470253},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3470253},\n  abstract = {Sharp declines in wealth-concentration occurred across Europe and the US during the 20th century. But this stylized fact is based on declared wealth. It is possible that today the richest are not less rich but rather that they are hiding much of their wealth. This paper proposes a method to measure this hidden wealth, in any form. In England, 1920\\textendash 1992, elites are concealing 20\\textendash 32\\% of their wealth. Among dynasties, hidden wealth, independent of declared wealth, predicts appearance in the Offshore Leaks Database of 2013\\textendash 6, house values in 1999, and Oxbridge attendance, 1990\\textendash 2016. Accounting for hidden wealth eliminates one-third of the observed decline of top 10\\% wealth-share over the past century.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Income and Wealth Volatility: Evidence from Italy and the U.S. in the Past Two Decades.\n \n \n\n\n \n D'Ambrosio, C.; Menta, G.; and Wolff, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2019.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Income$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{DAmbrosioetal2019,\n  title = {Income and Wealth Volatility: Evidence from Italy and the {{U}}.{{S}}. in the Past Two Decades},\n  author = {D'Ambrosio, Conchita and Menta, Giorgia and Wolff, Edward},\n  year = {2019},\n  address = {{Cambridge, MA}},\n  url = {http://www.nber.org/papers/w26527},\n  abstract = {Income volatility and wealth volatility are central objects of investigation for the literature on income and wealth inequality and dynamics. Here we analyse the two concepts in a comparative perspective for the same individuals in Italy and the U.S. over the last two decades. Contrary to our expectations, we find that in both countries wealth volatility reaches significantly higher values than income volatility, the effect being mostly driven by changes in the market value of real estate assets. We also show that there is more volatility in both dimensions in the United States and that the overall trend in both countries is increasing over time. We conclude by exploring volatility in consumption.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Behavioural Responses to the (Re)Introduction of Wealth Taxes. Evidence from Spain.\n \n \n\n\n \n Duran-Cabré, J. M.; Esteller-Moré, A.; and Mas-Montserrat, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2019.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Behavioural$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Duran-Cabreetal2019,\n  title = {Behavioural Responses to the (Re)Introduction of Wealth Taxes. Evidence from Spain},\n  author = {{Duran-Cabr{\\'e}}, Jos{\\'e} Ma. and {Esteller-Mor{\\'e}}, Alejandro and {Mas-Montserrat}, Mariona},\n  year = {2019},\n  doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3393016},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3393016},\n  abstract = {In the throes of economic crisis, the Spanish government decided to reintroduce the Wealth Tax, appealing to redistributive motives and its need for greater revenues. This paper studies how individuals reacted to the reintroduction of this tax by drawing on the universe of wealth tax returns submitted to the Catalan Tax Agency between 2011 and 2015. Thus, we exploit the variation in treatment exposure to analyse taxpayers' responses, in terms not only of wealth accumulation, but also of the potential avoidance strategies adopted. Indeed, our results reflect avoidance rather than real responses. They show that while facing higher wealth taxes did not have a negative effect on taxpayers' savings, it did encourage them to change their asset and income composition to take advantage of wealth tax exemptions (mostly business-related) and the existence of a limit on wealth tax liability. This translates into an elasticity of taxable wealth with respect to the net-of-tax rate of return of 0.64, or, put differently, a 0.1 percentage point increase in the average wealth tax rate leads to a reduction in taxable wealth of 3.24\\% over 4 years. Overall, these avoidance responses are quite marked in terms of tax revenues: they represent a 4-year accumulated revenue loss of 2.6 times the 2011 estimated wealth tax revenues. The existence of such responses mostly related to the design of the wealth tax has relevant policy implications not only in terms of revenues but also insofar as it undermines the tax's redistributive role.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Lifecycle Patterns of Saving and Wealth Accumulation.\n \n \n\n\n \n Feiveson, L.; and Sabelhaus, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 2019-010, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Lifecycle$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{FeivesonSabelhaus2019,\n  type = {Finance and {{Economics Discussion Series}}},\n  title = {Lifecycle Patterns of Saving and Wealth Accumulation},\n  author = {Feiveson, Laura and Sabelhaus, John},\n  year = {2019},\n  month = aug,\n  number = {2019-010},\n  institution = {{Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System}},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2019.010r1},\n  abstract = {Empirical analysis of U.S. income, saving and wealth dynamics is constrained by a lack of high-quality and comprehensive household-level panel data. This paper uses a pseudo-panel approach, tracking types of agents by birth cohort and across time through a series of cross-section snapshots synthesized with macro aggregates. The key micro source data is the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), which captures the top of the wealth distribution by sampling from administrative records. The SCF has the detailed balance sheet components, incomes, and interfamily transfers needed to use both sides of the intertemporal budget constraint and thus solve for saving and consumption. The wealth change decomposition by age and agent type provides a new set of benchmarks for heterogeneous agent macro models, reconciling observed anomalies about lifecycle saving behavior and emphasizing the importance of generally unmeasured incomes (interfamily transfers and capital gains) in wealth accumulation dynamics.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Joint Income-Wealth Inequality: An Application Using Administrative Tax Data.\n \n \n\n\n \n Gallusser, D.; and Krapf, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2019.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Joint$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{GallusserKrapf2019,\n  title = {Joint Income-Wealth Inequality: An Application Using Administrative Tax Data},\n  author = {Gallusser, David and Krapf, Matthias},\n  year = {2019},\n  url = {https://www.cesifo.org/en/publikationen/2019/working-paper/joint-income-wealth-inequality-application-using-administrative},\n  abstract = {Using tax data from the Swiss canton of Lucerne, we study how measures of economic inequality change if they account for income and wealth rather than income alone. The joint distribution of income and wealth displays strong tail dependence at the top and a negative association for negative net wealth. Joint income-wealth, the sum of labor income and annuitized wealth, serves as a measure of combined inequality of income and wealth. Inequality measured using joint income-wealth is higher than measured using income alone. We refine existing annuitization techniques by introducing heterogeneous returns. A decomposition shows that the underlying marginal distributions of labor income and annuitized wealth account for most of joint income-wealth inequality, whereas their association matters only in the tails.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Accumulation and Transfers of Wealth: Variations by Social Class.\n \n \n\n\n \n Hansen, M. N.; and Wiborg, Ø. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n European Sociological Review, 35(6): 874–893. December 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{HansenWiborg2019,\n  title = {The Accumulation and Transfers of Wealth: Variations by Social Class},\n  author = {Hansen, Marianne Nordli and Wiborg, {\\O}yvind Nicolay},\n  year = {2019},\n  month = dec,\n  journal = {European Sociological Review},\n  volume = {35},\n  number = {6},\n  pages = {874--893},\n  doi = {10.1093/esr/jcz036},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz036},\n  abstract = {The purpose of our study is to investigate the role of wealth in broader stratification processes. Based on unique data from Norwegian tax registers, we address questions about the association between class origin, wealth transfers, and wealth accumulation among young adults. We show that is more common to receive transfers in the higher than in the lower social classes, and that those originating in the economic upper class, i.e. large proprietors, owners, of single enterprises as well as investors with diversified portfolios, and top managers and directors, are especially likely to receive transfers, as well as especially large inter vivos gifts. As young adults, those with upper-class origins, and especially origins in the economic upper class, accumulate more wealth than those with origins in classes lower in the social hierarchy. In all social classes, those who have received wealth transfers accumulate most wealth. We argue that transferring wealth indeed appears as robust and efficient mobility or reproduction strategy.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Dimensions of Inequality in Japan: Distributions of Earnings, Income and Wealth between 1984 and 2014.\n \n \n\n\n \n Kitao, S.; and Yamada, T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 36/2019, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, June 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Dimensions$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Dimensions$ file\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{KitaoYamada2019,\n  type = {{{CAMA Working Paper}}},\n  title = {Dimensions of Inequality in {{Japan}}: Distributions of Earnings, Income and Wealth between 1984 and 2014},\n  author = {Kitao, Sagiri and Yamada, Tomoaki},\n  year = {2019},\n  month = jun,\n  number = {36/2019},\n  institution = {{Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis}},\n  url = {https://cama.crawford.anu.edu.au/publication/cama-working-paper-series/14348/dimensions-inequality-japan-distributions-earnings},\n  abstract = {Inequality has become a central policy issue across the world. We study trends of inequality in earnings, income and wealth across households in Japan, using the National Survey of Family Income and Expenditure (NSFIE) from 1984 to 2014. We focus on the transition of inequality unconditionally and conditionally across various dimensions of household heterogeneity such as age, cohort, employment and marital status of household heads, sources of income, family size, etc. Inequality in earnings, income and wealth all increased during the last three decades. Changes in earnings and income inequality were mostly driven by demographic shift in the population towards the elderly, who tend to have higher inequality. Wealth inequality rose not only in the aggregate but also among the young, and this is due to a major increase in the fraction of households who own zero or very low wealth across all age groups. Critical factors in understanding inequality trends in Japan that we identified are aging demographics, changes in typical household structure, and macroeconomic trends of the past decades including the financial bubble period and a decades-long slow-down thereafter.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_file = {KitaoYamada2019.pdf}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Monetary Policy and Wealth Inequality over the Great Recession in the UK. an Empirical Analysis.\n \n \n\n\n \n Mumtaz, H.; and Theophilopoulou, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2019.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Monetary$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{MumtazTheophilopoulou2019,\n  title = {Monetary Policy and Wealth Inequality over the Great Recession in the {{UK}}. an Empirical Analysis},\n  author = {Mumtaz, Haroon and Theophilopoulou, Angeliki},\n  year = {2019},\n  url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10419/210449},\n  abstract = {We use detailed micro information at household level from the Wealth and Assets Survey to construct measures of wealth inequality from 2005 to 2016 at the monthly frequency. We investigate the dynamic relationship between monetary policy and the evolution of wealth inequality measures. Our findings suggest that expansionary monetary policy shocks lead to an increase in wealth inequality and contributed significantly to its fluctuations. This effect is heterogenous across the wealth distribution with the monetary shock affecting the median household relative to the 20th percentile by a larger amount than the right tail. Our results suggest that the shock is transmitted through changes in net property and financial wealth that constitute the bulk of total wealth of households near the median of the wealth distribution.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Capital Accumulation, Private Property, and Rising Inequality in China, 1978– 2015.\n \n \n\n\n \n Piketty, T.; Yang, L.; and Zucman, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n American Economic Review, 109(7): 2469–2496. July 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Capital$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Capital$ online appendix\n \n \n \n $\"Capital$ data files\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Pikettyetal2019,\n  title = {Capital Accumulation, Private Property, and Rising Inequality in {{China}}, 1978\\textendash 2015},\n  author = {Piketty, Thomas and Yang, Li and Zucman, Gabriel},\n  year = {2019},\n  month = jul,\n  journal = {American Economic Review},\n  volume = {109},\n  number = {7},\n  pages = {2469--2496},\n  doi = {10.1257/aer.20170973},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20170973},\n  abstract = {We combine national accounts, surveys, and new tax data to study the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in China from 1978 to 2015. The national wealth-income ratio increased from 350 percent in 1978 to 700 percent in 2015, while the share of public property in national wealth declined from 70 percent to 30 percent. We provide sharp upward revision of official inequality estimates. The top 10 percent income share rose from 27 percent to 41 percent between 1978 and 2015; the bottom 50 percent share dropped from 27 percent to 15 percent. China's inequality levels used to be close to Nordic countries and are now approaching US levels.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation},\n  url_online_appendix = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/piketty-yang-zucman-capitalaccumulationprivatepropertyandrisinginequalityinchina19782015onlineappendix-2018},\n  url_data_files = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/piketty-yang-zucman-capitalaccumulationprivatepropertyandrisinginequalityinchina19782015datafiles-2018}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Are Disappearing Employer Pensions Contributing to Rising Wealth Inequality?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Sabelhaus, J.; and Volz, A. H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Are$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{SabelhausVolz2019,\n  type = {{{FEDS Notes}}},\n  title = {Are Disappearing Employer Pensions Contributing to Rising Wealth Inequality?},\n  author = {Sabelhaus, John and Volz, Alice Henriques},\n  year = {2019},\n  month = feb,\n  institution = {{Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System}},\n  doi = {10.17016/2380-7172.2308},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.2308},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Progressive Wealth Taxation.\n \n \n\n\n \n Saez, E.; and Zucman, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Brookings Paper on Economic Activity, Fall: 437–533. 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Progressive$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Progressive$ data file\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{SaezZucman2019,\n  title = {Progressive Wealth Taxation},\n  author = {Saez, Emmanuel and Zucman, Gabriel},\n  year = {2019},\n  journal = {Brookings Paper on Economic Activity},\n  volume = {Fall},\n  pages = {437--533},\n  doi = {10.1353/eca.2019.0017},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2019.0017},\n  abstract = {This paper discusses the progressive taxation of household wealth. We first discuss what wealth is, how it is distributed, and how much revenue a progressive wealth tax could generate in the United States. We try to reconcile discrepancies across wealth data sources. Second, we discuss the role a wealth tax can play to increase the overall progressivity of the U.S. tax system. Third, we discuss the empirical evidence on wealth tax avoidance and evasion as well as tax enforcement policies. We summarize the key elements needed to make a U.S. wealth tax work in light of the experience of other countries. Fourth, we discuss the real economic effects of wealth taxation on inequality, the capital stock, and economic activity. Fifth, we present a simple tractable model of the taxation of billionaires' wealth that can be applied to the Forbes list of the four hundred richest Americans since 1982 to illustrate the long-run effects of concrete wealth tax proposals on top fortunes.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation},\n  url_data_file = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/saez-zucman-progressivewealthtaxationdatafile-2019}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Racialized Tax Inequity: Wealth, Racism, and the U.S. System of Taxation.\n \n \n\n\n \n Strand, P. J.; and Mirkay, N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2019.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Racialized$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{StrandMirkay2019,\n  title = {Racialized Tax Inequity: Wealth, Racism, and the {{U}}.{{S}}. System of Taxation},\n  author = {Strand, Palma Joy and Mirkay, Nicholas},\n  year = {2019},\n  doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3442674},\n  url = {https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3442674},\n  abstract = {As a whole, the U.S. tax system (federal, state and local) since 1980 has served more and more to increase racialized wealth inequality. The tax system is today operating to entrench the system of advantage based on race that centuries of racial exploitation and unequal access to wealth created. As the future face of the nation becomes less White, the U.S. tax system as a whole and the anti-tax rhetoric that has fueled its shift from progressive to regressive are driving economic inequality and racial inequity. More deeply, the tax system is inhibiting broad-scale public investment in the primary resource of the future: human capital. This article presents a timely perspective of big-picture trends in federal and state taxation over the past 40 years \\textemdash{} both a long-term sociological view (the why) of the historical racialization of wealth and a critical tax view (the how) of the shift from taxes on wealth to taxes on income to taxes on consumption. This shift from greater to less progressivity in taxes disproportionately benefits Whites while disproportionately burdening Blacks and other People of Color. Instead of focusing on the equity of a particular deduction or preferential tax rate, we view taxes holistically and systemically, with a focus on state and local taxes that is typically not addressed in critical tax literature. Before systematic changes can be made to tax systems to combat wealth inequality, an acknowledgement of the racialization of wealth inequality is a fundamental first step.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,{Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes},Wealth Taxation},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Bequests, Estate Taxes, and Wealth Distributions.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wan, J.; and Zhu, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Economic Theory, 67(1): 179–210. 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Bequests,$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{WanZhu2019,\n  title = {Bequests, Estate Taxes, and Wealth Distributions},\n  author = {Wan, Jing and Zhu, Shenghao},\n  year = {2019},\n  journal = {Economic Theory},\n  volume = {67},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {179--210},\n  publisher = {{Springer Berlin Heidelberg}},\n  doi = {10.1007/s00199-017-1091-7},\n  url = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00199-017-1091-7},\n  abstract = {Bossmann et al. (J Public Econ 91:1247\\textendash 1271, 2007) found that estate taxes reduce the long-run wealth inequality. This result contrasts with the findings of the previous literature with idiosyncratic labor efficiency risk. We use a decomposition technique, developed by Davies (J Labor Econ 4:538\\textendash 559, 1986), to reinvestigate the impact of estate taxes on the long-run wealth inequality. We find that the different results of estate taxes are due to the different redistribution effects.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,{Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes}}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2018\n \n \n (20)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Intergenerational Wealth Mobility and the Role of Inheritance: Evidence from Multiple Generations.\n \n \n\n\n \n Adermon, A.; Lindahl, M.; and Waldenström, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Economic Journal, 128(612): F482–F513. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intergenerational$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Adermonetal2018,\n  title = {Intergenerational Wealth Mobility and the Role of Inheritance: Evidence from Multiple Generations},\n  author = {Adermon, Adrian and Lindahl, Mikael and Waldenstr{\\"o}m, Daniel},\n  year = {2018},\n  journal = {The Economic Journal},\n  volume = {128},\n  number = {612},\n  pages = {F482--F513},\n  doi = {10.1111/ecoj.12535},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12535},\n  abstract = {This study estimates intergenerational wealth correlations across up to four generations and examines the degree to which the wealth association between parents and children can be explained by inheritances. Using a Swedish data set with newly hand-collected data on wealth and bequests, we find parent-child rank correlations of 0.3\\textendash 0.4 and grandparent\\textendash grandchild rank correlations of 0.1\\textendash{} 0.2. Bequests and gifts appear to be central in this process, accounting for at least half of the parent\\textendash{} child wealth correlation while earnings and education can account for only a quarter.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n From Saving Comes Having? Disentangling the Impact of Savings on Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Bach, L.; Calvet, L. E.; and Sodini, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2018.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"From$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Bachetal2018,\n  title = {From Saving Comes Having? {{Disentangling}} the Impact of Savings on Inequality},\n  author = {Bach, Laurent and Calvet, Laurent E. and Sodini, Paolo},\n  year = {2018},\n  doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3094452},\n  url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3094452},\n  abstract = {This paper investigates the channels through which savings impact the wealth inequality dynamics. The analysis relies on an administrative panel that reports the assets and income of every Swedish resident between 2000 and 2007. We document that the saving rate, defined as savings from labor income divided by net worth, is on average a decreasing function of net worth itself. At the same time, there is considerable heterogeneity in the saving rate within each wealth group. These two properties have conflicting effects on inequality. As a result, heterogeneity in savings from labor income has a strong impact on social mobility but only has a weak impact on the distribution of net worth. Heterogeneity in wealth returns is instead the main driver of the recent increase in top wealth shares.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Genetic Endowments and Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Barth, D.; Papageorge, N. W.; and Thom, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2018.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Genetic$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Barthetal2018,\n  title = {Genetic Endowments and Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Barth, Daniel and Papageorge, Nicholas W. and Thom, Kevin},\n  year = {2018},\n  url = {http://www.nber.org/papers/w24642},\n  abstract = {We show that genetic endowments linked to educational attainment strongly and robustly predict wealth at retirement. The estimated relationship is not fully explained by flexibly controlling for education and labor income. We therefore investigate a host of additional mechanisms that could help to explain the gene-wealth gradient, including inheritances, mortality, savings, risk preferences, portfolio decisions, beliefs about the probabilities of macroeconomic events, and planning horizons. The associations we report provide preliminary evidence that genetic endowments related to human capital accumulation are associated with wealth not only through educational attainment and labor income, but also through a facility with complex financial decision-making. Our study illustrates how economic research seeking to understand sources of inequality can benefit from recent advances in behavioral genetics linking specific observed genetic endowments to economic outcomes.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality, Class and Caste in India, 1961-2012.\n \n \n\n\n \n Bharti, N. K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 2018/14, World Inequality Database, 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Wealth$ file\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 10 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{Bharti2018,\n  type = {{{WID}}.World {{Working Paper}}},\n  title = {Wealth Inequality, Class and Caste in {{India}}, 1961-2012},\n  author = {Bharti, Nitin Kumar},\n  year = {2018},\n  number = {2018/14},\n  institution = {{World Inequality Database}},\n  url = {https://wid.world/document/n-k-bharti-wealth-inequality-class-and-caste-in-india-1961-2012/},\n  urldate = {2022-04-01},\n  abstract = {This research makes two main contributions. First, I combine data from wealth surveys (NSS-AIDIS) and millionaire lists to produce wealth inequality series for India over the 1961-2012 period. I find a strong rise in wealth concentration in recent decades, in line with recent research using income data. E.g. the top 10\\% wealth share rose from 45\\% in year 1981 to 68\\% in 2012, while the top 1\\% share rose from 27\\% to 41\\%. Next, I gather information from censuses and surveys (NSS AIDIS and consumption, IHDS, NFHS) in order to explore the changing relationship between class and caste in India and the mechanisms behind rising inequality. Assortative mating appears to be very high in India, both at the caste level and at the education level (though not hugely larger than than in Western countries at the education level). I stress the limits of our knowledge and indicate possible lines of future research, particularly regarding the interplay between assortative mating and inequality dynamics.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_file = {Bharti2018.pdf}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Income Distribution and Aggregate Saving: A Non-Monotonic Relationship.\n \n \n\n\n \n Bofinger, P.; and Scheuermeyer, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Review of Income and Wealth, 65(4): 872–907. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Income$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{BofingerScheuermeyer2018,\n  title = {Income Distribution and Aggregate Saving: {{A}} Non-Monotonic Relationship},\n  author = {Bofinger, Peter and Scheuermeyer, Philipp},\n  year = {2018},\n  journal = {Review of Income and Wealth},\n  volume = {65},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {872--907},\n  publisher = {{John Wiley \\& Sons, Ltd}},\n  doi = {10.1111/roiw.12376},\n  url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/roiw.12376},\n  abstract = {Drawing on a panel of advanced economies, this paper documents a concave and non-monotonic link between inequality and the aggregate household saving rate. We find that, at a low level of inequality, more inequality is associated with higher saving; but we also show that a negative relationship between inequality and saving prevails where inequality is high. Using different empirical approaches, we locate the turning point, where the marginal effect of inequality turns from positive to negative, at a net income Gini coefficient of around 30. Moreover, we show that the relationship between inequality and saving also depends on financial market conditions. While inequality increases saving, when credit is scarce it tends to reduce saving at high levels of credit. This paper primarily focuses on household saving, yet we also find some evidence for a non-monotonic effect of inequality on private saving, national saving, and the current account balance.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Born with a Silver Spoon? Danish Evidence on Wealth Inequality in Childhood.\n \n \n\n\n \n Boserup, S. H.; Kopczuk, W.; and Kreiner, C. T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Economic Journal, 128(612): F514–F544. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Born$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Boserupetal2018,\n  title = {Born with a Silver Spoon? {{Danish}} Evidence on Wealth Inequality in Childhood},\n  author = {Boserup, Simon Halphen and Kopczuk, Wojciech and Kreiner, Claus Thustrup},\n  year = {2018},\n  journal = {The Economic Journal},\n  volume = {128},\n  number = {612},\n  pages = {F514--F544},\n  doi = {10.1111/ecoj.12496},\n  url = {https://academic.oup.com/ej/article/128/612/F514-F544/5089455},\n  abstract = {We use Danish wealth records from three decades to characterise wealth inequality in childhood, where the main source of wealth is transfers. Wealth holdings are small in childhood but they have strong predictive power for future wealth in adulthood. At age 18, asset holdings of children are more informative than parental wealth in predicting wealth of children when they are in their 40s. We investigate why and rule out that childhood wealth in itself can accumulate enough to explain later wealth inequality. Instead, childhood wealth seems to proxy for intergenerational correlation in savings behaviour and additional transfers from parents.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Education, Income and Wealth: Persistence across Generations in Italy.\n \n \n\n\n \n Cannari, L.; and D'Alessio, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2018.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Education,$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{CannariDAlessio2018a,\n  title = {Education, Income and Wealth: Persistence across Generations in {{Italy}}},\n  author = {Cannari, Luigi and D'Alessio, Giovanni},\n  year = {2018},\n  url = {https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/qef/2018-0476/index.html},\n  abstract = {The paper examines the intergenerational persistence of economic conditions in terms of education, income and wealth, and the importance of starting conditions in explaining success in Italy. The intergenerational persistence of economic conditions turns out to be relatively high by international standards; in recent years this phenomenon has displayed an upward trend. Variables that are not controlled by individuals explain their economic success to a greater extent than in the past.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Long-Run Saving Dynamics: Evidence from Unexpected Inheritances.\n \n \n\n\n \n Druedahl, J.; and Martinello, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2018.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Long-Run$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{DruedahlMartinello2018,\n  title = {Long-Run Saving Dynamics: Evidence from Unexpected Inheritances},\n  author = {Druedahl, Jeppe and Martinello, Alessandro},\n  year = {2018},\n  url = {https://swopec.hhs.se/lunewp/abs/lunewp2016_007.htm},\n  abstract = {Long-run saving dynamics are a crucial component of consumption-saving behavior. This paper makes two contributions to the consumption literature. First, we exploit inheritance episodes to provide novel causal evidence on the long-run effects of a large financial windfall on saving behavior. For identification, we combine a longitudinal panel of administrative wealth reports with variation in the timing of sudden, unexpected parental deaths. We show that after inheritance net worth converges towards the path established before parental death, with only a third of the initial windfall remaining after a decade. These dynamics are qualitatively consistent with convergence to a buffer-stock target. Second, we analyze our findings through the lens of a generalized consumption-saving framework, and show that life-cycle consumption models can replicate this behavior, but only if the precautionary saving motive is stronger than usually assumed. This result also holds for two-asset models, which imply a high marginal propensity to consume.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Why Do Wealthy Parents Have Wealthy Children?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Fagereng, A.; Mogstad, M.; and Rønning, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2018.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Why$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Fagerengetal2018,\n  title = {Why Do Wealthy Parents Have Wealthy Children?},\n  author = {Fagereng, Andreas and Mogstad, Magne and R{\\o}nning, Marte},\n  year = {2018},\n  address = {{Chicago}},\n  url = {https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/why-do-wealthy-parents-have-wealthy-children/},\n  abstract = {Strong intergenerational associations in wealth have fueled a long-standing debate over why children of wealthy parents tend to be well off themselves. We investigate the role of family background in determining children's wealth accumulation and investor behavior as adults. The analysis is made possible by linking Korean-born children who were adopted at infancy by Norwegian parents to a population panel data set with detailed information on disaggregated wealth portfolios and socio-economic characteristics. The mechanism by which these Korean-Norwegian adoptees were assigned to adoptive families is known and effectively random. We use the quasi-random assignment to estimate the causal effects from an adoptee being raised in one type of family versus another. Our findings show that family background matters significantly for children's accumulation of wealth and investor behavior as adults, even when removing the genetic connection between children and the parents raising them. In particular, adoptees raised by wealthy parents are more likely to be well off themselves, whereas adoptees' stock market participation and portfolio risk are increasing in the financial risk taking of their adoptive parents. The detailed nature of our data allows us to explore mechanisms, assess the generalizability of the lessons from adoptees, and compare our findings to results from behavioral genetics decompositions.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n How Does Intergenerational Wealth Transmission Affect Wealth Concentration?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Feiveson, L.; and Sabelhaus, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"How$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{FeivesonSabelhaus2018,\n  type = {{{FEDS Notes}}},\n  title = {How Does Intergenerational Wealth Transmission Affect Wealth Concentration?},\n  author = {Feiveson, Laura and Sabelhaus, John},\n  year = {2018},\n  month = jun,\n  institution = {{Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System}},\n  doi = {10.17016/2380-7172.2209},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.2209},\n  abstract = {Wealth concentration is high and rising in the US, reigniting an old debate within economics about the role that intergenerational wealth transmission plays in understanding savings and wealth accumulation.1 One view is that observed wealth holdings at any point in time are almost entirely attributable to lifetime saving that is unconnected to family wealth or support, which implies that intergenerational wealth transmission is probably not particularly important for explaining wealth concentration. An alternative view is that wealthy dynastic families hold a substantial share of aggregate wealth that is systematically passed from old to young, either through direct transfers in the form of inheritances and financial gifts, or more indirect channels such as the provision of education or other opportunities that lead to future wealth accumulation.2 In this note, we seek to establish the role of intergenerational wealth transmission by using the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), which contains extensive information about household balance sheets, intergenerational transfers made and received, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of respondents},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Global Concentration of Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Goda, T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Cambridge Journal of Economics, 42(1): 95–115. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Goda2018,\n  title = {The Global Concentration of Wealth},\n  author = {Goda, Thomas},\n  year = {2018},\n  journal = {Cambridge Journal of Economics},\n  volume = {42},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {95--115},\n  doi = {10.1093/cje/bex020},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bex020},\n  abstract = {This paper compares changes in relative and absolute wealth concentrations to establish whether both processes have followed similar trajectories. The findings indicate that while the relative wealth concentration level has increased in recent times, it is not extraordinarily high from a historical perspective. In contrast, the absolute wealth concentration level is most likely higher than has ever previously occurred, due to the growth of per capita wealth holdings and the population size of high net worth individuals (HNWIs). The available data also suggest that HNWIs recovered very quickly from the losses that they experienced in the financial crisis of 2008. As a result, HNWIs' wealth holdings in 2013 were at least 30\\% higher than they were in 2007. The post-crisis recovery of billionaires was even stronger, with their 2014 net wealth holdings more than 85\\% higher than 2007 levels.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Inherited Advantage: Comparing Households That Receive Gifts and Bequests with Non-Receiving Households across the Distribution of Household Wealth in 11 European Countries.\n \n \n\n\n \n Korom, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n European Sociological Review, 34(1): 79–91. February 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inherited$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Korom2018,\n  title = {Inherited Advantage: Comparing Households That Receive Gifts and Bequests with Non-Receiving Households across the Distribution of Household Wealth in 11 {{European}} Countries},\n  author = {Korom, Philipp},\n  year = {2018},\n  month = feb,\n  journal = {European Sociological Review},\n  volume = {34},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {79--91},\n  doi = {10.1093/esr/jcx084},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcx084},\n  abstract = {This study examines the importance of gifts and bequests ('wealth transfers') across the distribution of household wealth. Unconditional quantile regression applied to harmonized survey data obtained from 11 European countries reveals that households that receive gifts and bequests own considerably more wealth than non-receiving households, all other things being equal. The wealth gap varies hugely along the distribution of net wealth. At the median, the wealth gap reaches about 119,000 euros and increases to 630,000 euros at the 90th percentile. With regard to the 99th percentile, survey data even indicate differences in wealth levels greater than 2.3 million euros. Further analysis finds evidence that the impact of wealth transfers on household wealth follows an inverted U-shaped pattern: gifts and bequests contribute the most to the stock of private wealth in the broad mid-section and less so at the lower and upper ends of the distribution. Overall, the study provides evidence for a strong nexus between inheritance and household wealth that is not limited to the top.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality in Sweden: What Can We Learn from Capitalized Income Tax Data?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Lundberg, J.; and Waldenström, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Review of Income and Wealth, 64(3): 517–541. September 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Wealth$ appendix\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{LundbergWaldenstrom2018,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality in {{Sweden}}: What Can We Learn from Capitalized Income Tax Data?},\n  author = {Lundberg, Jacob and Waldenstr{\\"o}m, Daniel},\n  year = {2018},\n  month = sep,\n  journal = {Review of Income and Wealth},\n  volume = {64},\n  number = {3},\n  pages = {517--541},\n  doi = {10.1111/roiw.12294},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12294},\n  abstract = {This paper presents new estimates of wealth inequality in Sweden during 2000\\textendash 2012, linking wealth register data up to 2007 and individually capitalized wealth based on income and property tax registers for the period thereafter when a repeal of the wealth tax stopped the collection of individual wealth statistics. We find that wealth inequality increased after 2007 and that more unequal bank holdings and housing appear to be important drivers. We also evaluate the performance of the capitalization method by contrasting its estimates and their dispersion with observed stocks in register data up to 2007. The goodness-of-fit varies tremendously across assets and we conclude that although capitalized wealth estimates may well approximate overall inequality levels and trends, they are highly sensitive to assumptions and the quality of the underlying data sources.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_appendix = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/lundberg-waldenstrm-wealthinequalityinswedenwhatcanwelearnfromcapitalizedincometaxdataappendix-2018}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Morelli, S.; Nolan, B.; and Van Kerm, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Generating Prosperity for Working Families in Affluent Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Morellietal2018,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality},\n  booktitle = {Generating Prosperity for Working Families in Affluent Countries},\n  author = {Morelli, Salvatore and Nolan, Brian and Van Kerm, Philippe},\n  year = {2018},\n  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},\n  address = {{Oxford}},\n  doi = {10.1093/oso/9780198807056.003.0012},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198807056.003.0012},\n  abstract = {This chapter brings wealth into the picture, again in a comparative perspective, to bring out key features of recent trends and their implications for the prosperity and prospects of ordinary families. Data on the distribution of wealth has been improving in recent years, and new data are exploited here to examine patterns of wealth holding across the income distribution. In doing so, particular attention is paid to the extent and nature of wealth held by middle and lower income working-age families, and how this differs from those higher up the distribution. The chapter also looks at inequality in the distribution of wealth compared with income, and whether wealth inequality has widened as income inequality has grown.},\n  isbn = {978-0-19-880705-6},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016.\n \n \n\n\n \n Novokmet, F.; Piketty, T.; and Zucman, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Economic Inequality, 16(2): 189–223. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"From$ link\n \n \n \n $\"From$ working paper\n \n \n \n $\"From$ appendix\n \n \n \n $\"From$ main figures and tables\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Novokmetetal2018,\n  title = {From {{Soviets}} to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in {{Russia}} 1905-2016},\n  author = {Novokmet, Filip and Piketty, Thomas and Zucman, Gabriel},\n  year = {2018},\n  journal = {Journal of Economic Inequality},\n  volume = {16},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {189--223},\n  doi = {10.1007/s10888-018-9383-0},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-018-9383-0},\n  abstract = {This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_working_paper = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/novokmet-piketty-zucman-fromsovietstooligarchsinequalityandpropertyinrussia19052016workingpaper-2018},\n  url_appendix = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/novokmet-piketty-zucman-fromsovietstooligarchsinequalityandpropertyinrussia19052016appendix-2017},\n  url_main_figures_and_tables = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/novokmet-piketty-zucman-fromsovietstooligarchsinequalityandpropertyinrussia19052016mainfiguresandtables-2018}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016 [Working Paper].\n \n \n\n\n \n Novokmet, F.; Piketty, T.; and Zucman, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 2017/09, World Inequality Database, April 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"From$ link\n \n \n \n $\"From$ published version\n \n \n \n $\"From$ appendix\n \n \n \n $\"From$ main figures and tables\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{Novokmetetal2018a,\n  type = {{{WID}}.World {{Working Paper}}},\n  title = {From {{Soviets}} to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in {{Russia}} 1905-2016 [Working Paper]},\n  author = {Novokmet, Filip and Piketty, Thomas and Zucman, Gabriel},\n  year = {2018},\n  month = apr,\n  number = {2017/09},\n  institution = {{World Inequality Database}},\n  url = {https://wid.world/document/soviets-oligarchs-inequality-property-russia-1905-2016/},\n  urldate = {2022-04-01},\n  abstract = {This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality},\n  url_published_version = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/novokmet-piketty-zucman-fromsovietstooligarchsinequalityandpropertyinrussia19052016-2018},\n  url_appendix = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/novokmet-piketty-zucman-fromsovietstooligarchsinequalityandpropertyinrussia19052016appendix-2017},\n  url_main_figures_and_tables = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/novokmet-piketty-zucman-fromsovietstooligarchsinequalityandpropertyinrussia19052016mainfiguresandtables-2018}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Generations of Advantage. Multigenerational Correlations in Family Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Pfeffer, F. T.; and Killewald, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Social Forces, 96(4): 1411–1442. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Generations$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{PfefferKillewald2018,\n  title = {Generations of Advantage. Multigenerational Correlations in Family Wealth},\n  author = {Pfeffer, Fabian T. and Killewald, Alexandra},\n  year = {2018},\n  journal = {Social Forces},\n  volume = {96},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {1411--1442},\n  doi = {10.1093/sf/sox086},\n  url = {https://fabianpfeffer.com/research/wealth-and-opportunity/},\n  abstract = {Inequality in family wealth is high, yet we know little about how much and how wealth inequality is maintained across generations. We argue that a long-term perspective reflective of wealth's cumulative nature is crucial to understand the extent and channels of wealth reproduction across generations. Using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics that span nearly half a century, we show that a one-decile increase in parents' wealth position is associated with an increase of about four percentiles in their offspring's wealth position in adulthood. We show that grandparental wealth is a unique predictor of grandchildren's wealth, above and beyond the role of parental wealth, suggesting that a focus on only parent-child dyads understates the importance of family wealth lineages. Second, considering five channels of wealth transmission\\textemdash gifts and bequests, education, marriage, homeownership, and business ownership\\textemdash we find that most of the advantages arising from family wealth begin much earlier in the life course than the common focus on bequests implies, even when we consider the wealth of grandparents. We also document the stark disadvantage of African American households in terms of not only their wealth attainment but also their intergenerational wealth mobility compared to whites.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States.\n \n \n\n\n \n Piketty, T.; Saez, E.; and Zucman, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(2): 553–609. May 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Distributional$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Distributional$ data appendix\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Pikettyetal2018,\n  title = {Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the {{United States}}},\n  author = {Piketty, Thomas and Saez, Emmanuel and Zucman, Gabriel},\n  year = {2018},\n  month = may,\n  journal = {The Quarterly Journal of Economics},\n  volume = {133},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {553--609},\n  doi = {10.1093/QJE/QJX043},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/QJE/QJX043},\n  abstract = {This article combines tax, survey, and national accounts data to estimate the distribution of national income in the United States since 1913. Our distributional national accounts capture 100\\% of national income, allowing us to compute growth rates for each quantile of the income distribution consistent with macroeconomic growth. We estimate the distribution of both pretax and posttax income, making it possible to provide a comprehensive view of how government redistribution affects inequality. Average pretax real national income per adult has increased 60\\% from 1980 to 2014, but we find that it has stagnated for the bottom 50\\% of the distribution at about \\$16,000 a year. The pretax income of the middle class-adults between the median and the 90th percentile-has grown 40\\% since 1980, faster than what tax and survey data suggest, due in particular to the rise of tax-exempt fringe benefits. Income has boomed at the top. The upsurge of top incomes was first a labor income phenomenon but has mostly been a capital income phenomenon since 2000. The government has offset only a small fraction of the increase in inequality. The reduction of the gender gap in earnings has mitigated the increase in inequality among adults, but the share of women falls steeply as one moves up the labor income distribution, and is only 11\\% in the top 0.1\\% in 2014.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_data_appendix = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/piketty-saez-zucman-distributionalnationalaccountsmethodsandestimatesfortheunitedstatesdataappendix-2017}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Longitudinal Determinants of End-of-Life Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Poterba, J.; Venti, S.; and Wise, D. A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Public Economics, 162: 78–88. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Longitudinal$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Poterbaetal2018,\n  title = {Longitudinal Determinants of End-of-Life Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Poterba, James and Venti, Steven and Wise, David A.},\n  year = {2018},\n  journal = {Journal of Public Economics},\n  volume = {162},\n  pages = {78--88},\n  publisher = {{North-Holland}},\n  doi = {10.1016/J.JPUBECO.2018.04.008},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.04.008},\n  abstract = {Inequality in wealth among elderly households, and in particular the prevalence of very low wealth holdings, can be an important consideration in the design of social insurance programs. This paper examines the incidence and determinants of low levels of financial and total wealth using repeated cross-sections of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and a small longitudinal sample of HRS respondents observed both at age 65 and shortly before death. Most of those who report very low wealth holdings at the end of their life had little wealth at the traditional retirement age of 65. There is strong persistence over time in reports of very low wealth, and more generally relatively little evidence that wealth is drawn down in the first 15 years of retirement. The age-specific probability of reporting low wealth increases slowly after age 65. Low lifetime earnings are strongly predictive of low wealth at retirement and at the end of life. The post-retirement onset of a major medical condition, and, for married women, the loss of their spouse, are both associated with small increases in the probability of reporting very low wealth, but they account for a small fraction of low-wealth outcomes. Low levels of wealth accumulation before age 65, rather than gaps in the safety net after 65 or rapid spend-down of accumulated assets, appear to be the primary determinant of low levels of wealth just before death.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Longitudinal Determinants of End-of-Life Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Poterba, J.; Venti, S.; and Wise, D. A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2018.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Longitudinal$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Poterbaetal2018a,\n  title = {Longitudinal Determinants of End-of-Life Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Poterba, James and Venti, Steven and Wise, David A.},\n  year = {2018},\n  url = {https://www.nber.org/papers/w23839},\n  abstract = {Inequality in wealth among elderly households, and in particular the prevalence of very low wealth holdings, can be an important consideration in the design of social insurance programs. This paper examines the incidence and determinants of low levels of financial and total wealth using repeated cross-sections of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and a small longitudinal sample of HRS respondents observed both at age 65 and shortly before death. Most of those who report very low wealth holdings at the end of their life had little wealth at the traditional retirement age of 65. There is strong persistence over time in reports of very low wealth, and more generally relatively little evidence that wealth is drawn down in the first 15 years of retirement. The age-specific probability of reporting low wealth increases slowly after age 65. Low lifetime earnings are strongly predictive of low wealth at retirement and at the end of life. The post-retirement onset of a major medical condition, and, for married women, the loss of their spouse, are both associated with small increases in the probability of reporting very low wealth, but they account for a small fraction of low-wealth outcomes. Low levels of wealth accumulation before age 65, rather than gaps in the safety net after 65 or rapid spend-down of accumulated assets, appear to be the primary determinant of low levels of wealth just before death.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2017\n \n \n (16)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Earnings Inequality and Other Determinants of Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Benhabib, J.; Bisin, A.; and Luo, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 107(5): 593–597. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Earnings$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Benhabibetal2017,\n  title = {Earnings Inequality and Other Determinants of Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Benhabib, Jess and Bisin, Alberto and Luo, Mi},\n  year = {2017},\n  journal = {American Economic Review: Papers \\& Proceedings},\n  volume = {107},\n  number = {5},\n  pages = {593--597},\n  doi = {10.1257/aer.p20171005},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171005},\n  abstract = {We study the relation between the distribution of labor earnings and the distribution of wealth. We show, theoretically as well as empirically, that while labor earnings and precautionary savings are important determinants of wealth inequality factors, they cannot by themselves account for the thick tail of (the large top shares in) the observed distribution of wealth. Other determinants, like stochastic returns to wealth, as well as savings rates and rates of returns increasing in wealth, need to be accounted for.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n How Inheritances Shape Wealth Distributions: An International Comparison.\n \n \n\n\n \n Bönke, T.; Werder, M. V.; and Westermeier, C.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Economics Letters, 159: 217–220. October 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"How$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Bonkeetal2017,\n  title = {How Inheritances Shape Wealth Distributions: {{An}} International Comparison},\n  author = {B{\\"o}nke, Timm and Werder, Marten V. and Westermeier, Christian},\n  year = {2017},\n  month = oct,\n  journal = {Economics Letters},\n  volume = {159},\n  pages = {217--220},\n  doi = {10.1016/j.econlet.2017.08.007},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.08.007},\n  abstract = {We use data from the European Household Finance and Consumption Survey in order to examine the distributional effect of intergenerational wealth transfers on the net worth distribution in 8 European countries and compare it to recent findings for the US. To do so, we resort to the decomposition of the coefficient of variation as suggested and applied by Wolff (1987, 2002, 2015) and Wolff and Gittleman (2014). The results seem to imply that inheritances and gifts have a vastly equalizing effect on inequality in household wealth in all 8 countries.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Distribution of Wealth and the Marginal Propensity to Consume.\n \n \n\n\n \n Carroll, C.; Slacalek, J.; Tokuoka, K.; and White, M. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Quantitative Economics, 8(3): 977–1020. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Carrolletal2017,\n  title = {The Distribution of Wealth and the Marginal Propensity to Consume},\n  author = {Carroll, Christopher and Slacalek, Jiri and Tokuoka, Kiichi and White, Matthew N.},\n  year = {2017},\n  journal = {Quantitative Economics},\n  volume = {8},\n  number = {3},\n  pages = {977--1020},\n  doi = {10.3982/qe694},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.3982/QE694},\n  abstract = {In a model calibrated to match micro- and macroeconomic evidence on house- hold income dynamics, we show that a modest degree of heterogeneity in house- hold preferences or beliefs is sufficient to match empirical measures of wealth inequality in the United States. The heterogeneity-augmented model's predic- tions are consistent with microeconomic evidence that suggests that the annual marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is much larger than the roughly 0?04 im- plied by commonly used macroeconomic models (even ones including some het- erogeneity). The high MPC arises because many consumers hold little wealth de- spite having a strong precautionary motive. Our model also plausibly predicts that the aggregate MPC can differ greatly depending on how the shock is distributed across households (depending, e.g., on their wealth, or employment status).},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth, Top Incomes and Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Cowell, F.; Nolan, B.; Olivera, J.; and Van Kerm, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Hepburn, C.; and Hamilton, K., editor(s), National Wealth: What Is Missing, Why It Matters, Ch. 8, pages 175–204. Oxford University Press, 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth,$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 9 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Cowelletal2017,\n  title = {Wealth, Top Incomes and Inequality},\n  booktitle = {National Wealth: What Is Missing, Why It Matters},\n  author = {Cowell, Frank and Nolan, Brian and Olivera, Javier and Van Kerm, Philippe},\n  editor = {Hepburn, Cameron and Hamilton, Kirk},\n  year = {2017},\n  pages = {175--204},\n  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},\n  url = {https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198803720.001.0001/oso-9780198803720},\n  abstract = {Although it is heartening to see wealth inequality being taken seriously, key concepts are often muddled, including the distinction between income and wealth, what is included in "wealth", and facts about wealth distributions. This chapter highlights issues that arise in making ideas and facts about wealth inequality precise, and employs newly-available data to take a fresh look at wealth and wealth inequality in a comparative perspective. The composition of wealth is similar across countries, with housing wealth being the key asset. Wealth is considerably more unequally distributed than income, and it is distinctively so in the United States. Extending definitions to include pension wealth however reduces inequality substantially. Analysis also sheds light on life-cycle patterns and the role of inheritance. Discussion of the joint distributions of income and wealth suggests that interactions between increasing top income shares and the concentration of wealth and income from wealth towards the top is critical.},\n  chapter = {Ch. 8},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality: Theory, Measurement and Decomposition.\n \n \n\n\n \n Davies, J. B.; Fortin, N.; and Lemieux, T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue canadienne d'économique, 50(5): 1224–1261. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 9 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Daviesetal2017a,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality: Theory, Measurement and Decomposition},\n  author = {Davies, James B. and Fortin, Nicole and Lemieux, Thomas},\n  year = {2017},\n  journal = {Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue canadienne d'\\'economique},\n  volume = {50},\n  number = {5},\n  pages = {1224--1261},\n  doi = {10.1111/caje.12313},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12313},\n  abstract = {This paper reviews the basic principles of inequality measurement, underlining the advantages and shortcomings of alternative measures from a theoretical standpoint and in the context of the study of the distribution of wealth. Adopting the two most popular measures, the Gini index and the P-shares, the paper documents wealth inequality in Canada using the 1999, 2005 and 2012 Survey of Financial Security (SFS). It carries out several decompositions with covariates, featuring DFL-type reweighting methods and Gini and P-shares RIF regressions. The latter parallel decompositions deepen our understanding of how changes in socio-demographic characteristics, including the compensating role of family formation and human capital, impact wealth inequality.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Inequality in 3D: Income, Consumption, and Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Fisher, J.; Johnson, D.; Smeeding, T.; and Thompson, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2017.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inequality$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Fisheretal2017,\n  title = {Inequality in {{3D}}: Income, Consumption, and Wealth},\n  author = {Fisher, Jonathan and Johnson, David and Smeeding, Timothy and Thompson, Jeffrey},\n  year = {2017},\n  url = {https://equitablegrowth.org/working-papers/inequality-3d-income-consumption-wealth/},\n  abstract = {We do not need to and should not have to choose amongst income, consumption, or wealth as the superior measure of well-being. All three individually and jointly determine well-being. We are the first to study inequality in three conjoint dimensions for the same households, using income, consumption, and wealth from the 1989-2016 Surveys of Consumer Finances (SCF). The paper focuses on two questions. What does inequality in two and three dimensions look like? Has inequality in multiple dimensions increased by less, by more, or by about the same as inequality in any one dimension? We find an increase in inequality in two dimensions and in three dimensions, with a faster increase in multi-dimensional inequality than in one-dimensional inequality. Viewing inequality through one dimension greatly understates the level and the growth in inequality in two and three dimensions. The U.S. is becoming more economically unequal than is generally understood.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Impact of Inheritance on the Distribution of Wealth: Evidence from Great Britain.\n \n \n\n\n \n Karagiannaki, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Review of Income and Wealth, 63(2): 394–408. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Karagiannaki2017,\n  title = {The Impact of Inheritance on the Distribution of Wealth: Evidence from Great Britain},\n  author = {Karagiannaki, Eleni},\n  year = {2017},\n  journal = {Review of Income and Wealth},\n  volume = {63},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {394--408},\n  doi = {10.1111/roiw.12217},\n  url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/roiw.12217},\n  abstract = {Using the British Household Panel Survey, we investigate the role of inheritance in shaping the distribution of household wealth in Great Britain during 1995\\textendash 2005a period characterized by a substantial increase in wealth and an equally important decrease in wealth inequality. Abstracting from behavioral effects, we find that inheritances received during this period accounted for 30 percent of the increase in wealth of inheritors. Regression estimates of the effect of inheritance on wealth accumulation suggest that households spend 30 percent of their inheritances on average, and that there is substantial heterogeneity in household responses. Households that accumulated more wealth saved a larger share of their inheritances, as did middle aged households and those with lower initial wealth. Although inheritances are highly unequal they had a small impact on overall wealth inequality. This mainly reflected the fact that their size relative to other sources of wealth was very small.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality and Accumulation.\n \n \n\n\n \n Killewald, A.; Pfeffer, F. T.; and Schachner, J. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1): 379–404. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Killewaldetal2017,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality and Accumulation},\n  author = {Killewald, Alexandra and Pfeffer, Fabian T. and Schachner, Jared N.},\n  year = {2017},\n  journal = {Annual Review of Sociology},\n  volume = {43},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {379--404},\n  doi = {10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053331},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053331},\n  abstract = {Research on wealth inequality and accumulation and the data upon which it relies have expanded substantially in the twenty-first century. Although the field has experienced rapid growth, conceptual and methodological challenges remain. We begin by discussing two major unresolved methodological concerns facing wealth research: how to address challenges to causal inference posed by wealth's cumulative nature and how to operationalize net worth given its highly skewed distribution. Next, we provide an overview of data sources available for wealth research. To underscore the need for continued empirical attention to net worth, we review trends in wealth levels and inequality and evaluate wealth's distinctiveness as an indicator of social stratification. We then review recent empirical evidence on the effects of wealth on other social outcomes, as well as research on the determinants of wealth. We close with a list of promising avenues for future research on wealth, its causes, and its consequences.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Marriage Wealth Premium Revisited: Gender Disparities and within-Individual Changes in Personal Wealth in Germany.\n \n \n\n\n \n Lersch, P. M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Demography, 54(3): 961–983. April 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Lersch2017,\n  title = {The Marriage Wealth Premium Revisited: Gender Disparities and within-Individual Changes in Personal Wealth in {{Germany}}},\n  author = {Lersch, Philipp M.},\n  year = {2017},\n  month = apr,\n  journal = {Demography},\n  volume = {54},\n  number = {3},\n  pages = {961--983},\n  doi = {10.1007/s13524-017-0572-4},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-0572-4},\n  abstract = {This study examines the association between marriage and economic wealth of women and men. Going beyond previous research that focused on household wealth, I examine personal wealth, which allows identifying gender disparities in the association between marriage and wealth. Using unique data from the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (2002, 2007, and 2012), I apply random-effects and fixed-effects regression models to test my expectations. I find that both women and men experience substantial marriage wealth premiums not only in household wealth but also in personal wealth. However, I do not find consistent evidence for gender disparities in these general marriage premiums. Additional analyses indicate, however, that women's marriage premiums are substantially lower than men's premiums in older cohorts and when only nonhousing wealth is considered. Overall, this study provides new evidence that women and men gain unequally in their wealth attainment through marriage.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Rational Inattention and the Dynamics of Consumption and Wealth in General Equilibrium.\n \n \n\n\n \n Luo, Y.; Nie, J.; Wang, G.; and Young, E. R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Economic Theory, 172: 55–87. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Rational$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Luoetal2017,\n  title = {Rational Inattention and the Dynamics of Consumption and Wealth in General Equilibrium},\n  author = {Luo, Yulei and Nie, Jun and Wang, Gaowang and Young, Eric R.},\n  year = {2017},\n  journal = {Journal of Economic Theory},\n  volume = {172},\n  pages = {55--87},\n  doi = {10.1016/j.jet.2017.08.005},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2017.08.005},\n  abstract = {We propose a recursive utility version of a basic Huggett (1993) model to study the implications of rational inattention (or RI, Sims, 2003, 2010) for the cross-sectional dispersion of consumption and wealth (relative to income) in general equilibrium. We find that incorporating RI can significantly improve the model's predictions in both dimensions in general equilibrium. In addition, we find that intertemporal substitution plays an important role in determining the two key dispersion moments via affecting the degree of optimal attention in equilibrium. Finally, we show that alternative models that rely on habit formation, incomplete information about current income, or borrowing constraints are not consistent with the facts we document.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Rational Inattention and the Dynamics of Consumption and Wealth in General Equilibrium.\n \n \n\n\n \n Luo, Y.; Nie, J.; Wang, G.; and Young, E. R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2017.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Rational$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Luoetal2017a,\n  title = {Rational Inattention and the Dynamics of Consumption and Wealth in General Equilibrium},\n  author = {Luo, Yulei and Nie, Jun and Wang, Gaowang and Young, Eric R.},\n  year = {2017},\n  doi = {10.1016/j.jet.2017.08.005},\n  url = {https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/80045.html},\n  abstract = {We use a recursive utility version of a basic Huggett (1993) model to study the cross-sectional dispersion of consumption and wealth (relative to income). The basic model implies too little dispersion compared to the data, whereas a one-parameter extension to include rational inattention (limited information processing) delivers a better fit to both facts in general equilibrium. In particular, intertemporal substitution plays an important role in determining the two key dispersion moments via affecting the degree of optimal attention in equilibrium. Alternative models that rely on habit formation, incomplete information about current income, or borrowing constraints are not consistent with the facts we document.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Optimal Financial Knowledge and Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Lusardi, A.; Michaud, P.; and Mitchell, O. S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Political Economy, 125(2): 431–477. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Optimal$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Lusardietal2017,\n  title = {Optimal Financial Knowledge and Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Lusardi, Annamaria and Michaud, Pierre-Carl and Mitchell, Olivia S.},\n  year = {2017},\n  journal = {Journal of Political Economy},\n  volume = {125},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {431--477},\n  doi = {10.1086/690950},\n  url = {https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/690950},\n  abstract = {We show that financial knowledge is a key determinant of wealth inequality in a stochastic life cycle model with endogenous financial knowledge accumulation, where financial knowledge enables individuals to better allocate lifetime resources in a world of uncertainty and imperfect insurance. Moreover, because of how the US social insurance system works, better-educated individuals have most to gain from investing in financial knowledge. Our parsimonious specification generates substantial wealth inequality relative to a one-asset saving model and one in which returns on wealth depend on portfolio composition alone. We estimate that 30\\textendash 40 percent of retirement wealth inequality is accounted for by financial knowledge.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Increasing Capital Income Share and Its Effect on Personal Income Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Milanovic, B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Boushey, H.; DeLong, J. B.; and Steinbaum, M., editor(s), After Piketty: The Agenda for Economics and Inequality, 10. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Increasing$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Milanovic2017,\n  title = {Increasing Capital Income Share and Its Effect on Personal Income Inequality},\n  booktitle = {After {{Piketty}}: The Agenda for Economics and Inequality},\n  author = {Milanovic, Branko},\n  editor = {Boushey, Heather and DeLong, J. Bradford and Steinbaum, Marshall},\n  year = {2017},\n  publisher = {{Harvard University Press}},\n  address = {{Cambridge, MA}},\n  url = {https://stonecenter.gc.cuny.edu/research/increasing-capital-income-share-and-its-effect-on-personal-income-inequality/},\n  urldate = {2022-02-28},\n  abstract = {We tend to assume that those with high incomes from capital are also those who are the richest overall; that is, that the association between being capital-rich and overall-income-rich is very close. This is implicit in Piketty's analysis. He argues that as the share of capital in national income rises, interpersonal inequality will also rise. In our first chapter addressing the dimensions of inequality, economist Branko Milanovic asks under what conditions this is likely to be true. Milanovic imagines three kinds of societies: socialist, where there is an equal per capita distribution of capital assets; classical capitalist, where workers draw their entire income from labor and capitalists derive their entire income from capital; and ``new'' capitalist, where everyone receives income from both labor and capital. He uses these archetypes to examine what happens to the inequality\\textemdash as measured by the Gini coefficient of interpersonal income inequality\\textemdash if Piketty's {$\\alpha$}\\textemdash the share of capital in net income\\textemdash rises. Unsurprisingly, he finds that the institutional setup matters. The way the rising share of capital income gets transmitted into greater interpersonal inequality varies between different social systems as a function of the underlying asset distribution. In new capitalism, a rising share of capital income almost directly translates into a higher Gini, while in classical capitalism, this is true once the share of capitalists becomes sufficiently high. In a socialist world, however, a rising capital share does not imply rising interpersonal Gini.},\n  isbn = {978-0-674-97819-5},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  chapter = {10}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Household Wealth Trends in the United States, 1962 to 2016: Has Middle Class Wealth Recovered?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wolff, E. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 24085, National Bureau of Economic Research, November 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Household$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Household$ file\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{Wolff2017,\n  type = {Working {{Paper}}},\n  title = {Household Wealth Trends in the {{United States}}, 1962 to 2016: Has Middle Class Wealth Recovered?},\n  author = {Wolff, Edward N.},\n  year = {2017},\n  month = nov,\n  number = {24085},\n  institution = {{National Bureau of Economic Research}},\n  doi = {10.3386/w24085},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.3386/w24085},\n  abstract = {Asset prices plunged between 2007 and 2010 but then rebounded from 2010 to 2016. The most telling finding is that median wealth plummeted by 44 percent over years 2007 to 2010. The inequality of net worth, after almost two decades of little movement, went up sharply from 2007 to 2010, and relative indebtedness for the middle class expanded. The sharp fall in median net worth and the rise in overall wealth inequality over these years are largely traceable to the high leverage of middle class families and the high share of homes in their portfolio. Mean and median wealth rebounded from 2010 to 2016, by 17 and 28 percent, respectively. While mean wealth surpassed its previous peak in 2007, median wealth was still down by 34 percent. More than 100 percent of the recovery in both was due to a high return on wealth but this factor was offset by negative savings. Relative indebtedness continued to fall for the middle class from 2010 to 2016, and wealth inequality increased somewhat. The racial and ethnic disparity in wealth holdings widened considerably between 2007 and 2016, and the wealth of households under age 45 declined in relative terms.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_file = {Wolff2017.pdf}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n A Century of Wealth in America.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wolff, E. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Wolff2017a,\n  title = {A Century of Wealth in {{America}}},\n  author = {Wolff, Edward N.},\n  year = {2017},\n  publisher = {{The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press}},\n  address = {{Cambridge, MA}},\n  url = {https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674495142},\n  urldate = {2023-09-27},\n  abstract = {Understanding wealth in the United States\\textemdash who has it, how they acquired it, and how they preserve it\\textemdash is crucial to addressing the economic and political challenges facing the nation. But until now we have had little reliable information. Edward Wolff, one of the world's great experts on the economics of wealth, offers an authoritative account of patterns in the accumulation and distribution of wealth since 1900. A Century of Wealth in America demonstrates that the most remarkable change has been the growth of per capita household wealth, which climbed almost eightfold prior to the 2007 recession. But overlaid on this base rate are worrying trends. The share of personal wealth claimed by the richest one percent almost doubled between the mid-1970s and 2013, concurrent with a steep run-up of debt in the middle class. As the wealth of the average family dropped precipitously\\textemdash by 44 percent\\textemdash between 2007 and 2013, with black families hit hardest, the debt-income ratio more than doubled. The Great Recession also caused a sharp spike in asset poverty, as more and more families barely survived from one paycheck to the next. In short, the United States has changed from being one of the most economically equal of the advanced industrialized countries to being one of the most unequal. At a time of deep uncertainty about the future, A Century of Wealth in America provides a sober bedrock of facts and astute analysis. It will become one of the few indispensable resources for contemporary public debate.},\n  isbn = {978-0-674-49514-2},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality in the Netherlands, c. 1950-2015. the Paradox of a Northern European Welfare State.\n \n \n\n\n \n van Bavel , B.; and Frankema, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n TSEG - The Low Countries Journal of Social and Economic History, 14(2): 29–62. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Wealth$ file\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{vanBavelFrankema2017,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality in the {{Netherlands}}, c. 1950-2015. the Paradox of a Northern {{European}} Welfare State},\n  author = {{van Bavel}, Bas and Frankema, Ewout},\n  year = {2017},\n  journal = {TSEG - The Low Countries Journal of Social and Economic History},\n  volume = {14},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {29--62},\n  doi = {10.18352/tseg.916},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.18352/tseg.916},\n  abstract = {This paper reviews the available evidence on post-war trends in Dutch private wealth inequality using a range of scattered sources. Wealth tax records suggest a substantial decline in inequality to the 1970s and, more tentatively, a gradual rise thereafter. In the post-1990 years, Gini-coefficients of private wealth inequality range from 0.8 to 0.9, which is at the high end of the international comparison. Such high levels of private wealth inequality contrast with relatively low levels of net income inequality; a paradox that the Netherlands share with other Northern European welfare states. We hypothesise that publicly funded life-time income security limits the wealth-formation by ordinary Dutch households, while the redistributive taxes required to finance this system are targeting income rather than wealth.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_file = {vanBavelFrankema2017.pdf}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2016\n \n \n (24)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Intergenerational Wealth Mobility and the Role of Inheritance: Evidence from Multiple Generations.\n \n \n\n\n \n Adermon, A.; Lindahl, M.; and Waldenström, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intergenerational$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Adermonetal2016,\n  title = {Intergenerational Wealth Mobility and the Role of Inheritance: Evidence from Multiple Generations},\n  author = {Adermon, Adrian and Lindahl, Mikael and Waldenstr{\\"o}m, Daniel},\n  year = {2016},\n  doi = {10.1111/ecoj.12535},\n  url = {https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/10126/intergenerational-wealth-mobility-and-the-role-of-inheritance-evidence-from-multiple-generations},\n  abstract = {This study estimates intergenerational correlations in mid-life wealth across three generations, and a young fourth generation, and examines how much of the parent-child association that can be explained by inheritances. Using a Swedish data set we find parent- child rank correlations of 0.3\\textendash 0.4 and grandparents-grandchild rank correlations of 0.1\\textendash 0.2. Conditional on parents' wealth, grandparents' wealth is weakly positively associated with grandchild's wealth and the parent-child correlation is basically unchanged if we control for grandparents' wealth. Bequests and gifts strikingly account for at least 50 per cent of the parent-child wealth correlation while earnings and education are only able to explain 25 per cent.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Income Distribution and Aggregate Saving: A Non-Monotonic Relationship.\n \n \n\n\n \n Bofinger, P.; and Scheuermeyer, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Income$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{BofingerScheuermeyer2016,\n  title = {Income Distribution and Aggregate Saving: {{A}} Non-Monotonic Relationship},\n  author = {Bofinger, Peter and Scheuermeyer, Philipp},\n  year = {2016},\n  doi = {10.1111/roiw.12376},\n  url = {https://cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=11435},\n  abstract = {Drawing on a panel of advanced economies, this paper documents a concave and non-monotonic link between inequality and the aggregate household saving rate. We find that, at a low level of inequality, more inequality is associated with higher saving; but we also show that a negative relationship between inequality and saving prevails where inequality is high. Using different empirical approaches, we locate the turning point, where the marginal effect of inequality turns from positive to negative, at a net income Gini coefficient of around 30. Moreover, we show that the relationship between inequality and saving also depends on financial market conditions. While inequality increases saving, when credit is scarce it tends to reduce saving at high levels of credit. This paper primarily focuses on household saving, yet we also find some evidence for a non-monotonic effect of inequality on private saving, national saving, and the current account balance.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Role of Bequests in Shaping Wealth Inequality: Evidence from Danish Wealth Records.\n \n \n\n\n \n Boserup, S. H.; Kopczuk, W.; and Kreiner, C. T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 106(5): 656–661. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Boserupetal2016a,\n  title = {The Role of Bequests in Shaping Wealth Inequality: Evidence from {{Danish}} Wealth Records},\n  author = {Boserup, Simon H. and Kopczuk, Wojciech and Kreiner, Claus T.},\n  year = {2016},\n  journal = {American Economic Review: Papers \\& Proceedings},\n  volume = {106},\n  number = {5},\n  pages = {656--661},\n  doi = {10.1257/aer.p20161036},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20161036},\n  abstract = {Using Danish administrative data, we estimate the impact of bequests on the level and inequality of wealth. We compare the distributions of wealth over time of people whose parent died and those whose parent did not. Bequests account for 26 percent of the average post-bequest wealth 1-3 years after parental death and significantly affect wealth throughout the distribution. Bequests increase absolute wealth inequality (variance of the distribution censored at the top/bottom 1\\% increases by 33 percent), but reduce relative inequality (the top 1\\% share declines by 6 percentage points from the base of 31 percent).},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Role of Bequests in Shaping Wealth Inequality: Evidence from Danish Wealth Records.\n \n \n\n\n \n Boserup, S. H.; Kopczuk, W.; and Kreiner, C. T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Boserupetal2016b,\n  title = {The Role of Bequests in Shaping Wealth Inequality: Evidence from Danish Wealth Records},\n  author = {Boserup, Simon H. and Kopczuk, Wojciech and Kreiner, Claus T.},\n  year = {2016},\n  url = {http://www.nber.org/papers/w21896},\n  abstract = {Using Danish administrative data, we estimate the impact of bequests on the level and inequality of wealth. We employ an event study design where we follow the distribution of wealth over time of people who are 45-50 years old, and divide them into treatment group and control group depending on whether a parent dies or not. Bequests account for 26 percent of the average post-bequest wealth 1-3 years after parental death and significantly affect wealth throughout the distribution. We find that bequests increase measures of absolute wealth inequality (variance), but reduce relative inequality (top wealth shares). Following the receipt of bequests, variance of the distribution censored at the top/bottom 1\\% increases by 33 percent, but the top 1\\% share declines by 6 percentage points from an initial level of 31 percent and the top 10\\% share declines by 10 percentage points from a base of around 81 percent.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Lifetime Receipt of Inheritances and the Distribution of Wealth in England.\n \n \n\n\n \n Crawford, R.; and Hood, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Fiscal Studies, 37(1): 55–75. March 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Lifetime$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{CrawfordHood2016,\n  title = {Lifetime Receipt of Inheritances and the Distribution of Wealth in {{England}}},\n  author = {Crawford, Rowena and Hood, Andrew},\n  year = {2016},\n  month = mar,\n  journal = {Fiscal Studies},\n  volume = {37},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {55--75},\n  doi = {10.1111/j.1475-5890.2016.12087},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2016.12087},\n  abstract = {We investigate the impact of inheritances and gifts received on the distribution of wealth. Whereas previous work has looked only at marketable wealth, we consider broader measures of wealth including state and private pensions. We find that once pension wealth is included, inheritances and gifts no longer have an equalising impact on the distribution of wealth. Without pension wealth, including wealth transfers reduces the Gini coefficient for wealth from 0.57 to 0.52. With pension wealth, the impact is negligible. We argue that this latter effect gives a better indication of the impact of inheritances on the distribution of lifetime income.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Implications of Richer Earning Dynamics for Consumption and Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n De Nardi, M.; Fella, G.; Pardo, G. P.; and Hope, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{DeNardietal2016,\n  title = {The Implications of Richer Earning Dynamics for Consumption and Wealth},\n  author = {De Nardi, Mariacristina and Fella, Giulio and Pardo, Gonzalo Paz and Hope, Rebecca},\n  year = {2016},\n  address = {{Cambridge, MA}},\n  doi = {10.3386/w21917},\n  url = {http://www.nber.org/papers/w21917},\n  abstract = {Earnings dynamics are much richer than those typically used in macro models with heterogenous agents. This paper provides multiple contributions. First, it proposes a simple non-parametric method to model rich earnings dynamics that is easy to estimate and introduce in structural models. Second, it applies our method to estimate a nonparametric earnings process using two data sets: the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and a large, synthetic, data set that matches the dynamics of the U.S. tax earnings. Third, it uses a life cycle model of consumption to compare the consumption and saving implications of our two estimated processes to those of a standard AR(1). We find that, unlike the standard AR(1) process, our estimated, richer earnings process generates an increase in consumption inequality over the life cycle that is consistent with the data and better fits the savings of the households at the bottom 60\\%of the wealth distribution.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Is the U.S. Retirement System Contributing to Rising Wealth Inequality?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Devlin-Foltz, S.; Henriques, A.; and Sabelhaus, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences, 2(6): 59–85. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Is$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Devlin-Foltzetal2016,\n  title = {Is the {{U}}.{{S}}. Retirement System Contributing to Rising Wealth Inequality?},\n  author = {{Devlin-Foltz}, Sebastian and Henriques, Alice and Sabelhaus, John},\n  year = {2016},\n  journal = {RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences},\n  volume = {2},\n  number = {6},\n  pages = {59--85},\n  doi = {10.7758/rsf.2016.2.6.04},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2016.2.6.04},\n  abstract = {Data from the Survey of Consumer Finances for 1989 through 2013 reveal five broad findings. First, overall retirement plan participation was stable or rising through 2007, though overall participation fell noticeably in the wake of the Great Recession and has remained lower. Second, cohort- based analysis of life- cycle tra- jectories shows that participation in retirement plans is strongly correlated with income, and that the recent decline in participation is concentrated among younger and low- to middle- income families. Third, the shift in the type of pension coverage from defined benefit (DB) to defined contribution (DC) occurred within\\textemdash not just across\\textemdash income groups. Fourth, retirement wealth is less concentrated than nonretirement wealth, so the growth of retirement wealth relative to nonretirement wealth helped offset the increasing concentration in nonretirement wealth. Fifth, the shift from DB to DC had only a modest effect in the other direction be- cause DC wealth is more concentrated than DB wealth.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth and Inequality in the Stability of Romantic Relationships.\n \n \n\n\n \n Eads, A.; and Tach, L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences, 2(6): 197–224. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{EadsTach2016,\n  title = {Wealth and Inequality in the Stability of Romantic Relationships},\n  author = {Eads, Alicia and Tach, Laura},\n  year = {2016},\n  journal = {RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences},\n  volume = {2},\n  number = {6},\n  pages = {197--224},\n  doi = {10.7758/RSF.2016.2.6.10},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2016.2.6.10},\n  abstract = {The family is a key institution that transmits inequality, and racial and socioeconomic inequalities in family life have grown markedly. We use data from the 1996 to 2008 panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation to offer a comprehensive account of how wealth relates to family stability and how that relationship varies by union type, age cohort, and both type and amount of wealth. We find that liquid and illiquid assets and secured debts are associated with a decrease in the likelihood of dissolution, and that large unsecured debts are associated with an increase. These associations do not differ significantly for married and cohabiting couples. We find evidence of both the material and the symbolic importance of wealth for stability. We also find that wealth explains a significant degree of the racial inequality in family stability.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Parental Wealth and the Black-White Mobility Gap in the U.S.\n \n \n\n\n \n Fox, L. E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Review of Income and Wealth, 62(4): 706–723. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Parental$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Fox2016,\n  title = {Parental Wealth and the Black-White Mobility Gap in the {{U}}.{{S}}.},\n  author = {Fox, Liana E.},\n  year = {2016},\n  journal = {Review of Income and Wealth},\n  volume = {62},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {706--723},\n  publisher = {{John Wiley \\& Sons, Ltd (10.1111)}},\n  doi = {10.1111/roiw.12200},\n  url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/roiw.12200},\n  abstract = {Utilizing longitudinal data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), this paper examines the relationship between parental wealth and intergenerational income mobility for black and white families. I find that total parental wealth is positively associated with upward mobility for low-income white families, but is not associated with reduced likelihood of downward mobility for white families from the top half of the income distribution. Conversely, I find that total parental wealth does not have the same positive association for low-income black families, while home ownership may have negative associations with the likelihood of upward mobility for these families. However, for black families from the top half of the income distribution, home equity is associated with a decreased likelihood of downward mobility, suggesting a heterogeneous relationship between home ownership and mobility for black families.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Origins of the Superrich: The Billionaire Characteristics Database.\n \n \n\n\n \n Freund, C.; and Oliver, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{FreundOliver2016,\n  title = {The Origins of the Superrich: The Billionaire Characteristics Database},\n  author = {Freund, Caroline and Oliver, Sarah},\n  year = {2016},\n  url = {https://www.piie.com/publications/working-papers/origins-superrich-billionaire-characteristics-database},\n  abstract = {This working paper presents a new dataset on the sources of billionaire wealth and uses it to describe changes in extreme wealth in the United States, Europe, and other advanced countries. Th e data classify wealth as either self-made or inherited and identify the company and industry from which it comes. Among self-made billionaires, individuals are further classifi ed as company founders, executives, politically-connected, or in finance. Data analysis shows that the superrich in the United States are more dynamic than in Europe. Just over half of European billionaires inherited their fortunes, as compared with one-third in the United States. The median age of a company of a European billionaire is nearly 20 years older than that of an American billionaire. Traditional sectors explain more than half of the rise in wealth in Europe; the financial sector and technology-related sectors together are largely responsible for the rise in US wealth. There is some evidence that rents are higher in the United States than Europe, as not only is the number of US billionaires expanding rapidly, but US billionaires are also getting richer on average over time, especially when wealth is connected to resources, nontradables, or finance.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Dynamics of Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Gabaix, X.; Lasry, J.; Lions, P.; and Moll, B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Econometrica, 84(6): 2071–2111. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Gabaixetal2016,\n  title = {The Dynamics of Inequality},\n  author = {Gabaix, Xavier and Lasry, Jean-Michel and Lions, Pierre-Louis and Moll, Benjamin},\n  year = {2016},\n  journal = {Econometrica},\n  volume = {84},\n  number = {6},\n  pages = {2071--2111},\n  doi = {10.3982/ecta13569},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA13569},\n  abstract = {The past forty years have seen a rapid rise in top income inequality in the United States. While there is a large number of existing theories of the Pareto tail of the long-run income distributions, almost none of these address the fast rise in top inequality observed in the data. We show that standard theories, which build on a random growth mechanism, generate transition dynamics that are too slow relative to those observed in the data. We then suggest two parsimonious deviations from the canonical model that can explain such changes: "scale dependence" that may arise from changes in skill prices, and "type dependence," that is, the presence of some "high-growth types." These deviations are consistent with theories in which the increase in top income inequality is driven by the rise of "superstar" entrepreneurs or managers.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Turning Citizens into Investors: Promoting Savings with Liberty Bonds during World War I.\n \n \n\n\n \n Hilt, E.; and Rahn, W. M\n\n\n \n\n\n\n RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences, 2(6): 23. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Turning$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{HiltRahn2016,\n  title = {Turning Citizens into Investors: Promoting Savings with Liberty Bonds during World War {{I}}},\n  author = {Hilt, Eric and Rahn, Wendy M},\n  year = {2016},\n  journal = {RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences},\n  volume = {2},\n  number = {6},\n  pages = {23},\n  doi = {10.7758/rsf.2016.2.6.05},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2016.2.6.05},\n  abstract = {Increasing savings rates among households of modest incomes would strengthen their balance sheets and reduce wealth inequality. This paper analyzes one of the largest and most successful efforts to increase the savings of ordinary households in American history. The Liberty Bond drives of World War I persuaded tens of millions of Americans to buy government bonds, which were sold in denominations as low as \\$50, and could be purchased in installment plans. Using newly collected data on the sales of Liberty Bonds at the county level, we analyze the factors that influenced the degree to which the bond drives were successful. The results highlight the importance of the participation of civil society organizations and local banks in market- ing the bonds. We discuss the implications of these findings for the design of modern programs to increase savings.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Historical Evolution of the Wealth Distribution: A Quantitative-Theoretic Investigation.\n \n \n\n\n \n Hubmer, J.; Krusell, P.; and Smith\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Hubmeretal2016,\n  title = {The Historical Evolution of the Wealth Distribution: {{A}} Quantitative-Theoretic Investigation},\n  author = {Hubmer, Joachim and Krusell, Per and Smith, Jr., Anthony A.},\n  year = {2016},\n  address = {{Cambridge, MA}},\n  doi = {10.3386/w23011},\n  url = {http://www.nber.org/papers/w23011},\n  abstract = {This paper employs the benchmark heterogeneous-agent model used in macroeconomics to examine drivers of the rise in wealth inequality in the U.S. over the last thirty years. Several plausible candidates are formulated, calibrated to data, and examined through the lens of the model. There is one main finding: by far the most important driver is the significant drop in tax progressivity that started in the late 1970s, intensified during the Reagan years, and then subsequently flattened out, with only a minor bounce back. The sharp observed increases in earnings inequality, the falling labor share over the recent decades, and potential mechanisms underlying changes in the gap between the interest rate and the growth rate (Piketty's r-g story) all fall far short of accounting for the data.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Capital and the Hindu Rate of Growth: Top Indian Wealth Holders 1961– 1986.\n \n \n\n\n \n Kumar, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Capital$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Kumar2016,\n  title = {Capital and the Hindu Rate of Growth: Top Indian Wealth Holders 1961\\textendash 1986},\n  author = {Kumar, Rishabh},\n  year = {2016},\n  url = {https://ideas.repec.org/p/new/wpaper/1608.html},\n  abstract = {Did India's stagnant growth performance until the 1980s increase or decrease the wealth of the elite? Using estate tax data I compute a series which highlights the relative importance of top wealth holders in India between 1961-1986. I find that a combination of policies and shocks were able to significantly depress the personal wealth of the Top 0.1\\% over this period. A portfolio decomposition by asset categories for the rich reveals that there was a U shaped trend in the average value of movable assets while wealth invested in land significantly declined. Disparity within top wealth groups also follows a shrinking and swelling, consistent with the intervention of the state in private capital. These results have implications for the equalizing forces inherent in tax policy vis-a-vis the rich and the role of the state in regulating capital in poor nations.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,{Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes},Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Drivers of Wealth Inequality in Euro Area Countries: The Effect of Inheritance and Gifts on Household Gross and Net Wealth Distribution Analysed by Applying the Shapley Value Approach to Decomposition.\n \n \n\n\n \n Leitner, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Drivers$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Leitner2016,\n  title = {Drivers of Wealth Inequality in Euro Area Countries: The Effect of Inheritance and Gifts on Household Gross and Net Wealth Distribution Analysed by Applying the Shapley Value Approach to Decomposition},\n  author = {Leitner, Sebastian},\n  year = {2016},\n  doi = {10.4337/ejeep.2016.01.10},\n  url = {https://wiiw.ac.at/drivers-of-wealth-inequality-in-euro-area-countries-p-3787.html},\n  abstract = {This paper investigates the sources of inequality in household gross, net and real estate gross wealth across eight euro area countries applying the Shapley value approach to decomposition. The research draws on micro data from the Eurosystem Household Finance and Consumption Survey 2010. Dispersion in bequests and inter vivos transfers obtained by households are found to have a remarkable effect on wealth inequality that is stronger than the one of income differences. In South European countries, Austria and Germany the contribution to wealth inequality of real and financial assets inherited or received as gifts attains 30\\% to 40\\%. Nevertheless, also the distribution of household characteristics (age, education, size, number of adults and children in the household, marital status) within countries shapes the observed wealth dispersion.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Drivers of Wealth Inequality in Euro Area Countries: The Effect of Inheritance and Gifts on Household Gross and Net Wealth Distribution Analysed by Applying the Shapley Value Approach to Decomposition.\n \n \n\n\n \n Leitner, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, 13(1): 114–136. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Drivers$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Leitner2016a,\n  title = {Drivers of Wealth Inequality in Euro Area Countries: The Effect of Inheritance and Gifts on Household Gross and Net Wealth Distribution Analysed by Applying the Shapley Value Approach to Decomposition},\n  author = {Leitner, Sebastian},\n  year = {2016},\n  journal = {European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention},\n  volume = {13},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {114--136},\n  publisher = {{Edward Elgar Publishing}},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.4337/ejeep.2016.01.10},\n  abstract = {This paper investigates the sources of inequality in household gross and net wealth across eight euro area countries applying the Shapley value approach to decomposition. The research draws on micro data from the Eurosystem Household Finance and Consumption Survey 2010. Dispersion in bequests and inter vivos transfers obtained by households are found to have a remarkable effect on wealth inequality that is stronger than that of income differences. In Austria, Germany and Cyprus the contribution of real and financial assets inherited or received as gifts to gross and net wealth inequality attains about 40 per cent. Nevertheless, the distribution of household characteristics (age, education, size, number of adults and children in the household, marital status) within countries also shapes the observed wealth dispersion.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Intergenerational Correlations in Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Pfeffer, F. T.; and Killewald, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; the; and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, editor(s), Economic Mobility: Research and Ideas on Strengthening Families, Communities, and the Economy., pages 176–201. Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C., 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intergenerational$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{PfefferKillewald2016,\n  title = {Intergenerational Correlations in Wealth},\n  booktitle = {Economic Mobility: Research and Ideas on Strengthening Families, Communities, and the Economy.},\n  author = {Pfeffer, Fabian T. and Killewald, Alexandra},\n  editor = {{Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and the} and {Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System}},\n  year = {2016},\n  pages = {176--201},\n  publisher = {{Federal Reserve System}},\n  address = {{Washington, D.C.}},\n  url = {https://www.stlouisfed.org/community-development/publications/economic-mobility},\n  abstract = {Our analyses substantially improve and expand the few prior estimates of intergenerational correlations in wealth. Existing evidence on intergenerational rigidity in the U.S. wealth distribution comes from a small number of studies, which, like ours, use data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) but, unlike ours, were only able to examine the wealth outcomes of younger adults (Charles and Hurst 2003; Conley and Glauber 2008; Mulligan 1997). This limitation was imposed by data restrictions at the time of analysis and already acknowledged in that research, suggesting that it would be more appropriate to measure wealth at later ages when adults have had more time to accumulate assets (Charles and Hurst 2003, fn.5; Conley and Glauber 2008, p. 10). We hypothesize that adults' wealth will more closely resemble that of their parents as both generations enter middle and late adulthood, aging out of the period of intensive investments in young adulthood and increasingly accumulating assets. Drawing on newly available data from the PSID, we update estimates of intergenerational wealth correlations and test whether intergenerational wealth transmission indeed strengthens from early through late adulthood. Additionally, we examine the contours of the intergenerational reproduction of wealth. We hypothesize that wealth positions at the top and bottom of the distribution may be particularly sticky, with very wealthy parents able to secure a substantial wealth advantage for their children, and parents without assets especially likely to have adult children who also fail to accumulate any wealth. When the intergenerational transmission of wealth is measured with a single parameter, such as an intergenerational elasticity, this variability is lost. Evaluating the persistence of the highest levels of wealth across generations also speaks to concerns about a wealthy elite that wields dynastic financial power. Together, our analyses offer a rich description of the intergenerational persistence of wealth across generations, how these patterns differ across the wealth distribution, and to what extent education and inheritance can account for these intergenerational associations. Our analyses mitigate the great imbalance of a large literature focused on the description of intergenerational correlations in other dimensions of socioeconomic standing, mostly occupational classes or income.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n Our analyses substantially improve and expand the few prior estimates of intergenerational correlations in wealth. Existing evidence on intergenerational rigidity in the U.S. wealth distribution comes from a small number of studies, which, like ours, use data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) but, unlike ours, were only able to examine the wealth outcomes of younger adults (Charles and Hurst 2003; Conley and Glauber 2008; Mulligan 1997). This limitation was imposed by data restrictions at the time of analysis and already acknowledged in that research, suggesting that it would be more appropriate to measure wealth at later ages when adults have had more time to accumulate assets (Charles and Hurst 2003, fn.5; Conley and Glauber 2008, p. 10). We hypothesize that adults' wealth will more closely resemble that of their parents as both generations enter middle and late adulthood, aging out of the period of intensive investments in young adulthood and increasingly accumulating assets. Drawing on newly available data from the PSID, we update estimates of intergenerational wealth correlations and test whether intergenerational wealth transmission indeed strengthens from early through late adulthood. Additionally, we examine the contours of the intergenerational reproduction of wealth. We hypothesize that wealth positions at the top and bottom of the distribution may be particularly sticky, with very wealthy parents able to secure a substantial wealth advantage for their children, and parents without assets especially likely to have adult children who also fail to accumulate any wealth. When the intergenerational transmission of wealth is measured with a single parameter, such as an intergenerational elasticity, this variability is lost. Evaluating the persistence of the highest levels of wealth across generations also speaks to concerns about a wealthy elite that wields dynastic financial power. Together, our analyses offer a rich description of the intergenerational persistence of wealth across generations, how these patterns differ across the wealth distribution, and to what extent education and inheritance can account for these intergenerational associations. Our analyses mitigate the great imbalance of a large literature focused on the description of intergenerational correlations in other dimensions of socioeconomic standing, mostly occupational classes or income.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States.\n \n \n\n\n \n Piketty, T.; Saez, E.; and Zucman, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Distributional$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Pikettyetal2016,\n  title = {Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States},\n  author = {Piketty, Thomas and Saez, Emmanuel and Zucman, Gabriel},\n  year = {2016},\n  url = {http://www.nber.org/papers/w22945},\n  abstract = {This paper combines tax, survey, and national accounts data to estimate the distribution of national income in the United States since 1913. Our distributional national accounts capture 100\\% of national income, allowing us to compute growth rates for each quantile of the income distribution consistent with macroeconomic growth. We estimate the distribution of both pre-tax and post-tax income, making it possible to provide a comprehensive view of how government redistribution affects inequality. Average pre-tax national income per adult has increased 60\\% since 1980, but we find that it has stagnated for the bottom 50\\% of the distribution at about \\$16,000 a year. The pre-tax income of the middle class-adults between the median and the 90th percentile-has grown 40\\% since 1980, faster than what tax and survey data suggest, due in particular to the rise of tax-exempt fringe benefits. Income has boomed at the top: in 1980, top 1\\% adults earned on average 27 times more than bottom 50\\% adults, while they earn 81 times more today. The upsurge of top incomes was first a labor income phenomenon but has mostly been a capital income phenomenon since 2000. The government has offset only a small fraction of the increase in inequality. The reduction of the gender gap in earnings has mitigated the increase in inequality among adults. The share of women, however, falls steeply as one moves up the labor income distribution, and is only 11\\% in the top 0.1\\% today.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Integrating the Corporate and Individual Tax Systems: The Dividends Paid Deduction Considered.\n \n \n\n\n \n Rosenthal, S. M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Integrating$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@misc{Rosenthal2016,\n  title = {Integrating the Corporate and Individual Tax Systems: The Dividends Paid Deduction Considered},\n  author = {Rosenthal, Steven M.},\n  year = {2016},\n  publisher = {{Brookings Institute}},\n  url = {https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/integrating-corporate-and-individual-tax-systems-dividends-paid-deduction-considered},\n  urldate = {2023-07-31},\n  abstract = {This testimony describes how taxes on corporate earnings have dropped because of corporate moves to avoid taxes and because of shareholder shifts from taxable to nontaxable accounts. Secondly, the testimony describes how a lower estimate of the taxable share of US stock complicates attempts to integrate corporate and individual taxes further. Finally, the testimony suggests some areas for further research on the competitiveness of US corporate taxes.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth and Secular Stagnation: The Role of Industrial Organization and Intellectual Property Rights.\n \n \n\n\n \n Schwartz, H. M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences, 2(6): 226–249. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Schwartz2016,\n  title = {Wealth and Secular Stagnation: The Role of Industrial Organization and Intellectual Property Rights},\n  author = {Schwartz, Herman Mark},\n  year = {2016},\n  journal = {RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences},\n  volume = {2},\n  number = {6},\n  pages = {226--249},\n  doi = {10.7758/RSF.2016.2.6.11},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2016.2.6.11},\n  abstract = {Changes in firm strategy and structure partially explain the sources and consequences of rising wealth inequality in America. Combining use of state-created monopolies around intellectual property rights (IPRs) for profitability and firm-level strategies to transform their industrial organization by pushing physical capital and noncore labor outside the boundaries of the firm leads to rising levels of wealth and income inequality among firms as well as individuals. Income inequality among firms in turn reduces growth in productive investment and thus in aggregate demand. Slower growth reflexively deters firms from new investment, aggravating the shortfall in aggregate demand. Decreased protection for IPRs and increased protection for subcontracted workers would help increase aggregate demand and thus push growth back to its prior level, as well as reducing wealth and income inequality among individuals.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n A Wealth of Inequalities: Mass Incarceration, Employment, and Racial Disparities in U.S. Household Wealth, 1996 to 2011.\n \n \n\n\n \n Sykes, B. L.; and Maroto, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences, 2(6): 129–152. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{SykesMaroto2016,\n  title = {A Wealth of Inequalities: Mass Incarceration, Employment, and Racial Disparities in {{U}}.{{S}}. Household Wealth, 1996 to 2011},\n  author = {Sykes, Bryan L. and Maroto, Michelle},\n  year = {2016},\n  journal = {RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences},\n  volume = {2},\n  number = {6},\n  pages = {129--152},\n  doi = {10.7758/RSF.2016.2.6.07},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2016.2.6.07},\n  abstract = {Despite the strong relationship between the rise in mass incarceration over the last forty years and racial inequality in employment and wages, few studies have examined the long-term consequences and spillover effects of criminal justice contact on the black-white wealth gap in the United States. In this paper, we investigate the mechanisms whereby the local and distal incarceration of a family member affects household wealth, focusing on wealth disparities by race and education. Using data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Current Population Survey, and the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities and Local Jails, we apply fixed-effects and probit models to estimate how a family member's incarceration influences household assets and debt over panel waves. We find that having an incarcerated family member reduced household assets by 64.3 percent and debt by 85.1 percent after we adjusted for the underrepresentation of institutionalization in SIPP data. We also discuss these findings in the context of broader racial disparities in wealth and employment. Our findings demonstrate how contemporary patterns of mass incarceration contribute to the maintenance of social inequality in wealth and form barriers to economic security for other household members.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Health Shocks and Social Drift: Examining the Relationship between Acute Illness and Family Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Thompson, J.; and Conley, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences, 2(6): 153–171. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Health$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{ThompsonConley2016,\n  title = {Health Shocks and Social Drift: Examining the Relationship between Acute Illness and Family Wealth},\n  author = {Thompson, Jason and Conley, Dalton},\n  year = {2016},\n  journal = {RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences},\n  volume = {2},\n  number = {6},\n  pages = {153--171},\n  doi = {10.7758/rsf.2016.2.6.08},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2016.2.6.08},\n  abstract = {This paper analyzes the extent to which health shocks play a role in black- white wealth inequality. Deploying data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, we implement a first- differences identification strategy in estimating the effects of acute health events on changes in wealth for couples across waves of data from 1999 to 2011. We find that although such shocks affect both white and black families, they make black families more vulnerable financially as family heads near retirement. In comparison with their white counterparts, black families that experience an acute health shock are more likely to rely on social safety nets, such as food stamps and Social Security Disability Insurance. Findings hold implications across multiple policy arenas, including health-care and labor law.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Privileges of Wealth: Rising Inequality and the Growing Racial Divide.\n \n \n\n\n \n Williams, R. B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Routledge, 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Williams2016,\n title = {The Privileges of Wealth: Rising Inequality and the Growing Racial Divide},\n author = {Williams, Robert B.},\n year = {2016},\n journal = {The Priveledge of Wealth:},\n publisher = {{Routledge}},\n url = {https://www.crcpress.com/The-Privileges-of-Wealth-Rising-inequality-and-the-growing-racial-divide/Williams/p/book/9781138227507},\n abstract = {The American Dream is under assault. This threat results not from a lack of means, but from an unwillingness to share. Total household wealth increased by half in the past generation, but barely one fifth of American households captured this new wealth. For the rest, the dream of owning a home, gaining a secure retirement, and ensuring a college education for their kids is disappearing. Worse still, the widening wealth divide largely tracks our racial fault lines. The Privileges of Wealth investigates the impact of the rising concentration of wealth. It describes how households accumulate wealth along three pathways: household saving, appreciation of assets, and family gifts and inheritances. In addition, federal wealth policies, in the form of assorted tax deductions and credits, act as a fourth pathway that favors wealthy households. For those with means, each pathway operates as a virtuous cycle enabling families to build wealth with increasing ease. For those without, these same pathways are experienced as vicious cycles. The issue of wealth privilege is even more pronounced when examining the racial wealth gap. Typically, White households own ten times the wealth of Black or Latino families. This chasm results from the durability and transferability of wealth across generations and serves as a persistent legacy of our history of racial enslavement, expropriation, and exclusion. Current policies favoring the wealthy are simply cementing these wealth disparities. This book explains how these sources of wealth privilege are systemic features of our economy and the basis of rising disparities. The arguments and evidence presented here offer a compelling case for how our current policies are undermining the American Dream for most Americans while fortifying a White plutocracy, with dire consequences for us all.},\n isbn = {978-1-138-22750-7},\n keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Household Wealth Trends in the United States, 1962-2013: What Happened over the Great Recession.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wolff, E. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences, 2(6): 24–42. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Household$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Wolff2016,\n  title = {Household Wealth Trends in the {{United States}}, 1962-2013: What Happened over the Great Recession},\n  author = {Wolff, Edward N.},\n  year = {2016},\n  journal = {RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences},\n  volume = {2},\n  number = {6},\n  pages = {24--42},\n  doi = {10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2016.2.6.02},\n  abstract = {I look at wealth trends from 1962 to 2013, particularly for the middle class. Asset prices plunged between 2007 and 2010 but then rebounded from 2010 to 2013. The most telling finding is that median wealth plum- meted by 44 percent between 2007 and 2010, almost double the drop in housing prices. Wealth inequality, after almost two decades of little movement, was up sharply from 2007 to 2010. This sharp fall in median net worth and rise in overall wealth inequality are traceable primarily to the high leverage of middle- class families, the high share of homes in their portfolio, and the plunge in house prices. Rather remarkably, me- dian (and mean) wealth did not essentially change from 2010 to 2013 despite the rebound in asset prices. The proximate cause was the high dissavings of the middle class. Wealth inequality also remained largely unchanged.},\n  isbn = {9780874216561},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  pmid = {15003161}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2015\n \n \n (13)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Inequality: What Can Be Done?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Atkinson, A. B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inequality:$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 8 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Atkinson2015,\n title = {Inequality: What Can Be Done?},\n author = {Atkinson, A. B.},\n year = {2015},\n url = {https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674504769},\n abstract = {Inequality is one of our most urgent social problems. Curbed in the decades after World War II, it has recently returned with a vengeance. We all know the scale of the problem\\textemdash talk about the 99\\% and the 1\\% is entrenched in public debate\\textemdash but there has been little discussion of what we can do but despair. According to the distinguished economist Anthony Atkinson, however, we can do much more than skeptics imagine. Atkinson has long been at the forefront of research on inequality, and brings his theoretical and practical experience to bear on its diverse problems. He presents a comprehensive set of policies that could bring about a genuine shift in the distribution of income in developed countries. The problem, Atkinson shows, is not simply that the rich are getting richer. We are also failing to tackle poverty, and the economy is rapidly changing to leave the majority of people behind. To reduce inequality, we have to go beyond placing new taxes on the wealthy to fund existing programs. We need fresh ideas. Atkinson thus recommends ambitious new policies in five areas: technology, employment, social security, the sharing of capital, and taxation. He defends these against the common arguments and excuses for inaction: that intervention will shrink the economy, that globalization makes action impossible, and that new policies cannot be afforded. More than just a program for change, Atkinson's book is a voice of hope and informed optimism about the possibilities for political action.},\n isbn = {978-0-674-50476-9},\n keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,{Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes},Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Rich Pickings? Risk, Return, and Skill in the Portfolios of the Wealthy.\n \n \n\n\n \n Bach, L.; Calvet, L. E.; and Sodini, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2015.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Rich$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Bachetal2015,\n  title = {Rich Pickings? {{Risk}}, Return, and Skill in the Portfolios of the Wealthy},\n  author = {Bach, Laurent and Calvet, Laurent E. and Sodini, Paolo},\n  year = {2015},\n  url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2706207},\n  abstract = {We investigate wealth returns on an administrative panel containing the disaggregated balance sheets of Swedish residents. The expected return on household net wealth increases with net worth, exceeding the risk-free rate by 9\\% for households in the top 0.01\\%. The expected wealth return is driven by systematic risk-taking and exhibits strong persistence. Idiosyncratic risk is transitory but sufficiently large among business owners to generate substantial long-term disper- sion in returns in top brackets. We estimate the distribution of the geometric average return on gross wealth over a generation. Heterogeneity in returns explains most of the historical increase in top wealth shares.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Distribution and Social Mobility in the US: A Quantitative Approach.\n \n \n\n\n \n Benhabib, J.; Bisin, A.; and Luo, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2015.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Benhabibetal2015a,\n  title = {Wealth Distribution and Social Mobility in the {{US}}: {{A}} Quantitative Approach},\n  author = {Benhabib, Jess and Bisin, Alberto and Luo, Mi},\n  year = {2015},\n  address = {{Cambridge, MA}},\n  doi = {10.1257/aer.20151684},\n  url = {https://www.nber.org/papers/w21721},\n  abstract = {This paper attempts to quantitatively identify the factors that drive wealth dynamics in the U.S. and are consistent with its observed skewed cross-sectional distribution and social mobility. We concentrate on three critical factors: a skewed and persistent distribution of earnings, differential saving and bequest rates across wealth levels, and capital income risk. All of these factors are necessary for matching both distribution and mobility, with a distinct role in inducing wealth accumulation near the borrowing constraints, contributing to the thick top tail of wealth, and affecting upward and/or downward social mobility.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Wealth Distribution in Bewley Economies with Capital Income Risk.\n \n \n\n\n \n Benhabib, J.; Bisin, A.; and Zhu, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Economic Theory, 159: 489–515. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Benhabibetal2015,\n  title = {The Wealth Distribution in Bewley Economies with Capital Income Risk},\n  author = {Benhabib, Jess and Bisin, Alberto and Zhu, Shenghao},\n  year = {2015},\n  journal = {Journal of Economic Theory},\n  volume = {159},\n  pages = {489--515},\n  doi = {10.1016/j.jet.2015.07.013},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2015.07.013},\n  abstract = {We study the wealth distribution in Bewley economies with idiosyncratic capital income risk. We show analytically that under rather general conditions on the stochastic structure of the economy, a unique ergodic distribution of wealth displays a fat tail.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Dynamics of Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Gabaix, X.; Lasry, J.; Lions, P.; and Moll, B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2015.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Gabaixetal2015,\n  title = {The Dynamics of Inequality},\n  author = {Gabaix, Xavier and Lasry, Jean-Michel and Lions, Pierre-Louis and Moll, Benjamin},\n  year = {2015},\n  url = {http://www.nber.org/papers/w21363},\n  abstract = {The past forty years have seen a rapid rise in top income inequality in the United States. While there is a large number of existing theories of the Pareto tails of the income and wealth distributions at a given point in time, almost none of these address the fast rise in top inequality observed in the data. We show that standard theories, which build on a random growth mechanism, generate transition dynamics that are an order of magnitude too slow relative to those observed in the data. We then suggest parsimonious deviations from the basic model that can explain such changes, namely heterogeneity in mean growth rates or deviations from Gibrat's law. These deviations are consistent with theories in which the increase in top income inequality is driven by the rise of "superstar" entrepreneurs or managers.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Pareto and Piketty: The Macroeconomics of Top Income and Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Jones, C. I.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1): 29–46. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Pareto$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Jones2015,\n  title = {Pareto and {{Piketty}}: The Macroeconomics of Top Income and Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Jones, Charles I.},\n  year = {2015},\n  journal = {Journal of Economic Perspectives},\n  volume = {29},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {29--46},\n  doi = {10.1257/jep.29.1.29},\n  url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.1.29},\n  abstract = {Since the early 2000s, research by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and their coauthors has revolutionized our understanding of income and wealth inequality. In this paper, I highlight some of the key empirical facts from this research and comment on how they relate to macroeconomics and to economic theory more generally. One of the key links between data and theory is the Pareto distribution. The paper describes simple mechanisms that give rise to Pareto distributions for income and wealth and considers the economic forces that influence top inequality over time and across countries. For example, it is in this context that the role of the famous r - g expression is best understood.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Evolution of Wealth Inequality in China.\n \n \n\n\n \n Li, S.; and Wan, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n China Economic Journal, 8(3): 264–287. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Evolution$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{LiWan2015,\n  title = {Evolution of Wealth Inequality in {{China}}},\n  author = {Li, Shi and Wan, Haiyuan},\n  year = {2015},\n  journal = {China Economic Journal},\n  volume = {8},\n  number = {3},\n  pages = {264--287},\n  doi = {10.1080/17538963.2015.1110338},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17538963.2015.1110338},\n  abstract = {Household wealth is a key indicator that reflects national economic competiveness and individual income levels. The distribution of wealth is central for evaluating social justice in a country. This article uses a data set composed of the 2002 China Household Income Project and the 2010 Chinese Family Panel Survey to analyze the level of wealth and wealth inequality in China during 2002 and 2010. The analysis decomposes the evolution of wealth inequality during that period in terms of the structure and composition of wealth. The findings show that there was a large increase in the quantity of wealth and wealth inequality between 2002 and 2010. The level of wealth in 2010 was four times that of 2002, and housing assets were the greatest component of overall wealth in 2010. Wealth inequality also rose dramatically after 2002, with the Gini coefficient of the distribution of wealth increasing from 0.538 in 2002 to 0.739 in 2010. The rapidly escalating price of housing has been the main contributor to increasing wealth inequality in recent years.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Inequality and Crises Revisited.\n \n \n\n\n \n Morelli, S.; and Atkinson, A. B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Economia Politica, 32(1): 31–51. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inequality$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 9 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{MorelliAtkinson2015,\n  title = {Inequality and Crises Revisited},\n  author = {Morelli, Salvatore and Atkinson, A. B.},\n  year = {2015},\n  journal = {Economia Politica},\n  volume = {32},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {31--51},\n  publisher = {{Springer International Publishing}},\n  doi = {10.1007/s40888-015-0006-y},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-015-0006-y},\n  abstract = {Recent debate has suggested that growing levels or high levels of inequality may be systematically associated with the occurrence of banking crises. Using the updated version of the Chartbook of Economic Inequality, this paper provides new empirical evidence on the 'level' hypothesis and reassesses the empirical validity of the 'growth' hypothesis. In line with previous work, the empirical analysis on the entire set of countries and years under investigation does not provide any conclusive and compelling statistical support to either of the hypotheses. However, the apparent statistical insignificance of the findings does not rule out the economic relevance of the question at hand, given that the hypotheses cannot be rejected for important crises and countries such as the US and the UK. Hence, the overall evidence is far from being conclusive and there are several reasons to shed further light on this important research topic.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Inequality and Visibility of Wealth in Experimental Social Networks.\n \n \n\n\n \n Nishi, A.; Shirado, H.; Rand, D. G.; and Christakis, N. A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Nature, 526: 426–429. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inequality$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Nishietal2015,\n  title = {Inequality and Visibility of Wealth in Experimental Social Networks},\n  author = {Nishi, Akihiro and Shirado, Hirokazu and Rand, David G. and Christakis, Nicholas A.},\n  year = {2015},\n  journal = {Nature},\n  volume = {526},\n  pages = {426--429},\n  publisher = {{Nature Publishing Group}},\n  doi = {10.1038/nature15392},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15392},\n  abstract = {Humans prefer relatively equal distributions of resources, yet societies have varying degrees of economic inequality6 . To invest- igate some of the possible determinants and consequences of inequality, here we perform experiments involving a networked public goods game inwhich subjects interact and gainor losewealth. Subjects (n=1,462) were randomly assigned to have higher or lower initial endowments, and were embedded within social networks with three levels of economic inequality (Gini coefficient50.0, 0.2, and 0.4). In addition, wemanipulated the visibility ofthe wealth of network neighbours. We show that wealth visibility facilitates the downstream consequences of initial inequality\\textemdash in initially more unequal situations, wealth visibility leads to greater inequality than when wealth is invisible. This result reflects a heterogeneous response to visibility in richer versus poorer subjects. We also find that making wealth visible has adverse welfare consequences, yield- ing lower levels of overall cooperation, inter-connectedness, and wealth. High initial levels of economic inequality alone, however, have relatively few deleterious welfare effects.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth and Inheritance in the Long Run.\n \n \n\n\n \n Piketty, T.; and Zucman, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Handbook of Income Distribution, volume 2, Ch. 15, pages 1303–1368. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{PikettyZucman2015,\n  title = {Wealth and Inheritance in the Long Run},\n  booktitle = {Handbook of Income Distribution},\n  author = {Piketty, Thomas and Zucman, Gabriel},\n  year = {2015},\n  volume = {2},\n  pages = {1303--1368},\n  doi = {10.1016/B978-0-444-59429-7.00016-9},\n  url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59429-7.00016-9},\n  abstract = {This chapter offers an overview of the empirical and theoretical research on the long-run evolution of wealth and inheritance. Wealth-income ratios, inherited wealth, and wealth inequalities were high in the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries up until World War I, then sharply dropped during the twentieth century following World War shocks, and have been rising again in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. We discuss the models that can account for these facts. We show that over a wide range of models, the long-run magnitude and concentration of wealth and inheritance are an increasing function of r\\textendash g where r- is the net-of-tax rate of return on wealth and g is the economy's growth rate. This suggests that current trends toward rising wealth-income ratios and wealth inequality might continue during the twenty-first century, both because of the slowdown of population and productivity growth, and because of rising international competition to attract capital.},\n  chapter = {Ch. 15},\n  isbn = {978-0-444-59429-7},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Property and Power: Lessons from Piketty and New Insights from the HFCS.\n \n \n\n\n \n Rehm, M.; and Schnetzer, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, 12(2): 204–219. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Property$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{RehmSchnetzer2015,\n  title = {Property and Power: Lessons from Piketty and New Insights from the {{HFCS}}},\n  author = {Rehm, Miriam and Schnetzer, Matthias},\n  year = {2015},\n  journal = {European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention},\n  volume = {12},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {204--219},\n  publisher = {{Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd}},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.4337/ejeep.2015.02.06},\n  abstract = {This paper argues that the cumulative causation processes between wealth and power risk leading to an escalation of wealth inequality. Piketty's historical description of this development from administrative data for individual countries is corroborated with new survey data for the eurozone, the Household Finance and Consumption Survey (HFCS). Wealth is extremely unequally distributed in the eurozone \\textendash{} much more so than income. Furthermore, we provide a multi-faceted picture of wealth distribution in Europe using the socio-economic characteristics available in the HFCS, and we show that inheritances are the single most important factor for wealth inequality. The structural power to shape economic and political institutions is thus ever more concentrated. Finally, we discuss three channels through which the unequal distribution of private assets may affect power relations and economic activity.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Long-Run Trends in the Distribution of Income and Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Roine, J.; and Waldenström, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Atkinson, A. B.; and Bourguignon, F., editor(s), Handbook of Income Distribution, volume 2, 7, pages 469–592. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Long-Run$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Long-Run$ data files\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{RoineWaldenstrom2015,\n  title = {Long-Run Trends in the Distribution of Income and Wealth},\n  booktitle = {Handbook of Income Distribution},\n  author = {Roine, Jesper and Waldenstr{\\"o}m, Daniel},\n  editor = {Atkinson, Anthony B. and Bourguignon, Fran{\\c c}ois},\n  year = {2015},\n  volume = {2},\n  pages = {469--592},\n  publisher = {{North-Holland}},\n  address = {{Amsterdam}},\n  doi = {10.1016/B978-0-444-59428-0.00008-4},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59428-0.00008-4},\n  abstract = {This chapter reviews the long-run developments in the distribution of personal income and wealth. It also discusses suggested explanations for the observed patterns. We try to answer questions such as: What do we know, and how do we know, about the distribution of income and wealth over time? Are there common trends across countries or over the path of development? How do the facts relate to proposed theories about changes in inequality? We present the main inequality trends, in some cases starting as early as in the late eighteenth century, combining previous research with recent findings in the so-called top income literature and new evidence on wealth concentration. The picture that emerges shows that inequality was historically high almost everywhere at the beginning of the twentieth century. In some countries this situation was preceded by increasing concentration, but in most cases inequality seems to have been relatively constant at a high level in the nineteenth century. Over the twentieth century inequality decreased almost everywhere for the first 80 years, largely due to decreasing wealth concentration and decreasing capital incomes in the top of the distribution. Thereafter trends became more divergent across countries and also different across income and wealth distributions. Econometric evidence over the long run suggests that top shares increase in periods of above-average growth, whereas democracy and high marginal tax rates are associated with lower top shares.},\n  isbn = {978-0-444-59430-3},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  chapter = {7},\n  url_data_files = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/roine-waldenstrm-longruntrendsinthedistributionofincomeandwealthdatafiles-2015}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Inheriting Wealth in America: Future Boom or Bust?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wolff, E. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Oxford University Press, New York, 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inheriting$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Wolff2015,\n  title = {Inheriting Wealth in {{America}}: Future Boom or Bust?},\n  author = {Wolff, Edward N.},\n  year = {2015},\n  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},\n  address = {{New York}},\n  doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353958.001.0001},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353958.001.0001},\n  abstract = {Inheritances are often regarded as a great ``evil,'' enabling great fortunes to be passed from one generation to another, exacerbating wealth inequality, and reducing wealth mobility. Using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances, the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, and a simulation model over years 1989 to 2010, I report six major findings. First, wealth transfers (inheritances and gifts) accounted for less than one-quarter of household wealth. However, for persons age 75 and over, the figure was about two-fifths. Indirect evidence from the simulation model indicates a figure closer to two-thirds at end of life\\textemdash probably the best estimate. Second, despite prognostications of a coming ``inheritance boom,'' only a small uptick in average wealth transfers was observed over these years, and wealth transfers were actually down as a share of household wealth. Third, while wealth transfers are greater in dollar amount for richer than for poorer households, they constitute a smaller share of the accumulated wealth of the rich. Fourth, contrary to popular belief, inheritances and gifts, on net, reduce wealth inequality because they typically flow from richer to poorer persons. Fifth, despite a rapid rise in income inequality, the inequality of wealth transfers shows no discernible time trend from 1989 to 2010. Sixth, among the very wealthy, the share of wealth accounted for by wealth transfers is surprisingly low, only about a sixth, and this share has trended downward over time.},\n  isbn = {978-0-19-935395-8},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2014\n \n \n (8)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Over the Top: How Tax Returns Show That the Very Rich Are Different from You and Me.\n \n \n\n\n \n Bourne, J.; and Rosenmerkel, L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2014.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Over$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{BourneRosenmerkel2014,\n  title = {Over the Top: How Tax Returns Show That the Very Rich Are Different from You and Me},\n  author = {Bourne, Jenny and Rosenmerkel, Lisa},\n  year = {2014},\n  url = {https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/14rpoverthetopbournerosenmerkel.pdf},\n  abstract = {Deciphering the connections between income and wealth adds to our knowledge of the distribution of economic well-being. Realized income may reveal little about true economic status for the very wealthy, but additional information about the types and timing of income received may help clarify the underlying relationship between yearly income flows and overall wealth. Linked income and estate tax records provide an excellent data source to explore these issues. Our earlier work showed that portfolios differed significantly across wealth strata and that people with greater wealth tend to have smaller realized yields on their assets. This research used a unique data set that links together several years of income tax returns (Form 1040) for individuals who died between 1996 and 2002, as well as the Federal estate tax return (Form 706) where present. These persons were members of a panel representing the cohort of tax families (primary and secondary filers and their dependents) who filed Form 1040 in Tax Year 1987. We use subsets of these data to extend this line of research by: (1) better establishing the differences between decedents whose estates were required to file a Form 706 (F706 decedents) and those whose estates were not (non-F706 decedents), and (2) estimating wealth at the time of death from earlier income data using a Tobit model. Perhaps our most important finding is that, at best, income only imperfectly mirrors available economic resources. For some types of income\\textendash wages, pensions, and taxable interest income, for instance\\textendash the mirror is so dim as to be nearly obscured.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Distribution of Wealth and the Marginal Propensity to Consume.\n \n \n\n\n \n Carroll, C.; Slacalek, J.; Tokuoka, K.; and White, M. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2014.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Carrolletal2014,\n  title = {The Distribution of Wealth and the Marginal Propensity to Consume},\n  author = {Carroll, Christopher and Slacalek, Jiri and Tokuoka, Kiichi and White, Matthew N.},\n  year = {2014},\n  url = {https://lerner.udel.edu/departments/economics/working-paper-series/},\n  abstract = {We present a macroeconomic model calibrated to match both microeconomic and macroeconomic evidence on household income dynamics. When the model is modifed in a way that permits it to match empirical measures of wealth inequality in the U.S., we show that its predictions (unlike those of competing models) are consistent with the substantial body of microeconomic evidence that suggests that the annual marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is much larger than the 0.02-0.04 range implied by commonly-used macroeconomic models. Our model also plausibly predicts that the aggregate MPC can differ greatly depending on how the shock is distributed across categories of households (e.g., low-wealth versus high-wealth households).},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Intergenerational Propagation of Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Isaac, A. G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Metroeconomica, 65(4): 571–584. 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Isaac2014,\n  title = {The Intergenerational Propagation of Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Isaac, Alan G.},\n  year = {2014},\n  journal = {Metroeconomica},\n  volume = {65},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {571--584},\n  doi = {10.1111/meca.12057},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/meca.12057},\n  abstract = {This paper highlights the crucial role of demographic assumptions in models of the intergenerational transmission of wealth inequality. Specifically, we show that Alan Blinder's surprising predictions that bequest and mating practices can sustain but cannot cause wealth inequality are extremely fragile. We show that these predictions depend on a common and apparently minor demographic assumption: fixed sex ratios in family composition. We implement the Blinder model as an agent-based simulation and show that without this demographic assumption such familial institutions are causative for wealth inequality, even in the long run.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Pareto and Piketty: The Macroeconomics of Top Income and Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Jones, C. I.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2014.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Pareto$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Jones2014,\n  title = {Pareto and {{Piketty}}: The Macroeconomics of Top Income and Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Jones, Charles I.},\n  year = {2014},\n  url = {http://www.nber.org/papers/w20742},\n  abstract = {Since the early 2000s, research by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and their coathors has revolutionized our understanding of income and wealth inequality. In this paper, I highlight some of the key empirical facts from this research and comment on how they relate to macroeconomics and to economic theory more generally. One of the key links between data and theory is the Pareto distribution. The paper describes simple mechanisms that give rise to Pareto distributions for income and wealth and considers the economic forces that influence top inequality over time and across countries. For example, it is in this context that the role of the famous r-g expression is best understood.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Capital in the Twenty-First Century.\n \n \n\n\n \n Piketty, T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Capital$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Piketty2014,\n  title = {Capital in the Twenty-First Century},\n  author = {Piketty, Thomas},\n  translator = {Goldhammer, Arthur},\n  year = {2014},\n  publisher = {{The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press}},\n  address = {{Cambridge, MA}},\n  url = {http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2},\n  urldate = {2022-02-25},\n  isbn = {978-0-674-24507-5},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Inherited vs Self-Made Wealth: Theory & Evidence from a Rentier Society (Paris 1872– 1927).\n \n \n\n\n \n Piketty, T.; Postel-Vinay, G.; and Rosenthal, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Explorations in Economic History, 51(1): 21–40. 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inherited$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Pikettyetal2014,\n  title = {Inherited vs Self-Made Wealth: Theory \\& Evidence from a Rentier Society (Paris 1872\\textendash 1927)},\n  author = {Piketty, Thomas and {Postel-Vinay}, Gilles and Rosenthal, Jean-Laurent},\n  year = {2014},\n  journal = {Explorations in Economic History},\n  volume = {51},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {21--40},\n  publisher = {{Academic Press}},\n  doi = {10.1016/j.eeh.2013.07.004},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eeh.2013.07.004},\n  abstract = {We divide decedents into two groups: "rentiers" (whose wealth is smaller than the capitalized value of their inherited wealth) and "savers" (who consumed less than their labor income). Applying this split to a unique micro data set on inheritance and matrimonial property regimes, we find that Paris from 1872 to 1927 was a "rentier society". Rentiers made up about 10\\% of the population of Parisians but owned 70\\% of aggregate wealth. Rentier societies thrive when the rate of return on private wealth r is larger than the growth rate g (say, r. = 4\\% vs g. = 2\\%). This was the case in the 19th and early 20th centuries and is likely to happen again in the 21st century. At the time, top successors' capital income sustains living standards far beyond what labor income alone would permit.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data.\n \n \n\n\n \n Saez, E.; and Zucman, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 20625, National Bureau of Economic Research, October 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Wealth$ published version\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{SaezZucman2014,\n  type = {Working {{Paper}}},\n  title = {Wealth Inequality in the {{United States}} since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data},\n  author = {Saez, Emmanuel and Zucman, Gabriel},\n  year = {2014},\n  month = oct,\n  number = {20625},\n  institution = {{National Bureau of Economic Research}},\n  doi = {10.3386/w20625},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.3386/w20625},\n  abstract = {This paper combines income tax returns with Flow of Funds data to estimate the distribution of household wealth in the United States since 1913. We estimate wealth by capitalizing the incomes reported by individual taxpayers, accounting for assets that do not generate taxable income. We successfully test our capitalization method in three micro datasets where we can observe both income and wealth: the Survey of Consumer Finance, linked estate and income tax returns, and foundations' tax records. Wealth concentration has followed a U-shaped evolution over the last 100 years: It was high in the beginning of the twentieth century, fell from 1929 to 1978, and has continuously increased since then. The rise of wealth inequality is almost entirely due to the rise of the top 0.1\\% wealth share, from 7\\% in 1979 to 22\\% in 2012-a level almost as high as in 1929. The bottom 90\\% wealth share first increased up to the mid-1980s and then steadily declined. The increase in wealth concentration is due to the surge of top incomes combined with an increase in saving rate inequality. Top wealth-holders are younger today than in the 1960s and earn a higher fraction of total labor income in the economy. We explain how our findings can be reconciled with Survey of Consumer Finances and estate tax data.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_published_version = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/saez-zucman-wealthinequalityintheunitedstatessince1913evidencefromcapitalizedincometaxdata-2016}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Inheritances and the Distribution of Wealth or Whatever Happened to the Great Inheritance Boom?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wolff, E. N.; and Gittleman, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Journal of Economic Inequality, 12(4): 439–468. December 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inheritances$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{WolffGittleman2014,\n  title = {Inheritances and the Distribution of Wealth or Whatever Happened to the Great Inheritance Boom?},\n  author = {Wolff, Edward N. and Gittleman, Maury},\n  year = {2014},\n  month = dec,\n  journal = {The Journal of Economic Inequality},\n  volume = {12},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {439--468},\n  doi = {10.1007/s10888-013-9261-8},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-013-9261-8},\n  abstract = {Using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), we found that on average over the period from 1989 to 2007, about one fifth of American households at a given point of time reported a wealth transfer and these accounted for quite a sizeable figure, about a quarter of their net worth. Over the lifetime, about 30 percent of households could expect to receive a wealth transfer and these would account for close to 40 \\% of their net worth near time of death. However, there is little evidence of an inheritance ``boom.'' In fact, from 1989 to 2007, the share of households reporting a wealth transfer fell by 2.5 percentage points, a time trend statistically significant at the one percent level. The average value of inheritances received among all households did increase but at a slow pace, by 10 \\%; the time trend is not statistically significant. Wealth transfers as a proportion of current net worth fell sharply over this period, from 29 to 19 \\%, though the time trend once again is not statistically significant. We also found that inheritances and other wealth transfers tend to be equalizing in terms of the distribution of household wealth, though a number of caveats apply to this result.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2013\n \n \n (9)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Fourth Retirement Pillar in Rich Countries.\n \n \n\n\n \n Bradbury, B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Gornick, J. C.; and Jäntti, M., editor(s), Income Inequality: Economic Disparities and the Middle Class in Affluent Countries, of Studies in Social Inequality, 12, pages 334–361. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Bradbury2013,\n  title = {The Fourth Retirement Pillar in Rich Countries},\n  booktitle = {Income Inequality: Economic Disparities and the Middle Class in Affluent Countries},\n  author = {Bradbury, Bruce},\n  editor = {Gornick, Janet C. and J{\\"a}ntti, Markus},\n  year = {2013},\n  series = {Studies in Social Inequality},\n  pages = {334--361},\n  publisher = {{Stanford University Press}},\n  address = {{Stanford, CA}},\n  doi = {10.1515/9780804786751-016},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804786751-016},\n  isbn = {978-0-8047-8675-1},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  chapter = {12}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Public Pension Entitlements and the Distribution of Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Frick, J. R.; and Grabka, M. M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Gornick, J. C.; and Jäntti, M., editor(s), Income Inequality: Economic Disparities and the Middle Class in Affluent Countries, of Studies in Social Inequality, 13, pages 362–385. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Public$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{FrickGrabka2013,\n  title = {Public Pension Entitlements and the Distribution of Wealth},\n  booktitle = {Income Inequality: Economic Disparities and the Middle Class in Affluent Countries},\n  author = {Frick, Joachim R. and Grabka, Markus M.},\n  editor = {Gornick, Janet C. and J{\\"a}ntti, Markus},\n  year = {2013},\n  series = {Studies in Social Inequality},\n  pages = {362--385},\n  publisher = {{Stanford University Press}},\n  address = {{Stanford, CA}},\n  doi = {10.1515/9780804786751-017},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804786751-017},\n  isbn = {978-0-8047-8675-1},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  chapter = {13}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Joint Distribution of Income and Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Jäntti, M.; Sierminska, E.; and Van Kerm, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Gornick, J. C.; and Jäntti, M., editor(s), Income Inequality: Economic Disparities and the Middle Class in Affluent Countries, of Studies in Social Inequality, 11, pages 312–333. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Janttietal2013,\n  title = {The Joint Distribution of Income and Wealth},\n  booktitle = {Income Inequality: Economic Disparities and the Middle Class in Affluent Countries},\n  author = {J{\\"a}ntti, Markus and Sierminska, Eva and Van Kerm, Philippe},\n  editor = {Gornick, Janet C. and J{\\"a}ntti, Markus},\n  year = {2013},\n  series = {Studies in Social Inequality},\n  pages = {312--333},\n  publisher = {{Stanford University Press}},\n  address = {{Stanford, CA}},\n  doi = {10.1515/9780804786751-015},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804786751-015},\n  isbn = {978-0-8047-8675-1},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  chapter = {11}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Optimal Financial Knowledge and Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Lusardi, A.; Michaud, P.; and Mitchell, O. S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2013.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Optimal$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Lusardietal2013,\n  title = {Optimal Financial Knowledge and Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Lusardi, Annamaria and Michaud, Pierre-Carl and Mitchell, Olivia S.},\n  year = {2013},\n  url = {http://www.nber.org/papers/w18669},\n  abstract = {While financial knowledge is strongly positively related to household wealth, there is also considerable cross-sectional variation in both financial knowledge and net asset levels. To explore these patterns, we develop a calibrated stochastic life cycle model featuring endogenous financial knowledge accumulation. The model generates substantial wealth inequality, over and above that of standard life cycle models; this is because higher earners typically have more hump-shaped labor income profiles and lower retirement benefits which, when interacted with precautionary saving motives, boost their need for private wealth accumulation and thus financial knowledge. Our simulations show that endogenous financial knowledge accumulation has the potential to account for a large proportion of wealth inequality. The fraction of the population which is rationally financially "ignorant" depends on the generosity of the retirement system and the level of means-tested benefits. Educational efforts to enhance financial savvy early in the life cycle so as to produce one percentage point excess return per year would be valued highly by people in all educational groups.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Disparities before and after the Great Recession.\n \n \n\n\n \n Pfeffer, F. T.; Danziger, S.; and Schoeni, R. F.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 650: 98–123. 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Pfefferetal2013,\n  title = {Wealth Disparities before and after the Great Recession},\n  author = {Pfeffer, Fabian T. and Danziger, Sheldon and Schoeni, Robert F.},\n  year = {2013},\n  journal = {The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science},\n  volume = {650},\n  eprint = {24541678},\n  eprinttype = {jstor},\n  pages = {98--123},\n  doi = {10.1177/0002716213497452},\n  url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/24541678},\n  abstract = {The collapse of the labor, housing, and stock markets beginning in 2007 created unprecedented challenges for American families. This study examines disparities in wealth holdings leading up to the Great Recession and during the first years of the recovery. All socioeconomic groups experienced declines in wealth following the recession, with higher wealth families experiencing larger absolute declines. In percentage terms, however, the declines were greater for less advantaged groups as measured by minority status, education, and prerecession income and wealth, leading to a substantial rise in wealth inequality in just a few years. Despite large changes in wealth, longitudinal analyses demonstrate little change in mobility in the ranking of particular families in the wealth distribution. Between 2007 and 2011, one-fourth of American families lost at least 75 percent of their wealth, and more than half of all families lost at least 25 percent of their wealth. Multivariate longitudinal analyses document that these large relative losses were disproportionally concentrated among lower-income, less educated, and minority households.},\n  isbn = {0002-7162},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  pmid = {25332508}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Disparities before and after the Great Recession.\n \n \n\n\n \n Pfeffer, F. T.; Danziger, S.; and Schoeni, R. F.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2013.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Pfefferetal2013a,\n  title = {Wealth Disparities before and after the Great Recession},\n  author = {Pfeffer, Fabian T. and Danziger, Sheldon and Schoeni, Robert F.},\n  year = {2013},\n  url = {http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/working_papers/},\n  abstract = {The collapse of the labor, housing, and stock markets beginning in 2007 created unprecedented challenges for American families. This study examines disparities in wealth holdings leading up to the Great Recession and during the first years of the recovery. All socioeconomic groups experienced declines in wealth following the recession, with higher wealth families experiencing larger absolute declines. In percentage terms, however, the declines were greater for less-advantaged groups as measured by minority status, education, and pre-recession income and wealth, leading to a substantial rise in wealth inequality in just a few years. Despite large changes in wealth, longitudinal analyses demonstrate little change in mobility in the ranking of particular families in the wealth distribution. Between 2007 and 2011, one fourth of American families lost at least 75 percent of their wealth, and more than half of all families lost at least 25 percent of their wealth. Multivariate longitudinal analyses document that these large relative losses were disproportionally concentrated among lower income, less educated, and minority households.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n A Theory of Optimal Inheritance Taxation.\n \n \n\n\n \n Piketty, T.; and Saez, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Econometrica, 81(5): 1851–1886. 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{PikettySaez2013,\n  title = {A Theory of Optimal Inheritance Taxation},\n  author = {Piketty, Thomas and Saez, Emmanuel},\n  year = {2013},\n  journal = {Econometrica},\n  volume = {81},\n  number = {5},\n  pages = {1851--1886},\n  doi = {10.3982/ECTA10712},\n  url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.3982/ECTA10712},\n  abstract = {This paper derives optimal inheritance tax formulas that capture the key equity efficiency trade-off, are expressed in terms of estimable sufficient statistics, and are ro bust to the underlying structure of preferences. We consider dynamic stochastic models with general and heterogeneous bequest tastes and labor productivities. We limit our selves to simple but realistic linear or two-bracket tax structures to obtain tractable formulas. We show that long-run optimal inheritance tax rates can always be expressed in terms of aggregate earnings and bequest elasticities with respect to tax rates, dis tributional parameters, and social preferences for redistribution. Those results carry over with tractable modifications to (a) the case with social discounting (instead of steady-state welfare maximization), (b) the case with partly accidental bequests, (c) the standard Barro-Becker dynastic model. The optimal tax rate is positive and quantita tively large if the elasticity of bequests to the tax rate is low, bequest concentration is high, and society cares mostly about those receiving little inheritance. We propose a calibration using micro-data for France and the United States. We find that, for real istic parameters, the optimal inheritance tax rate might be as large as 50\\%-60\\%\\textemdash or even higher for top bequests, in line with historical expe},\n  isbn = {1468-0262},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Ways to Richness: Determination of Household Wealth in 16 Countries.\n \n \n\n\n \n Semyonov, M.; and Lewin-Epstein, N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n European Sociological Review, 29(6): 1134–1148. December 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Ways$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{SemyonovLewin-Epstein2013,\n  title = {Ways to Richness: Determination of Household Wealth in 16 Countries},\n  author = {Semyonov, Moshe and {Lewin-Epstein}, Noah},\n  year = {2013},\n  month = dec,\n  journal = {European Sociological Review},\n  volume = {29},\n  number = {6},\n  pages = {1134--1148},\n  doi = {10.1093/esr/jct001},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jct001},\n  abstract = {The study examines determination of wealth among older households from a cross-national comparative perspective. Data obtained from 16 national samples reveal that in all countries household wealth is accumulated through two major mechanisms: labor market income and inter-generational transfers. Higher income and reception of inheritance are likely to increase household net worth. Despite considerable cross-country variation in the distribution of wealth, the effects of income and inheritance on net worth are found to be uniform across societies. Further analysis does not detect any systematic association between household net worth and country-level characteristics or social and taxation policies. Nor does it detect any systematic association between country structural attributes and the ways that wealth is determined and accumulated. The findings are discussed in light of previous research and theory on the topic.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Distribution of Assets and Debt.\n \n \n\n\n \n Sierminska, E.; Smeeding, T. M.; and Allegrezza, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Gornick, J. C.; and Jäntti, M., editor(s), Income Inequality: Economic Disparities and the Middle Class in Affluent Countries, of Studies in Social Inequality, 10, pages 285–311. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Sierminskaetal2013,\n  title = {The Distribution of Assets and Debt},\n  booktitle = {Income Inequality: Economic Disparities and the Middle Class in Affluent Countries},\n  author = {Sierminska, Eva and Smeeding, Timothy M. and Allegrezza, Serge},\n  editor = {Gornick, Janet C. and J{\\"a}ntti, Markus},\n  year = {2013},\n  series = {Studies in Social Inequality},\n  pages = {285--311},\n  publisher = {{Stanford University Press}},\n  address = {{Stanford, CA}},\n  doi = {10.1515/9780804786751-014},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804786751-014},\n  isbn = {978-0-8047-8675-1},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  chapter = {10}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2012\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Intergenerational Top Income Mobility in Sweden: Capitalist Dynasties in the Land of Equal Opportunity?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Björklund, A.; Roine, J.; and Waldenström, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Public Economics, 96: 474–484. 2012.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intergenerational$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Bjorklundetal2012,\n  title = {Intergenerational Top Income Mobility in Sweden: Capitalist Dynasties in the Land of Equal Opportunity?},\n  author = {Bj{\\"o}rklund, Anders and Roine, Jesper and Waldenstr{\\"o}m, Daniel},\n  year = {2012},\n  journal = {Journal of Public Economics},\n  volume = {96},\n  pages = {474--484},\n  doi = {10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.02.003},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.02.003},\n  abstract = {This paper presents new evidence on intergenerational mobility at the top of the income and earnings distributions. Using a large dataset of matched father-son pairs in Sweden, we find that intergenerational transmission is very strong at the top, more so for income than for earnings. At the extreme top (top 0.1\\%) income transmission is remarkable with an intergenerational elasticity of approximately 0.9. We also study potential transmission mechanisms and find that IQ, non-cognitive skills and education of the sons are all unlikely channels in explaining the strong transmission. Within the top percentile, increases in the income of the fathers, if they are related at all, are negatively associated with these variables. Wealth, on the other hand, has a significantly positive association. Our results suggest that Sweden, known for having relatively high intergenerational mobility in general, is a society in which transmission remains strong at the very top of the distribution and wealth is the most likely channel.},\n  isbn = {00472727},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  pmid = {1297647}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n A Theory of Optimal Capital Taxation.\n \n \n\n\n \n Piketty, T.; and Saez, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2012.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{PikettySaez2012,\n  title = {A Theory of Optimal Capital Taxation},\n  author = {Piketty, Thomas and Saez, Emmanuel},\n  year = {2012},\n  doi = {10.3386/w17989},\n  url = {http://www.nber.org/papers/w17989},\n  abstract = {This paper develops a realistic, tractable theoretical model that can be used to investigate socially-optimal capital taxation. We present a dynamic model of savings and bequests with heterogeneous random tastes for bequests to children and for wealth per se. We derive formulas for optimal tax rates on capitalized inheritance expressed in terms of estimable parameters and social preferences. Under our model assumptions, the long-run optimal tax rate increases with the aggregate steady-state flow of inheritances to output, decreases with the elasticity of bequests to the net-of-tax rate, and decreases with the strength of preferences for leaving bequests. For realistic parameters of our model, the optimal tax rate on capitalized inheritance would be as high as 50\\%-60\\%\\textendash or even higher for top wealth holders\\textendash if the social objective is meritocratic (i.e., the social planner puts higher welfare weights on those receiving little inheritance) and if capital is highly concentrated (as it is in the real world). In contrast to the Atkinson-Stiglitz result, the optimal tax on bequest remains positive in our model even with optimal labor taxation because inequality is two-dimensional: with inheritances, labor income is no longer the unique determinant of lifetime resources. In contrast to Chamley-Judd, the optimal tax on capital is positive in our model because we have finite long run elasticities of inheritance to tax rates. Finally, we discuss how adding capital market imperfections and uninsurable shocks to rates of return to our optimal tax model leads to shifting one-off inheritance taxation toward lifetime capital taxation, and can account for the actual structure and mix of inheritance and capital taxation.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Wealth Taxation},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Rich and the Rest of Us.\n \n \n\n\n \n Smiley, T.; and West, C.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n SmileyBooks, New York, 2012.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{SmileyWest2012,\n  title = {The Rich and the Rest of Us},\n  author = {Smiley, Tavis and West, Cornel},\n  year = {2012},\n  publisher = {{SmileyBooks}},\n  address = {{New York}},\n  url = {https://www.hayhouse.com/the-rich-and-the-rest-of-us-1},\n  abstract = {Record unemployment and rampant corporate avarice, empty houses but homeless families, dwindling opportunities in an increasingly paralyzed nation\\textemdash these are the realities of 21st-century America, land of the free and home of the new middle class poor. Award-winning broadcaster Tavis Smiley and Dr. Cornel West, one of the nation's leading democratic intellectuals, co-hosts of Public Radio's Smiley \\& West, now take on the "P" word\\textemdash poverty. The Rich and the Rest of Us is the next step in the journey that began with "The Poverty Tour: A Call to Conscience." Smiley and West's 18-city bus tour gave voice to the plight of impoverished Americans of all races, colors, and creeds. With 150 million Americans persistently poor or near poor, the highest numbers in over five decades, Smiley and West argue that now is the time to confront the underlying conditions of systemic poverty in America before it's too late.By placing the eradication of poverty in the context of the nation's greatest moments of social transformation\\textemdash{} such as the abolition of slavery, woman's suffrage, and the labor and civil rights movements\\textemdash ending poverty is sure to emerge as America's 21st -century civil rights struggle.As the middle class disappears and the safety net is shredded, Smiley and West, building on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., ask us to confront our fear and complacency with 12 poverty changing ideas. They challenge us to re-examine our assumptions about poverty in America\\textemdash what it really is and how to eliminate it now.},\n  isbn = {978-1-4019-4064-5},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2011\n \n \n (6)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Distribution of Wealth and Fiscal Policy in Economies with Finitely Lived Agents.\n \n \n\n\n \n Benhabib, J.; Bisin, A.; and Zhu, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Econometrica, 79(1): 123–157. 2011.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 12 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Benhabibetal2011,\n  title = {The Distribution of Wealth and Fiscal Policy in Economies with Finitely Lived Agents},\n  author = {Benhabib, Jess and Bisin, Alberto and Zhu, Shenghao},\n  year = {2011},\n  journal = {Econometrica},\n  volume = {79},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {123--157},\n  doi = {10.3982/ECTA8416},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA8416},\n  abstract = {We study the dynamics of the distribution of wealth in an overlapping generation economy with finitely lived agents and intergenerational transmission of wealth. Financial markets are incomplete, exposing agents to both labor and capital income risk. We show that the stationary wealth distribution is a Pareto distribution in the right tail and that it is capital income risk, rather than labor income, that drives the properties of the right tail of the wealth distribution. We also study analytically the dependence of the distribution of wealth\\textemdash of wealth inequality in particular\\textemdash on various fiscal policy instruments like capital income taxes and estate taxes, and on different degrees of social mobility. We show that capital income and estate taxes can significantly reduce wealth inequality, as do institutions favoring social mobility. Finally, we calibrate the economy to match the Lorenz curve of the wealth distribution of the U.S. economy.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,{Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes},Intergenerational Wealth,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth and Economic Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Davies, J. B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In The Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality, 6. Oxford University Press, 2011.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Davies2011,\n  title = {Wealth and Economic Inequality},\n  booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality},\n  author = {Davies, James B.},\n  year = {2011},\n  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},\n  doi = {10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199606061.013.0006},\n  url = {http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199606061.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199606061-e-6},\n  abstract = {This article surveys the distribution of wealth and its relationship to economic inequality more broadly. It shows that wealth inequality is high and contributes significantly to inequality in income and consumption, although higher wealth inequality is not always an indicator of greater inequality in well-being. In particular, welfare state policies can improve the well-being of low income groups while at the same time reducing their incentive to save. This may lead to high observed wealth inequality in places where it would otherwise not be expected, such as some of the Scandinavian countries. More research is needed to better illuminate such connections between public policy and wealth inequality.},\n  chapter = {6},\n  isbn = {978-0-19-174362-7},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Building a Better America— One Wealth Quintile at a Time.\n \n \n\n\n \n Norton, M. I.; and Ariely, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1): 9–12. 2011.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Building$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 7 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{NortonAriely2011,\n  title = {Building a Better America\\textemdash One Wealth Quintile at a Time},\n  author = {Norton, Michael I. and Ariely, Dan},\n  year = {2011},\n  journal = {Perspectives on Psychological Science},\n  volume = {6},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {9--12},\n  doi = {10.1177/1745691610393524},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393524},\n  abstract = {Disagreements about the optimal level of wealth inequality underlie policy debates ranging from taxation to welfare. We attempt to insert the desires of ``regular'' Americans into these debates, by asking a nationally representative online panel to estimate the current distribution of wealth in the United States and to ``build a better America'' by constructing distributions with their ideal level of inequality. First, respondents dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality. Second, respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution. Most important from a policy perspective, we observed a surprising level of consensus: All demographic groups\\textemdash even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy\\textemdash desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n On the Long-Run Evolution of Inheritance: France 1820– 2050.\n \n \n\n\n \n Piketty, T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(3): 1071–1131. 2011.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"On$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Piketty2011,\n  title = {On the Long-Run Evolution of Inheritance: {{France}} 1820\\textendash 2050},\n  author = {Piketty, Thomas},\n  year = {2011},\n  journal = {Quarterly Journal of Economics},\n  volume = {126},\n  number = {3},\n  pages = {1071--1131},\n  doi = {10.1093/qje/qjr020},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr020},\n  abstract = {This article attempts to document and account for the long-run evolution of inheritance. We find that in a country like France the annual flow of inheritance was about 20\\textendash 25\\% of national income between 1820 and 1910, down to less than 5\\% in 1950, and back up to about 15\\% by 2010. A simple theoretical model of wealth accumulation, growth, and inheritance can fully account for the observed U-shaped pattern and levels. Using this model, we find that under plausible assumptions the annual bequest flow might reach about 20\\textendash 25\\% of national income by 2050. This corresponds to a capitalized bequest share in total wealth accumulation well above 100\\%. Our findings illustrate the fact that when the growth rate g is small, and when the rate of return to private wealth r is permanently and substantially larger than the growth rate (say, r = 4\\textendash 5\\% versus g = 1\\textendash 2\\%), which was the case in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century and is likely to happen again in the twenty-first century, then past wealth and inheritance are bound to play a key role for aggregate wealth accumulation and the structure of lifetime inequality. Contrary to a widespread view, modern economic growth did not kill inheritance.},\n  isbn = {00335533},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Inherited vs Self-Made Wealth: Theory and Evidence from a Rentier Society (Paris 1872-1937).\n \n \n\n\n \n Piketty, T.; Postel-Vinay, G.; and Rosenthal, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2011.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inherited$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Pikettyetal2011,\n  title = {Inherited vs Self-Made Wealth: Theory and Evidence from a Rentier Society (Paris 1872-1937)},\n  author = {Piketty, Thomas and {Postel-Vinay}, Gilles and Rosenthal, Jean-Laurent},\n  year = {2011},\n  url = {https://hal-pse.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00601075/},\n  abstract = {This paper divides the population into two groups: the ``inheritors'' or ``rentiers'' (whose wealth is smaller than the capitalized value of their inherited wealth, i.e. who consumed more than their labor income during their lifetime); and the ``savers'' or ``self-made men'' (whose wealth is larger than the capitalized value of their inherited wealth, i.e. who consumed less than their labor income). Applying this simple theoretical model to a unique micro data set on inheritance and matrimonial property regimes, we find that Paris in 1872-1937 looks like a prototype ``rentier society''. Rentiers made about 10\\% of the population of Parisians but owned 70\\% of aggregate wealth. Rentier societies thrive when the rate of return on private wealth r is permanently and substantially larger than the growth rate g (say, r=4\\%-5\\% vs g=1\\%-2\\%). This was the case in the 19th century and early 20th century and is likely to happen again in the 21st century. In such cases top successors, by consuming part of the return to their inherited wealth, can sustain living standards far beyond what labor income alone would permit.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Caste Stratification and Wealth Inequality in India.\n \n \n\n\n \n Zacharias, A.; and Vakulabharanam, V.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n World Development, 39(10): 1820–1833. 2011.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Caste$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{ZachariasVakulabharanam2011,\n  title = {Caste Stratification and Wealth Inequality in India},\n  author = {Zacharias, Ajit and Vakulabharanam, Vamsi},\n  year = {2011},\n  journal = {World Development},\n  volume = {39},\n  number = {10},\n  pages = {1820--1833},\n  doi = {10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2011.04.026},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.04.026},\n  abstract = {We analyze the relationship between wealth inequality and caste divisions in India using nationally representative surveys on household wealth conducted during 1991\\textendash 92 and 2002\\textendash 03. According to our findings, the groups in India that are generally considered disadvantaged (known as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes) have, as one would expect, substantially lower wealth than the ``forward'' caste groups, while the Other Backward Classes and non-Hindus occupy positions in the middle. Using the ANOGI decomposition technique, we estimate that between-caste inequality accounted for about 13\\% of overall wealth inequality in 2002\\textendash 03. The stratification parameters indicate that the forward caste Hindus overlap little with the other caste groups, while the latter have significantly higher degrees of overlap with one another and with the overall population. Using this method, we are also able to comment on the emergence and strengthening of a ``creamy layer,'' or relatively well-off group, among the disadvantaged groups, especially the Scheduled Tribes.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2010\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Pastoralism and Wealth Inequality: Revisiting an Old Question.\n \n \n\n\n \n Borgerhoff Mulder, M.; Fazzio, I.; Irons, W.; McElreath, R. L.; Bowles, S.; Bell, A.; Hertz, T.; and Hazzah, L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Current Anthropology, 51(1): 35–48. 2010.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Pastoralism$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 10 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{BorgerhoffMulderetal2010,\n  title = {Pastoralism and Wealth Inequality: Revisiting an Old Question},\n  author = {Borgerhoff Mulder, Monique and Fazzio, Ila and Irons, William and McElreath, Richard L. and Bowles, Samuel and Bell, Adrian and Hertz, Tom and Hazzah, Leela},\n  year = {2010},\n  journal = {Current Anthropology},\n  volume = {51},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {35--48},\n  publisher = {{The University of Chicago Press}},\n  doi = {10.1086/648561},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1086/648561},\n  abstract = {Pastoralist societies are often portrayed as economically egalitarian, reflecting the volatile nature of livestock herds and the existence of multiple institutions that allow for the redistribution of wealth as a form of insurance. Motivated by an interest in the role of intergenerational transmission in structuring persistent inequality, we examine the extent of intergenerational transmission of material wealth (four measures) and embodied wealth (one measure) for four pastoral populations from different parts of the world (East Africa, West Africa, and southwest Asia). We find substantial levels of intergenerational transmission and marked economic inequality. We argue that the high correspondence between the material wealth of parents and offspring reflects the importance of the family in the transmission of wealth through bequests, positive assortment by wealth in the domains of marriage and herd management, and positive returns to scale as might occur when raising or defending large herds. We conclude that the analysis of intergenerational transmission provides new insights into the much-debated extent of egalitarianism among pastoralists.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality and Household Structure: U.S. vs. Spain.\n \n \n\n\n \n Bover, O.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Review of Income and Wealth, 56(2): 259–290. 2010.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Bover2010,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality and Household Structure: {{U}}.{{S}}. vs. Spain},\n  author = {Bover, Olympia},\n  year = {2010},\n  journal = {Review of Income and Wealth},\n  volume = {56},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {259--290},\n  doi = {10.1111/j.1475-4991.2010.00376.x},\n  url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2010.00376.x},\n  abstract = {We study the link between culturally inherited household structure and wealth distribution in international comparisons using household data for the U.S. and Spain (the SCF and the EFF). We estimate counterfactual U.S. distributions relying on the Spanish household structure. Our results show that differences in household structure account for most of the differences in the lower part of the distribution between the two countries, but mask even larger differences in the upper part of the distribution. Imposing the Spanish household structure to the U.S. wealth distribution has little effect on the Gini coefficient and wealth top shares. However, this is the net result of reduced differences at the bottom and increased differences at the top. So there is distinct additional information in considering the whole distribution. Finally, we present results for the within-group differences between the two countries using quantile regressions and find a reversing pattern by age.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Die verteilung der vermögen in Deutschland: empirische analysen für personen und haushalte.\n \n \n\n\n \n Frick, J. R.; Grabka, M. M.; and Hauser, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Volume 118 of Forschung aus der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung (HBS)Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf, Germany, 2010.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Die$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Fricketal2010,\n  title = {{Die verteilung der verm\\"ogen in Deutschland: empirische analysen f\\"ur personen und haushalte}},\n  author = {Frick, Joachim R. and Grabka, Markus M. and Hauser, Richard},\n  year = {2010},\n  series = {{Forschung aus der Hans-B\\"ockler-Stiftung (HBS)}},\n  volume = {118},\n  publisher = {{Hans-B\\"ockler-Stiftung}},\n  address = {{D\\"usseldorf, Germany}},\n  doi = {10.5771/9783845269412},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845269412},\n  abstract = {Die Nettoverm\\"ogen sind viel ungleichm\\"a\\ss iger verteilt als die Nettoeinkommen. In den letzten Jahren hat die Ungleichheit der Verm\\"ogensverteilung noch weiter zugenommen. Dies ergeben die beiden Verm\\"ogenserhebungen des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels (SOEP) von 2002 und 2007, auf deren Grundlage die Autoren in diesem Band eine Reihe von innovativen Analysen rund um die Verm\\"ogensverteilung pr\\"asentieren. Sie widmen sich u.a. der \\textendash{} erstaunlicherweise nicht sehr stringenten \\textendash{} Korrelation zwischen Nettoeinkommen und -verm\\"ogen, der langfristigen Entwicklung des Gesamtverm\\"ogens des Haushaltssektors mit den Auf- und Abstiegen in der Verm\\"ogenshierarchie sowie der Verm\\"ogensverteilung nach Bildungsstand, beruflicher Stellung und Migrationshintergrund. Indem die Untersuchung auch die rechtlichen Eigent\\"umer erfasst, erlaubt sie einen Einblick in die geschlechtsspezifischen Verm\\"ogensverh\\"altnisse \\textendash{} mit dem Ergebnis, dass M\\"anner erwartungsgem\\"a\\ss{} deutlich verm\\"ogender sind als Frauen. Erstmals beziehen die Autoren auch die Anwartschaften an Renten und Pensionen in die erweiterte Verm\\"ogensrechnung ein. Das Anwartschaftsverm\\"ogen ist wesentlich weniger ungleich verteilt als das Geld-, Sach- und Beteiligungsverm\\"ogen; die Ungleichheit wird dadurch abgeschw\\"acht, aber sie bleibt insgesamt eklatant. \\textendash{} Mit einem Vorwort von Sir Anthony Atkinson.},\n  isbn = {978-3-8360-8718-6},\n  langid = {german},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2009\n \n \n (4)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Distribution of Wealth and Fiscal Policy in Economies with Finitely Lived Agents.\n \n \n\n\n \n Benhabib, J.; and Bisin, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2009.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 12 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{BenhabibBisin2009,\n  title = {The Distribution of Wealth and Fiscal Policy in Economies with Finitely Lived Agents},\n  author = {Benhabib, Jess and Bisin, Alberto},\n  year = {2009},\n  url = {http://www.nber.org/papers/w14730},\n  abstract = {We study the dynamics of the distribution of overlapping generation economy with finitely lived agents and inter-generational transmission of wealth. Financial markets are incomplete, exposing agents to both labor income and capital income risk. We show that the stationary wealth distribution is a Pareto distribution in the right tail and that it is capital income risk, rather than labor income, that drives the properties of the right tail of the wealth distribution. We also study analytically the dependence of the distribution of wealth, of wealth inequality in particular, on various fiscal policy instruments like capital income taxes and estate taxes. We show that capital income and estate taxes can significantly reduce wealth inequality. Finally, we characterize optimal redistributive taxes with respect to a utilitarian social welfaremeasure. Social welfare is maximized short of minimal wealth inequality and with zero estate taxes. Finally, we study the effects of different degrees of social mobility on the wealth distribution.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,{Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes},Intergenerational Wealth,Wealth Taxation},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Women, Wealth, and Mobility.\n \n \n\n\n \n Edlund, L.; and Kopczuk, W.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n American Economic Review, 99(1): 146–178. 2009.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Women,$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{EdlundKopczuk2009,\n  title = {Women, Wealth, and Mobility},\n  author = {Edlund, Lena and Kopczuk, Wojciech},\n  year = {2009},\n  journal = {American Economic Review},\n  volume = {99},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {146--178},\n  doi = {10.1257/aer.99.1.146},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.1.146},\n  abstract = {Using estate tax returns data, we observe that the share of women among the very wealthy in the United States peaked in the late 1960s at nearly one-half and then declined to one-third. We argue that this pattern reflects changes in the importance of dynastic wealth, with the share of women proxying for inherited wealth. If so, wealth mobility decreased until the 1970s and rose thereafter. Such an interpretation is consistent with technological change driving long-term trends in mobility and inequality, as well as the recent divergence between top wealth and top income shares documented elsewhere.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Do Bequests Increase or Decrease Wealth Inequalities?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Horioka, C. Y.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Economics Letters, 103(1): 23–25. 2009.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Do$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Horioka2009,\n  title = {Do Bequests Increase or Decrease Wealth Inequalities?},\n  author = {Horioka, Charles Yuji},\n  year = {2009},\n  journal = {Economics Letters},\n  volume = {103},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {23--25},\n  doi = {10.1016/j.econlet.2009.01.009},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2009.01.009},\n  abstract = {This paper finds that individuals in Japan do not leave very significant bequests, that parents often require a quid pro quo for bequests to their children, and that wealthier individuals leave less bequests, meaning that bequests ameliorate wealth inequalities.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Intergenerational Wealth Transmission and the Dynamics of Inequality in Small-Scale Societies.\n \n \n\n\n \n Mulder, M. B.; Bowles, S.; Hertz, T.; Bell, A.; Beise, J.; Clark, G.; Fazzio, I.; Gurven, M.; Hill, K.; Hooper, P. L.; Irons, W.; Kaplan, H.; Leonetti, D.; Low, B.; Marlowe, F.; McElreath, R.; Naidu, S.; Nolin, D.; Piraino, P.; Quinlan, R.; Schniter, E.; Sear, R.; Shenk, M.; Smith, E. A.; von Rueden , C.; and Wiessner, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Science, 326(5953): 682–688. 2009.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intergenerational$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 12 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Mulderetal2009,\n  title = {Intergenerational Wealth Transmission and the Dynamics of Inequality in Small-Scale Societies},\n  author = {Mulder, Monique Borgerhoff and Bowles, Samuel and Hertz, Tom and Bell, Adrian and Beise, Jan and Clark, Greg and Fazzio, Ila and Gurven, Michael and Hill, Kim and Hooper, Paul L. and Irons, William and Kaplan, Hillard and Leonetti, Donna and Low, Bobbi and Marlowe, Frank and McElreath, Richard and Naidu, Suresh and Nolin, David and Piraino, Patrizio and Quinlan, Rob and Schniter, Eric and Sear, Rebecca and Shenk, Mary and Smith, Eric Alden and {von Rueden}, Christopher and Wiessner, Polly},\n  year = {2009},\n  journal = {Science},\n  volume = {326},\n  number = {5953},\n  pages = {682--688},\n  doi = {10.1126/science.1178336},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1178336},\n  abstract = {Small-scale human societies range from foraging bands with a strong egalitarian ethos to more economically stratified agrarian and pastoral societies. We explain this variation in inequality using a dynamic model in which a population's long-run steady-state level of inequality depends on the extent to which its most important forms of wealth are transmitted within families across generations. We estimate the degree of intergenerational transmission of three different types of wealth (material, embodied, and relational), as well as the extent of wealth inequality in 21 historical and contemporary populations. We show that intergenerational transmission of wealth and wealth inequality are substantial among pastoral and small-scale agricultural societies (on a par with or even exceeding the most unequal modern industrial economies) but are limited among horticultural and foraging peoples (equivalent to the most egalitarian of modern industrial populations). Differences in the technology by which a people derive their livelihood and in the institutions and norms making up the economic system jointly contribute to this pattern.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  pmid = {19900925}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2008\n \n \n (7)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Intergenerational Top Income Mobility in Sweden: Capitalist Dynasties in the Land of Equal Opportunity?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Björklund, A.; Roine, J.; and Waldenström, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2008.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intergenerational$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Bjorklundetal2008,\n  title = {Intergenerational Top Income Mobility in Sweden: Capitalist Dynasties in the Land of Equal Opportunity?},\n  author = {Bj{\\"o}rklund, Anders and Roine, Jesper and Waldenstr{\\"o}m, Daniel},\n  year = {2008},\n  url = {https://www.ifn.se/eng/publications/wp/2006-2010/2008_4/775},\n  abstract = {This paper presents new evidence on intergenerational mobility in the top of the income and earnings distribution. Using a large dataset of matched father-son pairs in Sweden, we find that intergenerational transmission is very strong in the top, more so for income than for earnings. In the extreme top (top 0.1 percent) income transmission is remarkable with an IG elasticity above 0.9. We also study potential transmission mechanisms and find that sons' IQ, non-cognitive skills and education are all unlikely channels in explaining this strong transmission. Within the top percentile, increases in fathers' income are, if anything, negatively associated with these variables. Wealth, on the other hand, has a significantly positive association. Our results suggest that Sweden, known for having relatively high intergenerational mobility in general, is a society where transmission remains strong in the very top of the distribution and that wealth is the most likely channel.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality: Data and Models.\n \n \n\n\n \n Cagetti, M.; and De Nardi, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Macroeconomic Dynamics, 12(S2): 285–313. 2008.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{CagettiDeNardi2008,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality: Data and Models},\n  author = {Cagetti, Marco and De Nardi, Mariacristina},\n  year = {2008},\n  journal = {Macroeconomic Dynamics},\n  volume = {12},\n  number = {S2},\n  pages = {285--313},\n  doi = {10.1017/S1365100507070150},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S1365100507070150},\n  abstract = {In the United States wealth is highly concentrated and very unequally distributed: the richest 1\\% hold one third of the total wealth in the economy. Understanding the determinants of wealth inequality is a challenge for many economic models. We summarize some key facts about the wealth distribution and what economic models have been able to explain so far.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Intergenerational Transfers in Italy.\n \n \n\n\n \n Cannari, L.; and D'Alessio, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Household Wealth in Italy, 2, pages 255–286. Banca d'Italia, 2008.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intergenerational$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{CannariDAlessio2008,\n  title = {Intergenerational Transfers in {{Italy}}},\n  booktitle = {Household Wealth in {{Italy}}},\n  author = {Cannari, Luigi and D'Alessio, Giovanni},\n  year = {2008},\n  pages = {255--286},\n  publisher = {{Banca d'Italia}},\n  url = {https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/altri-atti-convegni/2007-ricchezza-famiglie-ita/index.html},\n  chapter = {2},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Evolution of Personal Wealth in the Former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe.\n \n \n\n\n \n Guriev, S.; and Rachinsky, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Davies, J. B., editor(s), Personal Wealth from a Global Perspective, of UNU-WIDER Studies in Development Economics, 7, pages 134–149. Oxford University Press, Oxford, October 2008.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{GurievRachinsky2008,\n  title = {The Evolution of Personal Wealth in the Former {{Soviet Union}} and {{Central}} and {{Eastern Europe}}},\n  booktitle = {Personal Wealth from a Global Perspective},\n  author = {Guriev, Sergei and Rachinsky, Andrei},\n  editor = {Davies, James B.},\n  year = {2008},\n  month = oct,\n  series = {{{UNU-WIDER}} Studies in Development Economics},\n  pages = {134--149},\n  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},\n  address = {{Oxford}},\n  doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548880.003.0007},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548880.003.0007},\n  isbn = {978-0-19-172076-5},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  chapter = {7}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Distribution of Household Wealth in India.\n \n \n\n\n \n Subramanian, S.; and Jayaraj, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Davies, J. B., editor(s), Personal Wealth from a Global Perspective, Ch. 6, pages 112–133. 2008.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{SubramanianJayaraj2008,\n  title = {The Distribution of Household Wealth in {{India}}},\n  booktitle = {Personal Wealth from a Global Perspective},\n  author = {Subramanian, S. and Jayaraj, D.},\n  editor = {Davies, James B.},\n  year = {2008},\n  pages = {112--133},\n  doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548880.003.0006},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548880.003.0006},\n  abstract = {This study reviews the principal source of India's wealth distribution statistics, which is constituted by the five decennial Reserve Bank of India National Sample Survey Organization Surveys on Debt and Investment of 1961\\textendash 2, 1971\\textendash 2, 1981\\textendash 2, 1991\\textendash 2, and 2002\\textendash 3. The data available are described, critically appraised, and analysed to present some salient findings in terms of the levels of debt, the levels of asset -holdings across the states of the Indian Union and over time, wealth composition, and aspects of vertical and horizontal inequality in the distribution of wealth. The centrality of land and real estate in the wealth status of India is underlined, and some broad aspects of redistributive anti-poverty policy are spelt out.},\n  chapter = {Ch. 6},\n  isbn = {978-0-19-172076-5},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Poverty, Wealth Inequality and Health among Older Adults in Rural Cambodia.\n \n \n\n\n \n Zimmer, Z.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Social Science & Medicine, 66(1): 57–71. 2008.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Poverty,$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Zimmer2008,\n  title = {Poverty, Wealth Inequality and Health among Older Adults in Rural Cambodia},\n  author = {Zimmer, Zachary},\n  year = {2008},\n  journal = {Social Science \\& Medicine},\n  volume = {66},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {57--71},\n  doi = {10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2007.08.032},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.032},\n  abstract = {Little research exists on health determinants among adults living in economically deprived regions despite the fact that these areas comprise a good part of the world. This paper examines the distribution of wealth then tests associations between wealth inequality and a variety of health outcomes, among older adults, in one of the world's poorest regions\\textemdash rural Cambodia. Data from the 2004 Survey of the Elderly in Cambodia are employed. Using a disablement framework to conceptualize health, associations between four health components and a wealth inequality measure are tested. The wealth inequality measure is based on an index that operationalizes wealth as ownership of household assets and household structural components. Results confirm difficult economic conditions in rural Cambodia. The lowest wealth quintile lives in households that own nothing, while the next quintiles are only slightly better off. Nevertheless, logistic regressions that adjust for other covariates indicate heterogeneity in health across quintiles that appear qualitatively similar, with the bottom quintiles reporting the most health problems. An exception is disability, which presents a U-shaped association. It is difficult to determine mechanisms behind the relationship using cross-sectional data, but the paper speculates on possible causal directions, both from wealth to health and vice-versa. The analysis suggests the ability to generalize the relationship between wealth inequality and health to extremely poor populations as a very small difference in wealth makes a relatively large difference with respect to health associations among those in meager surroundings.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Personal Wealth from a Global Perspective.\n \n \n\n\n \n Davies, J. B.,\n editor.\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Personal$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Davies2008,\n  title = {Personal Wealth from a Global Perspective},\n  editor = {Davies, James B.},\n  year = {2008},\n  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},\n  address = {{Oxford}},\n  doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548880.001.0001},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548880.001.0001},\n  abstract = {There is great media fascination in the activities and lifestyles of the super-rich. But personal wealth is also important for those of more modest means as a store of potential consumption, as a cushion against emergencies, and as collateral for business and investment loans. This book studies household assets and debts. It documents not only the level, distribution, and trend of wealth holdings in rich nations, but also addresses developing countries like China and India. The situation in Latin America and Africa is given attention along with the experiences of Russia and other transition countries. Components of household wealth like financial assets, land, and property are examined, as well as the gender division. Worldwide, it is estimated that the richest 2\\% own more than half of total global wealth, and that this elite group resides almost exclusively in North America, Western Europe, and rich Asia-Pacific countries.},\n  isbn = {978-0-19-954888-0},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2006\n \n \n (8)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Household Wealth Distribution in Italy in the 1990s.\n \n \n\n\n \n Brandolini, A.; Cannari, L.; D'Alessio, G.; and Faiella, I.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Wolff, E. N., editor(s), International Perspectives on Household Wealth, 7, pages 225–275. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, October 2006.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Household$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Household$ working paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 12 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Brandolinietal2006,\n  title = {Household Wealth Distribution in {{Italy}} in the 1990s},\n  booktitle = {International Perspectives on Household Wealth},\n  author = {Brandolini, Andrea and Cannari, Luigi and D'Alessio, Giovanni and Faiella, Ivan},\n  editor = {Wolff, Edward N.},\n  year = {2006},\n  month = oct,\n  pages = {225--275},\n  publisher = {{Edward Elgar Publishing}},\n  address = {{Cheltenham, UK}},\n  doi = {10.4337/9781847203175.00015},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847203175.00015},\n  isbn = {978-1-84720-317-5},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  chapter = {7},\n  url_working_paper = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/brandolini-cannari-dalessio-faiella-householdwealthdistributioninitalyinthe1990s-2004}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Entrepreneurship, Frictions, and Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Cagetti, M.; and De Nardi, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Political Economy, 114(5): 835–870. 2006.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{CagettiDeNardi2006,\n  title = {Entrepreneurship, Frictions, and Wealth},\n  author = {Cagetti, Marco and De Nardi, Mariacristina},\n  year = {2006},\n  journal = {Journal of Political Economy},\n  volume = {114},\n  number = {5},\n  pages = {835--870},\n  publisher = {{The University of Chicago Press}},\n  doi = {10.1086/508032},\n  abstract = {This paper constructs and calibrates a parsimonious model of occupational choice that allows for entrepreneurial entry, exit, and investment decisions in the presence of borrowing constraints. The model fits very well a number of empirical observations, including the observed wealth distribution for entrepreneurs and workers. At the aggregate level, more restrictive borrowing constraints generate less wealth concentration and reduce average firm size, aggregate capital, and the fraction of entrepreneurs. Voluntary bequests allow some high-ability workers to establish or enlarge an entrepreneurial activity. With accidental bequests only, there would be fewer very large firms and less aggregate capital and wealth concentration.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality: Data and Models.\n \n \n\n\n \n Cagetti, M.; and De Nardi, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2006.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{CagettiDeNardi2006a,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality: Data and Models},\n  author = {Cagetti, Marco and De Nardi, Mariacristina},\n  year = {2006},\n  doi = {10.3386/w12550},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.3386/w12550},\n  abstract = {In the United States wealth is highly concentrated and very unequally distributed: the richest 1\\% hold one third of the total wealth in the economy. Understanding the determinants of wealth inequality is a challenge for many economic models. We summarize some key facts about the wealth distribution and what economic models have been able to explain so far.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Relationship between Household Wealth Inequality and Chronic Childhood Under-Nutrition in Bangladesh.\n \n \n\n\n \n Hong, R.; Banta, J. E.; and Betancourt, J. A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n International Journal for Equity in Health, 5(1): 15. 2006.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Relationship$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 15 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Hongetal2006,\n  title = {Relationship between Household Wealth Inequality and Chronic Childhood Under-Nutrition in Bangladesh},\n  author = {Hong, Rathavuth and Banta, James E. and Betancourt, Jose A.},\n  year = {2006},\n  journal = {International Journal for Equity in Health},\n  volume = {5},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {15},\n  publisher = {{BioMed Central}},\n  doi = {10.1186/1475-9276-5-15},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-5-15},\n  abstract = {Background: Household food insecurity and under-nutrition remain critically important in developing countries struggling to emerge from the scourge of poverty, where historically, improvements in economic conditions have benefited only certain privileged groups, causing growing inequality in health and healthcare among the population. Methods: Utilizing information from 5,977 children aged 0-59 months included in the 2004 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey , this study examined the relationship between household wealth inequality and chronic childhood under-nutrition. A child is defined as being chronically undernourished or whose growth rate is adversely stunted, if his or her z-score of height-for-age is more than two standard deviations below the median of international reference. Household wealth status is measured by an established index based on household ownership of durable assets. This study utilized multivariate logistic regressions to estimate the effect of household wealth status on adverse childhood growth rate. Results: The results indicate that children in the poorest 20\\% of households are more than three time as likely to suffer from adverse growth rate stunting as children from the wealthiest 20\\% of households (OR=3.6; 95\\% CI: 3.0, 4.3). The effect of household wealth status remain significantly large when the analysis was adjusted for a child's multiple birth status, age, gender, antenatal care, delivery assistance, birth order, and duration that the child was breastfed; mother's age at childbirth, nutritional status, education; household access to safe drinking water, arsenic in drinking water, access to a hygienic toilet facility, cooking fuel cleanliness, residence, and geographic location (OR=2.4; 95\\% CI: 1.8, 3.2). Conclusion: This study concludes that household wealth inequality is strongly associated with childhood adverse growth rate stunting. Reducing poverty and making services more available and accessible to the poor are essential to improving overall childhood health and nutritional status in Bangladesh.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n Background: Household food insecurity and under-nutrition remain critically important in developing countries struggling to emerge from the scourge of poverty, where historically, improvements in economic conditions have benefited only certain privileged groups, causing growing inequality in health and healthcare among the population. Methods: Utilizing information from 5,977 children aged 0-59 months included in the 2004 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey , this study examined the relationship between household wealth inequality and chronic childhood under-nutrition. A child is defined as being chronically undernourished or whose growth rate is adversely stunted, if his or her z-score of height-for-age is more than two standard deviations below the median of international reference. Household wealth status is measured by an established index based on household ownership of durable assets. This study utilized multivariate logistic regressions to estimate the effect of household wealth status on adverse childhood growth rate. Results: The results indicate that children in the poorest 20% of households are more than three time as likely to suffer from adverse growth rate stunting as children from the wealthiest 20% of households (OR=3.6; 95% CI: 3.0, 4.3). The effect of household wealth status remain significantly large when the analysis was adjusted for a child's multiple birth status, age, gender, antenatal care, delivery assistance, birth order, and duration that the child was breastfed; mother's age at childbirth, nutritional status, education; household access to safe drinking water, arsenic in drinking water, access to a hygienic toilet facility, cooking fuel cleanliness, residence, and geographic location (OR=2.4; 95% CI: 1.8, 3.2). Conclusion: This study concludes that household wealth inequality is strongly associated with childhood adverse growth rate stunting. Reducing poverty and making services more available and accessible to the poor are essential to improving overall childhood health and nutritional status in Bangladesh.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Inheritance and Saving.\n \n \n\n\n \n Joulfaian, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2006.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inheritance$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Joulfaian2006,\n  title = {Inheritance and Saving},\n  author = {Joulfaian, David},\n  year = {2006},\n  url = {https://www.nber.org/papers/w12569},\n  abstract = {This paper explores the effects of inheritances on the saving of recipients. Information on inheritances and heirs is obtained from estate tax records of decedents which are linked to the income tax records of beneficiaries. The observed pattern of wealth mobility within two years of the receipt of inheritances and multivariate analyses show that wealth increases by less than the full amount of the inheritance received. Similarly, and consistent with previous findings, large inheritances are found to depress labor force participation.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Revisiting Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Morissette, R.; and Zhang, X.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Perspectives on Labour and Income, 7(12): 5–16. 2006.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Revisiting$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{MorissetteZhang2006,\n  title = {Revisiting Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Morissette, Ren{\\'e} and Zhang, Xuelin},\n  year = {2006},\n  journal = {Perspectives on Labour and Income},\n  volume = {7},\n  number = {12},\n  pages = {5--16},\n  url = {https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-001-x/11206/4168777-eng.htm},\n  abstract = {Wealth provides access to economic resources. To mitigate the impact of unexpected expenses or income losses, those with a reserve of wealth can liquidate some of their financial or real assets. More positively, sufficient net worth allows the possibility to reduce work hours, make riskier investments, or try self-employment. On the other hand, lack of wealth makes these options less likely. Between 1984 and 1999, wealth inequality rose in Canada (Morissette, Zhang and Drolet 2002, 2006). In 1984, families and unattached individuals (hereafter referred to simply as families) in the top 10\\% of the wealth distribution held 52\\% of household wealth, excluding the value of employer-sponsored pension plans. Fifteen years later, they held 56\\%, and in 2005, 58\\%. Using the Assets and Debts Survey for 1984 and the Survey of Financial Security for 1999 and 2005, this article examines wealth distribution over the period from 1984 to 2005. Most of the analysis uses three different samples: all families, all families except those in the top 1\\%, and all families except those in the top 5\\%. Since the 1984 survey contained no information about employer-sponsored pensions, wealth, unless otherwise noted, excludes the value of work-related pension plans (see Data sources and definitions).},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Luxembourg Wealth Study – A Cross-Country Comparable Database for Household Wealth Research.\n \n \n\n\n \n Sierminska, E.; Brandolini, A.; and Smeeding, T. M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Journal of Economic Inequality, 4(3): 375–383. 2006.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Sierminskaetal2006,\n  title = {The {{Luxembourg}} Wealth Study \\textendash{} {{A}} Cross-Country Comparable Database for Household Wealth Research},\n  author = {Sierminska, Eva and Brandolini, Andrea and Smeeding, Timothy M.},\n  year = {2006},\n  journal = {The Journal of Economic Inequality},\n  volume = {4},\n  number = {3},\n  pages = {375--383},\n  doi = {10.1007/s10888-006-9030-z},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-006-9030-z},\n  abstract = {The paper describes the Luxembourg Wealth Study (LWS), an international project launched in 2003 by the Luxembourg Income Study and by institutions from Canada, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The aim of the project is to assemble and to harmonise existing micro-data on household wealth, in order to provide a sounder basis for comparative research on household net worth, portfolio composition, and wealth distributions.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Distribution of Household Wealth in India.\n \n \n\n\n \n Subramanian, S.; and Jayaraj, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2006.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{SubramanianJayaraj2006,\n  title = {The Distribution of Household Wealth in {{India}}},\n  author = {Subramanian, S. and Jayaraj, D.},\n  year = {2006},\n  address = {{Helsinki}},\n  url = {https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/distribution-household-wealth-india},\n  abstract = {This paper reviews the principal source of India's wealth distribution statistics, which is constituted by the five decennial Reserve Bank of India National Sample Survey Organization Surveys on Debt and Investment of 1961-62, 1971-72, 1981-82, 1991-92, and 2002-03. The data available are described, critically appraised, and analyzed to present some salient findings in terms of the levels of debt, the levels of asset-holdings across the states of the Indian Union and over time, wealth composition, and aspects of vertical and horizontal inequality in the distribution of wealth. The centrality of land and real estate in the wealth status of India is underlined, and some broad aspects of redistributive anti-poverty policy are spelt out.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2005\n \n \n (4)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n After the Three Italies: Wealth, Inequality and Industrial Change.\n \n \n\n\n \n Dunford, M.; and Greco, L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Blackwell Publishing, 2005.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"After$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{DunfordGreco2005,\n  title = {After the Three Italies: Wealth, Inequality and Industrial Change},\n  author = {Dunford, Michael and Greco, Lidia},\n  year = {2005},\n  publisher = {{Blackwell Publishing}},\n  doi = {10.1002/9780470761113},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.1002/9780470761113},\n  abstract = {After the Three Italies develops a new political economy approach to the analysis of comparative regional development and the territorial division of labour and exemplifies it through an up-to-date account of Italian industrial change and regional economic performance.},\n  isbn = {1-4051-7853-1},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Structure and Distribution of Household Wealth in Australia.\n \n \n\n\n \n Headey, B.; Marks, G.; and Wooden, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Australian Economic Review, 38(2): 159–175. 2005.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Headeyetal2005,\n  title = {The Structure and Distribution of Household Wealth in Australia},\n  author = {Headey, Bruce and Marks, Gary and Wooden, Mark},\n  year = {2005},\n  journal = {The Australian Economic Review},\n  volume = {38},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {159--175},\n  doi = {10.1111/j.1467-8462.2005.00363.x},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8462.2005.00363.x},\n  abstract = {This article uses data from the second wave of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (or HILDA) Survey to provide an overview of the structure and distribution of household wealth in Australia. The data confirm that wealth is very unequally distributed, with the bottom half of the distribution owning less than 10 per cent of total household net worth, while the wealthiest 10 per cent account for 45 per cent. The article also includes an analysis of the factors associated with household wealth that indicates that wealth is significantly related to a range of factors including age, country of birth, parental occupational status, education, marital status, working hours, income, self-reported savings behaviour, a willingness to take risks and even various lifestyle behaviours, such as smoking and alcohol consumption.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Entrepreneurship, Wealth Inequality, and Taxation.\n \n \n\n\n \n Meh, C. A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Review of Economic Dynamics, 8(3): 688–719. 2005.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Entrepreneurship,$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Meh2005,\n  title = {Entrepreneurship, Wealth Inequality, and Taxation},\n  author = {Meh, C{\\'e}saire A.},\n  year = {2005},\n  journal = {Review of Economic Dynamics},\n  volume = {8},\n  number = {3},\n  pages = {688--719},\n  publisher = {{Elsevier}},\n  doi = {10.1016/J.RED.2005.03.001},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.red.2005.03.001},\n  abstract = {This paper investigates the importance of entrepreneurship when quantifying the aggregate and distributional effects of switching from a progressive to a proportional income tax system. I find that the distributional consequences of the tax reform in a model economy with entrepreneurs contrast markedly from those in a model economy with no entrepreneurs. The elimination of progressive taxation has a negligible effect on wealth inequality when entrepreneurship is considered but has a large effect when entrepreneurship is omitted. The framework used is an occupational choice model, in which the decision to become an entrepreneur is determined by the ability to manage a firm and by asset holdings. The calibrated economy can account for the high savings rate of entrepreneurs relative to non-entrepreneurs, and the high concentration of wealth observed in the data.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Confronting Income Inequality in Japan.\n \n \n\n\n \n Tachibanaki, T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, November 2005.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Confronting$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Tachibanaki2005,\n  title = {Confronting Income Inequality in {{Japan}}},\n  author = {Tachibanaki, Toshiaki},\n  year = {2005},\n  month = nov,\n  publisher = {{MIT Press}},\n  address = {{Cambridge, MA}},\n  url = {https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/confronting-income-inequality-japan},\n  abstract = {Contrary to general belief, and to Japan's own self-image, inequality of income and wealth distribution in Japan has grown in the past two decades. In this well-written and accessible book, Toshiaki Tachibanaki analyzes the movement toward more income inequality in Japan and offers policy recommendations to counter the trend. Tachibanaki, Japan's leading expert on income distribution, draws on new statistical data covering wealth, inheritance, farm and business holdings, salary, and other relevant factors, to demonstrate that Japan can no longer be thought of as a "90 percent middle-class society." The book, updated and substantially expanded from Tachibanaki's 1998 Japanese bestseller, discusses the history and the causes of Japan's increasing income inequality and analyzes the effect on wealth distribution of intergenerational transfer. Employing cross-national comparisons to the United States and Europe throughout, Confronting Income Inequality in Japan examines the contrast between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, evaluates equality of opportunity in terms of education and occupation, analyzes the relationship between income distribution and income growth, discusses the role of hierarchical positions in organizations, and considers the differences between welfare states and nonwelfare states. Concluding with policy recommendations, Tachibanaki argues against the belief of some economists that greater inequality is unavoidable if Japan is to achieve a strong economic recovery.},\n  isbn = {0-262-20158-5},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,{Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes},Intergenerational Wealth,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2004\n \n \n (5)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality and Intergenerational Links.\n \n \n\n\n \n De Nardi, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Review of Economic Studies, 71(3): 743–768. 2004.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{DeNardi2004,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality and Intergenerational Links},\n  author = {De Nardi, Mariacristina},\n  year = {2004},\n  journal = {The Review of Economic Studies},\n  volume = {71},\n  number = {3},\n  pages = {743--768},\n  doi = {10.1111/j.1467-937X.2004.00302.x},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2004.00302.x},\n  abstract = {Previous work has had difficulty generating household saving behaviour that makes the distribution of wealth much more concentrated than that of labour earnings, and that makes the richest households hold onto large amounts of wealth, even during very old age. I construct a quantitative, general equilibrium, overlapping-generations model in which parents and children are linked by accidental and voluntary bequests and by earnings ability. I show that voluntary bequests can explain the emergence of large estates, while accidental bequests alone cannot, and that adding earnings persistence within families increases wealth concentration even more. I also show that the introduction of a bequest motive generates lifetime savings profiles more consistent with the data.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Top Wealth Shares in the United States, 1916– 2000: Evidence from Estate Tax Returns.\n \n \n\n\n \n Kopczuk, W.; and Saez, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n National Tax Journal, 57(2): 445–487. 2004.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Top$ link\n \n \n \n $\"Top$ working paper\n \n \n \n $\"Top$ data file\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{KopczukSaez2004,\n  title = {Top Wealth Shares in the {{United States}}, 1916\\textendash 2000: Evidence from Estate Tax Returns},\n  author = {Kopczuk, Wojciech and Saez, Emmanuel},\n  year = {2004},\n  journal = {National Tax Journal},\n  volume = {57},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {445--487},\n  doi = {10.17310/ntj.2004.2S.05},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2004.2S.05},\n  abstract = {This paper presents new homogeneous series on top wealth shares from 1916 to 2000 in the United States using estate tax return data. Top wealth shares were very high at the beginning of the period but have been hit sharply by the Great Depression, the New Deal, and World War II shocks. Those shocks have had permanent effects. Following a decline in the 1970s, top wealth shares recovered in the early 1980s, but they are still much lower in 2000 than in the early decades of the century. Most of the changes we document are concentrated among the very top wealth holders with much smaller movements for groups below the top 0.1 percent. Consistent with the Survey of Consumer Finances results, top wealth shares estimated from Estate Tax Returns display no significant increase since 1995. Evidence from the Forbes 400 richest Americans suggests that only the super\\textendash rich have experienced significant gains relative to the average over the last decade. Our results are consistent with the decreased importance of capital incomes at the top of the income distribution documented by Piketty and Saez (2003), and suggest that the rentier class of the early century is not yet reconstituted. The paper proposes several tentative explanations to account for the facts.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  url_working_paper = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/kopczuk-saez-topwealthsharesintheunitedstates19162000evidencefromestatetaxreturnsworkingpaper-2004},\n  url_data_file = {https://bibbase.org/network/publication/kopczuk-saez-topwealthsharesintheunitedstates19162000evidencefromestatetaxreturnsdatafile-2004}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Housing and Wealth Inequality: Racial-Ethnic Differences in Home Equity in the United States.\n \n \n\n\n \n Krivo, L. J.; and Kaufman, R. L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Demography, 41(3): 585–605. 2004.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Housing$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{KrivoKaufman2004,\n  title = {Housing and Wealth Inequality: Racial-Ethnic Differences in Home Equity in the United States},\n  author = {Krivo, Lauren J. and Kaufman, Robert L.},\n  year = {2004},\n  journal = {Demography},\n  volume = {41},\n  number = {3},\n  pages = {585--605},\n  publisher = {{Springer}},\n  doi = {10.1353/dem.2004.0023},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2004.0023},\n  abstract = {In our study, we took a first step toward broadening our understanding of the sources of both housing and wealth inequality by studying differences in housing equity among blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and non-Hispanic whites in the United States. Using data from the American Housing Survey, we found substantial and significant gaps in housing equity for blacks and Hispanics (but not for Asians) compared with whites, even after we controlled for a wide range of locational, life-cycle, socioeconomic, family, immigrant, and mortgage characteristics. Furthermore, the payoffs to many factors are notably weaker for minority than for white households. This finding is especially consistent across groups for the effects of age, socioeconomic status, and housing-market value. Blacks and Hispanics also uniformly receive less benefit from mortgage and housing characteristics than do whites. These findings lend credence to the burgeoning stratification perspective on wealth and housing inequality that acknowledges the importance of broader social and institutional processes of racial-ethnic stratification that advantage some groups, whites in this case, over others.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n U.S. Black-White Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Scholz, J. K.; and Levine, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Neckerman, K. M., editor(s), Social Inequality, Ch. 24, pages 895–929. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 2004.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"U.S.$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{ScholzLevine2004,\n  title = {U.{{S}}. {{Black-White}} Wealth Inequality},\n  booktitle = {Social Inequality},\n  author = {Scholz, John Karl and Levine, Kara},\n  editor = {Neckerman, Kathryn M.},\n  year = {2004},\n  pages = {895--929},\n  publisher = {{Russell Sage Foundation}},\n  address = {{New York}},\n  url = {https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/285406},\n  chapter = {Ch. 24},\n  isbn = {978-1-61044-420-0},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Hidden Cost of Being African American: How Wealth Perpetuates Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Shapiro, T. M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Oxford University Press, New York, 2004.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Shapiro2004,\n  title = {The Hidden Cost of Being {{African American}}: How Wealth Perpetuates Inequality},\n  author = {Shapiro, Thomas M.},\n  year = {2004},\n  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},\n  address = {{New York}},\n  url = {https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/the-hidden-cost-of-being-african-american-9780195181388},\n  abstract = {Over the past three decades, racial prejudice in America has declined significantly and many African American families have seen a steady rise in employment and annual income. But alongside these encouraging signs, Thomas Shapiro argues in The Hidden Cost of Being African American, fundamental levels of racial inequality persist, particularly in the area of asset accumulation\\textendash inheritance, savings accounts, stocks, bonds, home equity, and other investments. Shapiro reveals how the lack of these family assets along with continuing racial discrimination in crucial areas like homeownership dramatically impact the everyday lives of many black families, reversing gains earned in schools and on jobs, and perpetuating the cycle of poverty in which far too many find themselves trapped. Shapiro uses a combination of in-depth interviews with almost 200 families from Los Angeles, Boston, and St. Louis, and national survey data with 10,000 families to show how racial inequality is transmitted across generations. We see how those families with private wealth are able to move up from generation to generation, relocating to safer communities with better schools and passing along the accompanying advantages to their children. At the same time those without significant wealth remain trapped in communities that don't allow them to move up, no matter how hard they work. Shapiro challenges white middle class families to consider how the privileges that wealth brings not only improve their own chances but also hold back people who don't have them. This "wealthfare" is a legacy of inequality that, if unchanged, will project social injustice far into the future. Showing that over half of black families fall below the asset poverty line at the beginning of the new century, The Hidden Cost of Being African American will challenge all Americans to reconsider what must be done to end racial inequality.},\n  isbn = {978-0-19-518138-8},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2003\n \n \n (6)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Accounting for the U.S. Earnings and Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Castañeda, A.; Díaz-Giménez, Javier; and Ríos-Rull, José-Victor\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Political Economy, 111(4): 818–857. 2003.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Accounting$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Castanedaetal2003,\n  title = {Accounting for the {{U}}.{{S}}. Earnings and Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Casta{\\~n}eda, Ana and D{\\'i}az-Gim{\\'e}nez, Javier and {R{\\'i}os-Rull}, Jos{\\'e}-Victor},\n  year = {2003},\n  journal = {Journal of Political Economy},\n  volume = {111},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {818--857},\n  publisher = {{The University of Chicago Press}},\n  doi = {10.1086/375382},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1086/375382},\n  abstract = {We show that a theory of earnings and wealth inequality, based on the optimal choices of ex ante identical households that face uninsured idiosyncratic shocks to their endowments of efficiency labor units, accounts for the U.S. earnings and wealth inequality almost exactly.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Correlation of Wealth across Generations.\n \n \n\n\n \n Charles, K. K.; and Hurst, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Political Economy, 111(6): 1155–1182. 2003.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{CharlesHurst2003,\n  title = {The Correlation of Wealth across Generations},\n  author = {Charles, Kerwin Kofi and Hurst, Erik},\n  year = {2003},\n  journal = {Journal of Political Economy},\n  volume = {111},\n  number = {6},\n  pages = {1155--1182},\n  doi = {10.1086/378526},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1086/378526},\n  abstract = {In this paper, we find that the age-adjusted elasticity of child wealth with respect to parental wealth is 0.37 before the transfer of bequests. Lifetime income and asset ownership jointly explain nearly two-thirds of the wealth elasticity. Education, past parental transfers, and expected future bequests account for little of the remaining elasticity. Survey measures of risk correlate strongly between parents and children. However, they explain little of the intergenerational similarity in the propensity to own different assets, suggesting that children's savings propensities are determined by mimicking their parents' behavior, or the inheritance of preferences not related to risk tolerance. Our results imply that while parents do pass on human capital and saving propensities to their children, the level of intergenerational fluidity is much greater than that suggested by recent accounts in the popular press.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Precautionary Savings and Wealth Distribution under Habit Formation Preferences.\n \n \n\n\n \n Díaz, Antonia; Pijoan-Mas, J.; and Ríos-Rull, José-Victor\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(6): 1257–1291. 2003.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Precautionary$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Diazetal2003,\n  title = {Precautionary Savings and Wealth Distribution under Habit Formation Preferences},\n  author = {D{\\'i}az, Antonia and {Pijoan-Mas}, Josep and {R{\\'i}os-Rull}, Jos{\\'e}-Victor},\n  year = {2003},\n  journal = {Journal of Monetary Economics},\n  volume = {50},\n  number = {6},\n  pages = {1257--1291},\n  doi = {10.1016/S0304-3932(03)00078-3},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3932(03)00078-3},\n  abstract = {We study the role of habit formation in shaping the amount of precautionary savings and the wealth distribution in heterogeneous agents model economies with idiosyncratic uncertainty. We adjust preferences to equate the Intertemporal Elasticity of Substitution in all model economies. We find that habit formation brings a hefty increase in precautionary savings and very mild reductions in the coefficient of variation and in the Gini index of wealth. These findings hold for both persistent and non-persistent habits, with the effects of the former being much larger.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Household Savings and Wealth Distribution in Japan.\n \n \n\n\n \n Kitamura, Y.; Takayama, N.; and Arita, F.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Börsch-Supan, A., editor(s), Life-Cycle Savings and Public Policy: A Cross-National Study of Six Countries, Ch. 5, pages 149–203. Elsevier, 2003.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Household$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Kitamuraetal2003,\n  title = {Household Savings and Wealth Distribution in {{Japan}}},\n  booktitle = {Life-Cycle Savings and Public Policy: A Cross-National Study of Six Countries},\n  author = {Kitamura, Yukinobu and Takayama, Noriyuki and Arita, Fumiko},\n  editor = {{B{\\"o}rsch-Supan}, Axel},\n  year = {2003},\n  pages = {149--203},\n  publisher = {{Elsevier}},\n  doi = {10.1016/B978-012109891-9.50037-3},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109891-9.50037-3},\n  abstract = {This chapter focuses on the household savings and wealth distribution in Japan, explaining saving rates by income class and the construction of social-security wealth. In the National Survey of Family Income and Expenditure (NSFIE), gross yearly income includes wages and salaries, income through business and work at home, returns from assets, social-security benefits, donations, and consumption in kind. Japan's saving rate is not as high as is commonly thought. The accumulation of wealth by Japanese households starts very early and lasts until very late in life, with unconsumed wealth transferred to the next generation in the form of bequests. Motivation for the acquisition of owner-occupied housing remains strong, and this promotes high saving, especially because of limited mortgage markets and high down-payment requirements. The most discussed data problem with the NSFIE is the sample selection bias with old households.},\n  chapter = {Ch. 5},\n  isbn = {978-0-12-109891-9},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Evolution of Wealth Inequality in Canada, 1984– 1999.\n \n \n\n\n \n Morissette, R.; Zhang, X.; and Drolet, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2003.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Morissetteetal2003,\n  title = {The Evolution of Wealth Inequality in Canada, 1984\\textendash 1999},\n  author = {Morissette, Rene and Zhang, Xuelin and Drolet, Marie},\n  year = {2003},\n  url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10419/31511},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n From Riches to Riches: Intergenerational Transfers and the Evidence from Estate Tax Returns.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wahl, J. B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Social Science Quarterly, 84(2): 278–296. 2003.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"From$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Wahl2003,\n  title = {From Riches to Riches: Intergenerational Transfers and the Evidence from Estate Tax Returns},\n  author = {Wahl, Jenny B.},\n  year = {2003},\n  journal = {Social Science Quarterly},\n  volume = {84},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {278--296},\n  doi = {10.1111/1540-6237.8402004},\n  url = {http://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402004},\n  abstract = {Objective. Intergenerational transfers of wealth and ability can influence the distribution of wealth. This research examines the empirical relationships among intergenerational variables and cross-sectional wealth distribution. Methods. Models pioneered by Gary Becker set out the conditions necessary for regression to the mean in wealth across generations. However, empirical testing of such models has been incomplete because large, reliable, intergenerational data sets\\textemdash especially with data from three generations\\textemdash are hard to find. This article unveils a remarkable new source of intergenerationally linked data: federal estate tax records filed in Wisconsin from 1916 to 1981 and linked across three generations of families. Results. Wealth tends to regress to the mean at the top end of the distribution, but slowly. Consequently, wealth inequality in the United States is likely to persist. What is more, recent federal tax changes, particularly the repeal of the estate tax and the reduction in capital gains tax rates, will exacerbate cross-sectional wealth disparities. Conclusions. In the long run, intergenerational forces may help overcome inequalities in wealth across U.S. families. Empirical results suggest, however, that regression to the mean will occur quite slowly, and the long run could be long indeed.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2002\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Correlation of Wealth across Generations.\n \n \n\n\n \n Charles, K. K.; and Hurst, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2002.\n Unpublished manuscript\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{CharlesHurst2002,\n  title = {The Correlation of Wealth across Generations},\n  author = {Charles, Kerwin Kofi and Hurst, Erik},\n  year = {2002},\n  doi = {10.3386/w9314},\n  url = {https://www.nber.org/papers/w9314},\n  abstract = {This paper examines the similarity in wealth between parents and their children, and explores alternative explanations for this relationship. We find that the age-adjusted elasticity of child wealth with respect to parental wealth is 0.37, before the transfer of bequests. Lifetime income and ownership of particular assets, both of which exhibit strong intergeneration similarity, jointly explain nearly two-thirds of the wealth elasticity. Education, past parental transfers, and expected future bequests account for little of the remaining elasticity. Using new experimental evidence, we assess the importance of risk tolerance. The risk tolerance measures vary as theory would predict with the ownership of risky assets, and are highly correlated between parents and children. However, they explain little of the intergenerational correlation in the propensity to own different assets, suggesting that children's savings propensities are determined by mimicking their parents' behavior, or the inheritance of preferences not related to risk tolerance. Additionally, these risk tolerance measures explain only a small part of the remaining intergenerational wealth elasticity.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  note = {Unpublished manuscript}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Inheritances and Wealth Inequality, 1989– 1998.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wolff, E. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n American Economic Review, 92(2): 260–264. 2002.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inheritances$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Wolff2002,\n  title = {Inheritances and Wealth Inequality, 1989\\textendash 1998},\n  author = {Wolff, Edward N.},\n  year = {2002},\n  journal = {American Economic Review},\n  volume = {92},\n  number = {2},\n  eprint = {3083413},\n  eprinttype = {jstor},\n  pages = {260--264},\n  doi = {10.1257/000282802320189366},\n  url = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/3083413},\n  abstract = {The paper explores whether inheritances and other wealth transfers are, on net, equalizing or disequalizing with respect to current wealth holdings. The study makes use of the Survey of Consumer Finances for the United States over the 1989\\textendash 1998 period. As far as I am aware, this is the first study on this question.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2001\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Secular Changes in Wealth Inequality and Inheritance.\n \n \n\n\n \n Laitner, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Economic Journal, 111(474): 691–721. 2001.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Secular$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Laitner2001,\n  title = {Secular Changes in Wealth Inequality and Inheritance},\n  author = {Laitner, John},\n  year = {2001},\n  journal = {The Economic Journal},\n  volume = {111},\n  number = {474},\n  pages = {691--721},\n  doi = {10.1111/1468-0297.00656},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00656},\n  abstract = {Data suggest that the distribution of wealth among households in the USA and UK has become more equal over the last century, though, at least for the USA, the pattern may have reversed recently. This paper shows that a model in which all households save for life-cycle reasons and some for dynastic purposes as well offers a possible or partial explanation: the model predicts rising cross-sectional equality of wealth when longevity increases. There may also be implications about very recent changes: expansion of social security programmes and government deficits can lead toward more wealth inequality. Slower growth may do the same.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2000\n \n \n (6)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Distribution of Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Davies, J. B.; and Shorrocks, A. F.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Atkinson, A. B.; and Bourguignon, F., editor(s), Handbook of Income Distribution, volume 1, 11, pages 605–675. Elsevier, 2000.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{DaviesShorrocks2000,\n  title = {The Distribution of Wealth},\n  booktitle = {Handbook of Income Distribution},\n  author = {Davies, James B. and Shorrocks, Anthony F.},\n  editor = {Atkinson, Anthony B. and Bourguignon, Fran{\\c c}ois},\n  year = {2000},\n  volume = {1},\n  pages = {605--675},\n  publisher = {{Elsevier}},\n  doi = {10.1016/S1574-0056(00)80014-7},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0056(00)80014-7},\n  abstract = {This chapter is concerned with the distribution of personal wealth, which usually refers to the material assets that can be sold in the marketpace, although on occasion pension rights are also included. We summarise the available evidence on wealth distribution for a number of countries. This confirms the well known fact that wealth is more unequally distributed than income, and points to a long term downward trend in wealth inequality over most of the twentieth century. We also review the various theories that help account for these feature. Lifecycle accumulation is one popular explanation of wealth differences, but inheritance is also widely recognised as playing a major role, especially at the upper end of the wealth range. A recurrent theme in work on wealth distribution is the relative importance of these two sources of wealth differences. We discuss the results of studies that assess the contributions of inheritance and lifecycle factors, and give attention also to a variety of related issues, such as the link between wealth status across generations, and the possible motives for leaving bequests.},\n  isbn = {978-0-444-81631-3},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth},\n  chapter = {11}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Race and Wealth Inequality: The Impact of Racial Differences in Asset Ownership on the Distribution of Household Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Keister, L. A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Social Science Research, 29(4): 477–502. 2000.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Race$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Keister2000,\n  title = {Race and Wealth Inequality: The Impact of Racial Differences in Asset Ownership on the Distribution of Household Wealth},\n  author = {Keister, Lisa A.},\n  year = {2000},\n  journal = {Social Science Research},\n  volume = {29},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {477--502},\n  doi = {10.1006/SSRE.2000.0677},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1006/ssre.2000.0677},\n  abstract = {What accounts for persistent racial differences in wealth ownership? Previous research has debated the role that differences in asset ownership play in creating and maintaining wealth inequality. I use survey data to model the ownership of seven assets and find that whites are indeed more likely than blacks to buy high-risk, high-return assets. I then use a simulation model to explore the effect that these differences have on the distribution of wealth. I separate the effects of asset ownership from the effects of racial differences in family wealth history, earnings, education, marital behavior, fertility, and other influences on wealth inequality. I find that removing racial differences in asset ownership reduced wealth inequality drastically, but not completely, and that racial differences in educational attainment account for much of the remaining difference. I estimate how changes in historical patterns of portfolio behavior and educational attainment would have reduced inequality, and I explore the implications of these findings for reducing wealth inequality in the future.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth in America: Trends in Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Keister, L. A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2000.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Keister2000a,\n  title = {Wealth in America: Trends in Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Keister, Lisa A.},\n  year = {2000},\n  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},\n  address = {{Cambridge, United Kingdom}},\n  url = {https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/economics/public-economics-and-public-policy/wealth-america-trends-wealth-inequality?format=PB&isbn=9780521627511},\n  abstract = {Wealth ownership in the United States has long been concentrated in the hands of a small minority of the population. Because of scarce data on wealth ownership, the nature of wealth ownership distribution and knowledge about wealth inequality has received relatively little attention from social scientists. Keister synthesizes theory and data from various sources to present a detailed picture of household wealth distribution from 1962\\textendash 1995. Utilizing existing survey data and a unique simulation model, the author isolates and examines processes that create this distribution, paying particular attention to the wealth ownership and accumulation of top wealth holders, those who control the bulk of household wealth. The results underscore the importance of wealth as an indicator of well-being, identify important causes of wealth inequality, and propose methods of lessening the recent increase in the concentration of wealth.},\n  isbn = {978-0-521-62751-1},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Three Centuries of Inequality in Britain and America.\n \n \n\n\n \n Lindert, P. H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Atkinson, A. B.; and Bourguignon, F., editor(s), Handbook of Income Distribution, volume 1, Ch. 3, pages 167–216. Elsevier, 2000.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Three$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Lindert2000,\n  title = {Three Centuries of Inequality in {{Britain}} and {{America}}},\n  booktitle = {Handbook of Income Distribution},\n  author = {Lindert, Peter H.},\n  editor = {Atkinson, Anthony B. and Bourguignon, Fran{\\c c}ois},\n  year = {2000},\n  volume = {1},\n  pages = {167--216},\n  publisher = {{Elsevier}},\n  doi = {10.1016/S1574-0056(00)80006-8},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0056(00)80006-8},\n  abstract = {Income and wealth inequality rose over the first 150 years of US history. They rose in Britain before 1875, especially 1740\\textendash 1810. The first half of the 20th century equalized pre-fisc incomes both in Britain and in America. From the 1970s to the 1990s inequality rose in both countries, reversing most or all of the previous equalization. Government redistribution explains part but not all of the reversals in inequality trends. Factor-market forces and economic growth would have produced a similar timing of rises and falls in income inequality even without shifts in the progressivity of redistribution through government. Redistribution toward the poor tends to happen least in those times and polities where it would seem most justified by the usual goals of welfare policy.},\n  chapter = {Ch. 3},\n  isbn = {978-0-444-81631-3},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Dividing the Spoils: Pensions, Privatization, and Reform in Russia's Transition.\n \n \n\n\n \n Milanovic, B.; and Kapstein, E. B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 2292, The World Bank Development Research Group, March 2000.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Dividing$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{MilanovicKapstein2000,\n  type = {Policy {{Research Working Paper}}},\n  title = {Dividing the {{Spoils}}: {{Pensions}}, {{Privatization}}, and {{Reform}} in {{Russia}}'s {{Transition}}},\n  author = {Milanovic, Branko and Kapstein, Ethan B.},\n  year = {2000},\n  month = mar,\n  number = {2292},\n  institution = {{The World Bank Development Research Group}},\n  doi = {10.1596/1813-9450-2292},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-2292},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Does Atlas Shrug? The Economic Consequences of Taxing the Rich.\n \n \n\n\n \n Slemrod, J.,\n editor.\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Does$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Slemrod2000,\n  title = {Does {{Atlas}} Shrug? The Economic Consequences of Taxing the Rich},\n  editor = {Slemrod, Joel},\n  year = {2000},\n  publisher = {{Harvard University Press}},\n  address = {{Cambridge, MA}},\n  url = {https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674008151},\n  abstract = {Since the introduction of the income tax in 1913, controversy has raged about how heavily to tax the rich. Opponents of high tax rates claim that heavy assessments have negative incentives on the productivity of some of our most talented citizens; supporters stress the importance of the rich shouldering their ``fair share,'' and decry the loopholes that permit many to escape their obligations. Notably absent from this debate is hard evidence about the actual impact of taxes on the behavior of the affluent. This book presents evidence by leading economists of the effects of taxes on the formation of businesses, the supply of labor, the form of executive compensation, the accumulation of wealth, the allocation of portfolios, and the realization of capital gains. Among its findings are that the labor supply of the rich remained unchanged in the face of large tax cuts in 1986, and that in late 1992 executives exercised billions of dollars' worth of stock options in order to beat the tax increases expected in 1993. The book also presents a history of efforts to tax the rich, a demographic snapshot of the financially affluent, and a road map to widely used tax-avoidance strategies. Does Atlas Shrug? will be of great interest to policymakers and interested citizens who want to know how much tax revenue could really be gained by increasing tax rates on the rich, or whether low capital gains tax rates really spur economic growth.},\n  isbn = {0-674-00154-0},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1998\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Self-Employment and Wealth Inequality.\n \n \n\n\n \n Lindh, T.; and Ohlsson, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Review of Income and Wealth, 44(1): 25–42. 1998.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Self-Employment$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{LindhOhlsson1998,\n  title = {Self-Employment and Wealth Inequality},\n  author = {Lindh, Thomas and Ohlsson, Henry},\n  year = {1998},\n  journal = {Review of Income and Wealth},\n  volume = {44},\n  number = {1},\n  pages = {25--42},\n  doi = {10.1111/j.1475-4991.1998.tb00250.x},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1998.tb00250.x},\n  abstract = {Is the decision to become and stay self-employed constrained by access to credit? If this is the case, a more unequal wealth distribution will\\textemdash for empirically observed distributions\\textemdash imply more self-employed, since the number of people able to provide collateral will be higher. Swedish data between 1920 and 1992 suggest that wealth inequality and the share of self-employed among those working are positively related. The data, therefore, are consistent with the hypothesis that liquidity constraints are binding on the decision to become and stay self-employed.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1997\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Black-White Wealth Inequality: Is Inheritance the Reason?.\n \n \n\n\n \n Menchik, P. L.; and Jianakoplos, N. A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Economic Inquiry, 35(2): 428–442. 1997.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Black-White$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{MenchikJianakoplos1997,\n  title = {Black-White Wealth Inequality: Is Inheritance the Reason?},\n  author = {Menchik, Paul L. and Jianakoplos, Nancy Ammon},\n  year = {1997},\n  journal = {Economic Inquiry},\n  volume = {35},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {428--442},\n  publisher = {{John Wiley \\& Sons, Ltd (10.1111)}},\n  doi = {10.1111/j.1465-7295.1997.tb01920.x},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1997.tb01920.x},\n  abstract = {Racial differences in the receipt of financial inheritances help to explain why the average difference in wealth between black and white households is larger than the average difference in income. Using data from a panel of prime-aged males and from a representative survey of the U,S. population, we document the greater likelihood of white households receiving an inheritance than black households. Controlling for other factors which contribute to racial differences in wealth, we estimate that financial inheritances may account for between 10\\% and 20\\% of the average difference in black-white household wealth.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Wealth Inequality among Older Americans.\n \n \n\n\n \n Smith, J. P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Journals of Gerontology Series B, 52B: 74–81. 1997.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Wealth$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Smith1997,\n  title = {Wealth Inequality among Older Americans},\n  author = {Smith, James P.},\n  year = {1997},\n  journal = {The Journals of Gerontology Series B},\n  volume = {52B},\n  pages = {74--81},\n  doi = {10.1093/geronb/52B.Special_Issue.74},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/52B.Special_Issue.74},\n  abstract = {Using the AHEAD study, this article examines the wealth distribution among American households with a member at least 70 years old. Household wealth is quite unevenly distributed among older American households. Those households in the top 10th percentile of the wealth distribution have 2,500 times as much wealth as those at the lowest 10th percent. This sharp wealth disparity relative to income dispersion is the dominant reason why older minority households have accumulated so little wealth compared to White households. Wealth varies by a factor of seven to one when both spouses are in poor health compared to when they say that they are in excellent health. Finally, AHEAD data on bequest intentions suggest a bifurcated bequest motive. Most older households plan to bequeath a modest financial inheritance, but about one-quarter expect to leave inheritances worth \\$100,000 or more.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1994\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Trends in Household Wealth in the United States, 1962– 83 and 1983– 89.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wolff, E. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Review of Income and Wealth, 40(2): 143–174. 1994.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Trends$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Wolff1994,\n  title = {Trends in Household Wealth in the United States, 1962\\textendash 83 and 1983\\textendash 89},\n  author = {Wolff, Edward N.},\n  year = {1994},\n  journal = {Review of Income and Wealth},\n  volume = {40},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {143--174},\n  doi = {10.1111/j.1475-4991.1994.tb00056.x},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1994.tb00056.x},\n  abstract = {Using the 1983 and 1989 Surveys of Consumer Finances, I find evidence of sharply increasing household wealth inequality over this period. Whereas mean wealth increased by 23 percent in real terms, median wealth grew by only 8 percent. The share of the top one-half percentile rose by five percentage points, while the wealth of the bottom two quintiles showed an absolute decline. The Gini coefficient increased from 0.80 to 0.84. Almost all the growth in real wealth accrued to the top 20 percent of wealthholders. In contrast, the degree of wealth inequality was almost identical in 1983 as in 1962, and real wealth growth was more evenly distributed across the wealth distribution. There is also evidence that the sharp increase in wealth inequality from 1983 to 1989 was due to a correspondingly sharp rise in income inequality, the increase of stock prices relative to housing prices, and relatively slow inflation.},\n  isbn = {1475-4991},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1992\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Changing Inequality of Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wolff, E. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n American Economic Review, 82(2): 552–558. 1992.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Changing$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Wolff1992,\n  title = {Changing Inequality of Wealth},\n  author = {Wolff, Edward N.},\n  year = {1992},\n  journal = {American Economic Review},\n  volume = {82},\n  number = {2},\n  eprint = {2117460},\n  eprinttype = {jstor},\n  pages = {552--558},\n  publisher = {{American Economic Association}},\n  url = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117460},\n  abstract = {What about the distribution of household wealth is new? This paper highlights several new findings on the subject and raises a few issues that may warrant careful consideration in the future.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1991\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n A Comparative Analysis of Household Wealth Patterns in France and the United States.\n \n \n\n\n \n Kessler, D.; and Wolff, E. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Review of Income and Wealth, 37(3): 249–266. 1991.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{KesslerWolff1991,\n  title = {A Comparative Analysis of Household Wealth Patterns in France and the United States},\n  author = {Kessler, Denis and Wolff, Edward N.},\n  year = {1991},\n  journal = {Review of Income and Wealth},\n  volume = {37},\n  number = {3},\n  pages = {249--266},\n  doi = {10.1111/j.1475-4991.1991.tb00370.x},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1991.tb00370.x},\n  abstract = {We find that household wealth is distributed more unequally in the U.S. in 1983 than France in 1986. The Gini coefficient is 0.77 for the U.S. and 0.71 for France. There are also significant differences in the composition of wealth. Owner-occupied housing accounted for half of total assets in France, and only 30 percent in the U.S., while corporate stock and financial securities amounted to 19 percent in the U.S. and 8 percent in France. The debt-equity ratio was 0.13 in France and 0.20 in the U.S. The age-wealth profile in the two countries had the characteristic hump-shape predicted by the life-cycle model, but the profile was much flatter in France and peaked for families aged 50\\textendash 59 in France, compared to 60\\textendash 69 in the US.},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1989\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Japan's New Policy Agenda: Coping with Unequal Asset Distribution.\n \n \n\n\n \n Tachibanaki, T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Japanese Studies, 15(2): 345–369. 1989.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Japan's$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Tachibanaki1989,\n  title = {Japan's New Policy Agenda: Coping with Unequal Asset Distribution},\n  author = {Tachibanaki, Toshiaki},\n  year = {1989},\n  journal = {Journal of Japanese Studies},\n  volume = {15},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {345--369},\n  doi = {10.2307/132359},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.2307/132359},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1983\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Income Distribution in New Zealand.\n \n \n\n\n \n Easton, B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 28, New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, 1983.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Income$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@techreport{Easton1983,\n  type = {{{NZIER Research Paper}}},\n  title = {Income Distribution in {{New Zealand}}},\n  author = {Easton, Brian},\n  year = {1983},\n  number = {28},\n  institution = {{New Zealand Institute of Economic Research}},\n  url = {https://natlib.govt.nz/records/21732544?search%5Bi%5D%5Bcreator%5D=Easton%2C+B.+H.&search%5Bi%5D%5Bsubject%5D=Income+distribution+--+New+Zealand&search%5Bpath%5D=items},\n  urldate = {2022-04-01},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1981\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Role of Intergenerational Transfers in Aggregate Capital Accumulation.\n \n \n\n\n \n Kotlikoff, L. J.; and Summers, L. H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Political Economy, 89(4): 706–732. 1981.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{KotlikoffSummers1981,\n  title = {The Role of Intergenerational Transfers in Aggregate Capital Accumulation},\n  author = {Kotlikoff, Laurence J. and Summers, Lawrence H.},\n  year = {1981},\n  journal = {Journal of Political Economy},\n  volume = {89},\n  number = {4},\n  pages = {706--732},\n  doi = {10.1086/260999},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.1086/260999},\n  abstract = {This paper uses historical U.S. data to directly estimate the contribution of intergenerational transfers to aggregate capital accumulation. The evidence presented indicates that intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of aggregate U.S. capital formation; only a negligible fraction of actual capital accumulation can be traced to life-cycle or "hump" savings. A major difference between this study and previous investigations of this issue is the use of more accurate longitudinal age-earnings and age-consumption profiles. These profiles are simply too flat to generate substantial life-cycle savings. This paper suggests the importance of and need for substantially greater research and data collection on intergenerational transfers. Life-cycle models of savings that emphasize savings for retirement as the dominant form of capital accumulation should give way to models that illuminate the determinants of intergenerational transfers.},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1980\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Taxing Wealth Inequalities.\n \n \n\n\n \n Pond, C.; Burghes, L.; and Smith, B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n of Fabian TractFabian Society, January 1980.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Taxing$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Pondetal1980,\n  title = {Taxing Wealth Inequalities},\n  author = {Pond, C. and Burghes, L. and Smith, B.},\n  year = {1980},\n  month = jan,\n  series = {Fabian {{Tract}}},\n  number = {466},\n  publisher = {{Fabian Society}},\n  url = {https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:dir903zoz},\n  urldate = {2022-02-02},\n  isbn = {978-0-7163-0466-1},\n  keywords = {Cross-National Comparisons,Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,{Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes},Intergenerational Wealth,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1979\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Inheritance and Wealth Inequality in Britain.\n \n \n\n\n \n Harbury, C. D.; and Hitchens, D. M. W. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n London, 1979.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inheritance$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{HarburyHitchens1979,\n  title = {Inheritance and Wealth Inequality in {{Britain}}},\n  author = {Harbury, C. D. and Hitchens, D. M. W. N.},\n  year = {1979},\n  publisher = {{London}},\n  doi = {10.4324/9780203145319},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203145319},\n  abstract = {Modern Britain is characterised by marked inequalities in the distribution of wealth, which continue to fuel controversy and arouse strong, if adverse, feelings. Originally published in 1979, Inheritance and Wealth Inequality in Britain provides detailed evidence on the relative importance of inherited and self-made wealth. It is the first major work in the field since Wedgwood's pioneering study in 1929, and represents a major contribution to current debates on justice and inequality. The study is based on more than fifteen years of detective work on successive generations of the wealthy. Professors Harbury and Hitchens have searched through the public records of registered wills, contacted relatives, executors and solicitors and have even tramped through graveyards in order to build up their picture of how wealth is actually transmitted from generation to generation. Results of this research challenge the commonly held view that inheritance is no longer a main force in the perpetuation of wealth and demonstrate unquestionably that it remains a factor of paramount importance. The book helps to answer such questions as: what proportion of wealthy men and wealthy women are self-made? Do the rich tend to marry the rich? Which industries tend to favour self-made as against inherited wealth? What are the chances today of inheriting or dissipating a fortune? Inheritance and Wealth Inequality in Britain is essential reading for those academically and professionally concerned with policymaking on income and wealth distribution and with the tax system; and to students taking courses in welfare economics, public finance and the sociology of class. It is also an important contribution to the history of modern Britain.},\n  isbn = {978-0-415-69474-2},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1972\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Unequal Shares: Wealth in Britain.\n \n \n\n\n \n Atkinson, A. B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Allen Lane, London, 1972.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Unequal$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 8 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Atkinson1972,\n  title = {Unequal Shares: Wealth in {{Britain}}},\n  author = {Atkinson, A. B.},\n  year = {1972},\n  publisher = {{Allen Lane}},\n  address = {{London}},\n  url = {https://archive.org/details/unequalshareswea0000atki},\n  isbn = {0-7139-0281-7},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,{Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes},Intergenerational Wealth,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1971\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Capital Taxes, the Redistribution of Wealth and Individual Savings.\n \n \n\n\n \n Atkinson, A. B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Review of Economic Studies, 38(2): 209–227. 1971.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Capital$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 8 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Atkinson1971,\n  title = {Capital Taxes, the Redistribution of Wealth and Individual Savings},\n  author = {Atkinson, A. B.},\n  year = {1971},\n  journal = {The Review of Economic Studies},\n  volume = {38},\n  number = {2},\n  pages = {209--227},\n  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},\n  doi = {10.2307/2296780},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.2307/2296780},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,{Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes},Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Distribution of Wealth and the Individual Life-Cycle.\n \n \n\n\n \n Atkinson, A. B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Oxford Economic Papers, 23(2): 239–254. 1971.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Atkinson1971a,\n  title = {The Distribution of Wealth and the Individual Life-Cycle},\n  author = {Atkinson, A. B.},\n  year = {1971},\n  journal = {Oxford Economic Papers},\n  volume = {23},\n  number = {2},\n  eprint = {2662236},\n  eprinttype = {jstor},\n  pages = {239--254},\n  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},\n  url = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/2662236},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Wealth Taxation}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1969\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Trends in the Size Distribution of Wealth in the Nineteenth Century: Some Speculations.\n \n \n\n\n \n Gallman, R. E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Six Papers on the Size Distribution of Wealth and Income, pages 1–30, 1969. NBER\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Trends$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Gallman1969,\n  title = {Trends in the Size Distribution of Wealth in the Nineteenth Century: Some Speculations},\n  booktitle = {Six Papers on the Size Distribution of Wealth and Income},\n  author = {Gallman, Robert E.},\n  year = {1969},\n  pages = {1--30},\n  publisher = {{NBER}},\n  url = {http://www.nber.org/chapters/c4339},\n  chapter = {Ch. 1},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  annotation = {Backup Publisher: National Bureau of Economic Research}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n A Cohort Analysis of Changes in the Distribution of Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Lansing, J. B.; and Sonquist, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Six Papers on the Size Distribution of Wealth and Income, pages 31–74, 1969. NBER\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{LansingSonquist1969,\n  title = {A Cohort Analysis of Changes in the Distribution of Wealth},\n  booktitle = {Six Papers on the Size Distribution of Wealth and Income},\n  author = {Lansing, John B. and Sonquist, John},\n  year = {1969},\n  pages = {31--74},\n  publisher = {{NBER}},\n  url = {http://www.nber.org/chapters/c4340},\n  chapter = {Ch. 2},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality},\n  annotation = {Backup Publisher: National Bureau of Economic Research}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1962\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Share of Top Wealth-Holders in National Wealth, 1922– 56.\n \n \n\n\n \n Lampman, R. J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1962.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Lampman1962,\n  title = {The Share of Top Wealth-Holders in National Wealth, 1922\\textendash 56},\n  author = {Lampman, Robert J.},\n  year = {1962},\n  publisher = {{Princeton University Press}},\n  address = {{Princeton}},\n  url = {http://www.nber.org/books/lamp62-1},\n  isbn = {0-87014-073-6},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Methods of Estimation of Wealth Inequality,Trends in Aggregate Wealth and Wealth Inequality}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1939\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Economics of Inheritance.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wedgwood, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Penguin Books, 2nd Editio edition, 1939.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Wedgwood1939,\n  title = {The Economics of Inheritance},\n  author = {Wedgwood, Josiah},\n  year = {1939},\n  edition = {2nd Editio},\n  publisher = {{Penguin Books}},\n  abstract = {With a new introduction by the author},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,{Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes},Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1929\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Economics of Inheritance.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wedgwood, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Routledge & Sons, 1929.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Wedgwood1929,\n  title = {The Economics of Inheritance},\n  author = {Wedgwood, Josiah},\n  year = {1929},\n  publisher = {{Routledge \\& Sons}},\n  url = {https://archive.org/details/economicsofinher035213mbp/page/n1/mode/2up},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,{Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes},Impacts of Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1928\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n The Influence of Inheritance on the Distribution of Wealth.\n \n \n\n\n \n Wedgwood, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Economic Journal, 38(149): 38–55. 1928.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Wedgwood1928,\n  title = {The Influence of Inheritance on the Distribution of Wealth},\n  author = {Wedgwood, J.},\n  year = {1928},\n  journal = {The Economic Journal},\n  volume = {38},\n  number = {149},\n  pages = {38--55},\n  doi = {10.2307/2224395},\n  url = {https://doi.org/10.2307/2224395},\n  keywords = {Determinants of Wealth and Wealth Inequality,Intergenerational Wealth}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n