You are on page 1of 25

Income inequality and macroeconomic activity in Greece

K. Chrissis, S. Dimelis, A. Livada Athens University of Economics and Business Technical Report No 263

ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS MARCH

2013

Abstract
The purpose of this technical report is to examine the relationship between income inequality and macroeconomic activity in Greece. The relationship between income inequality and economic growth is a central issue in the study of macroeconomics. The macroeconomic indicators of most interest are the economic growth and the openness of the economy. Other control variables such as financial development, inflation and the growth of population are incorporated in the econometric model presented here. The econometric methodology implemented is Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) approach. The empirical findings for the relationship of income inequality and macroeconomic activity suggest that 1% top income share depends on growth since the real GDP per capita has a significant negative impact on the long term. A significant impact, also, yields the openness of economy. Trade as a percentage of GDP influences positively top income shares. Inflation, expressed as the growth rate of CPI, has a statistical significant negative impact on top income share. On the contrary the pattern of financial development (domestic credit to private sector as percentage of GDP) and population (growth rate of population) do not affect income inequality in the long run.

1. Introduction This paper presents the empirical findings of the response of aggregate income inequality to changes in macroeconomic activity in Greece. A short review of theory and evidence is presented in section two. Data are described in section three. In section four, the econometric methodology implemented is presented (ARDL approach). The empirical results are illustrated in section five. Moreover, alternative income inequality proxies and supplementary econometric approach (VAR-approach Johansen cointegration) are presented in section six. Finally, section seven concludes.

2. Theory and evidence The relationship between income inequality and economic growth is a central issue in the study of macroeconomics. According to the pioneer work of Kuznets (1955), income inequality increases until a critical income level is attained, after which inequality begins to decrease. The graphical representation of this hypothesis is an inverted U shaped curve. Though Kuznets hypothesis has found some empirical support at global level [Ram (1989) and Park and Brat (1995)] the economic research does not provide a clear perspective. Kaldor (1956), Bourguignon (1981), Li and Zou (1998), Forbes (2000), Roine et al (2007) and Frank (2009) suggest that there is a positive relationship between income inequality and economic growth. Andrews et al (2009) note that they find no systematic relationship between top income shares (proxy for income inequality) and economic growth in a panel of twelve developed countries; after 1960, however, a statistically significant relationship seems to exist. On the contrary, Alesina and Rodrik (1994), Perotti (1996), Benabou (1996), Persson and Tabellini (1994) and Aghion et al. (1999) have shown that there is a negative relationship between economic growth and income inequality. Glomm and Kaganovich (2008) show how the relationship between economic growth and inequality depends upon the levels of funding of two of the largest government programs, public education and social security. Their model indicates that an increase in government spending on social security reduces income inequality and can have a non-monotonic effect on growth (positive when the initial level is low and negative when the initial level is high). Empirical work by Panizza (2002) and Quah (2001) has found little or no stable relationship between inequality and growth; Deininger and Squire (1996) state, also, that they do not find a systematic link between growth and changes in aggregate inequality. Moreover, Barro (2000) has found evidence that inequality is positively related to growth among wealthier countries and negatively related to growth among low-income countries. Voitchovsky (2005) has found evidence that while top-end inequality is positively associated with growth, bottomend inequality may be negatively related to growth. Lee (2010) provides a short literature review for theoretical and empirical studies on the growth-inequality relationship. Frank (2009) states that the results appear to be extremely sensitive to the econometric specification.
4

In the recent years empirical research test the relationship of income inequality and openness in the framework of Kuznets curve. Dobson and Ramlogan (2009) suggest that data from Latin America provide evidence for the consistency of Kuznets hypothesis; inequality increases with trade openness until a critical level of openness is reached after which inequality begins to fall. According to Lee (2010) empirical findings from Asia indicate that there is a significant turning point of globalization at which inequality starts decreasing as further globalization proceeds. Jalil (2011) notes that Kuznets curve fits the relationship between openness and income inequality in the case of China. In a more broad context, Bergh and Nilsson (2010) using panel data (from SWIID) note that freedom to trade internationally is robustly positively related to within-country income inequality. Barro (2000), Hurrell and Woods (2000) and Carter (2007) find that the trade openness worsens the income inequality. Additionally, Roine et al (2007) include openness in their econometric model (GMM) suggesting that international trade is not associated with increases in top incomes (proxy for income inequality) on average, but is associated in Anglo-Saxon countries. Jalil (2012) provides a short literature review for theoretical and empirical studies on the growth-openness relationship. The economic literature remains inconclusive about the effect of inflation on the income inequality. Cutler and Katz (1991), Clarke et al (2006) and Ang (2010) state that inflation improves the income inequality. On the contrary, Easterly and Fisher (2001) and Beck et al. (2007) note that inflation has an adverse effect on the distribution of income. However, as highlighted by Easterly and Fischer (2001), the way inflation affects the poor may well differ between economies due to the compilation of the tax system and therefore is an empirical issue. Several empirical studies employ other control variables in their econometric methodology. In this paper financial development and population have been utilized as independent variables. 3. Data description This section outlines the data used in the econometric analysis and their sources. Income inequality: The main proxy variable applied for the estimation of income inequality is 1% top income share (tis). The compilation of top income shares was made according to Piketty (2001) approach for tabulated tax data. Tax data provide detailed information on nominal family income and its sources, as reported annually in tax declaration forms. Family income is the sum of income received by the husband and/or wife. This definition also includes single persons. Tax data are reported in tabulated form. A significant issue of tabulated tax data is that the thresholds of income classes do not coincide with the percentiles which are necessary for the estimation of top income shares. The standard approach to tackle this issue is assuming the top end of income distribution is well described by the Pareto distribution. In this paper the Piketty (2001) approach for Pareto procedure is used. Control total for population is needed since the amount of fillers of tax returns were
5

low especially in the beginning of the period under investigation. The control total used is the population over the age of 20 minus half the number of the married men and women. To estimate income shares a control total for aggregate income is needed. Two approaches are commonly applied. One approach starts from the income tax and adds the income of those not covered (the so called non-fillers). The second approach starts from an external control total, typically derived from the national accounts. This is a standard approach employed since Kuznets (1953) and followed by many researchers in historical studies of income inequality. In this paper the control total for income is derived from national accounts. For more technical details on the compilation procedure on Greek tax data see Chrissis et al (2011). The choice of top income shares as the main proxy of income inequality was made due to the fact that upper shares according to Piketty (2001) approach are comparable with the corresponding shares estimated using micro data from other data sources (Household Expenditure Survey, European Community Household Panel (ECHP), European Union Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) see Chrissis and Livada, 2012). Moreover, other top income shares and aggregate inequality measures will be utilized as alternative measures. Growth: The real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at 2005 market prices per head of population is utilized for the approximation of growth. The real GDP per capita is obtained from European Commission statistics. Openness: The measure of trade openness is standard and it is defined as the sum of exports and imports as a percentage of GDP. The data source is World Bank, World Development Indicators. Financial Development: The proxy variable for the description of the financial development is private credit. Private credit is defined as the domestic credit to private sector as a share of GDP. The data source is World Bank, World Development Indicators. Inflation: The growth rate of Consumer Price Index (CPI) is used as an approximation for inflation. The data source is the Greek National Statistical Institute (ELSTAT). Population: The proxy variable for the description of population is the growth rate of total population from demographic statistics. Data are obtained from European Commission statistics.

4. Econometric methodology The empirical model to be estimated is (1) Where ineq is a measure (proxy) of inequality. contains all regressors (or control variables) which may vary across time. The parameter A contains a constant and/or trend and is the classical error term. The empirical model is familiar to Roine et al (2007) and similar to Dobson and Ramlogan (2009), Lee (2010), Jalil (2012) and Frank (2009) under the scope that certain control variables are the same; nevertheless the framework differs from study to study. This study employs the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) (or bounds testing) cointegration procedure for the empirical analysis of the long-run relationships and dynamic interacting among the variables of interest. This procedure was popularized by Pesaran and Pesaran (1997), Pesaran and Smith (1998), Pesaran and Shin (1999) and Pesaran et al (2001). There are certain advantages of the ARDL approach. This technique is applicable irrespective of whether the regressors in the model are purely I(0), purely I(1) or mutually cointegrated (Pesaran (1997)). The error correction model (ECM) can be derived from ARDL through a simple linear transformation (Banerjee et al (1993)). The small sample properties of ARDL approach are superior to that of the Johansen and Juselius cointegration technique (Pesaran and Shin (1999)). Moreover, as long as the ARDL model is free of residual correlation, endogeneity is less of a problem (Pesaran and Shin 1999). According to Pesaran and Pesaran (1997) we apply the following augmented autoregressive distributed lag ARDL ( model:

Where

L is a lag operator such as , and is a sx1 vector of deterministic variables such as the intercept term, seasonal dummies, time trends, or exogenous variables with fixed lags. All possible values of p=0,1,2,m; =0,1,2,,m; i=1,2,,k with a total of ARDL models can be estimated by OLS.
7

The long run coefficients for the response of the dependent variable to a unit change in the regressors are estimated by , i=1,2,,k.

Where and , i=1,2,,k are the selected (estimated) values of p and

The long-run coefficients associated with the deterministic/exogenous variables with fixed lags are estimated by Where model. denotes the OLS estimate of in (2) for the selected ARDL

The corresponding unrestricted error correction model is given by

where

is the correction term defined by

For more technical details see Pesaran and Pesaran (1997). On the basis of equations (2)-(4), the unrestricted error correction model of interest can be specified as (this is the ARDL framework for equation (1)):

Where are the long run multipliers, is the drift, is the trend coefficient and are white noise errors. The first step in the ARDL bounds testing approach is to estimate equation (9) by ordinary least squares (OLS) in order to test for the existence of a long-run relationship among the variables by conducting an F-test for the joint significance of the coefficients of the lagged levels of the variables. Therefore the hypothesis test has the form H0: (no long relationship) Against the alternative hypothesis H1: (a long relationship exists) The computed F-statistic value will be evaluated with the critical values tabulated by Pesaran et al (2001). According to these authors, the lower bound critical values assumed that the explanatory variables are integrated of order zero, or I(0), while the upper bound critical values assumed that variables are integrated of order one, or I(1). Therefore, if the computed F-statistic is smaller than the lower bound value, then the null hypothesis is not rejected and we conclude that there is no long relationship the variables of interest. On the contrary, if the computed F-statistic is greater than the upper bound value, then a long-run relationship is assumed. Finally, if the computed F-statistic lies between the lower and the upper bound values the results are inconclusive. In the second step, once cointegration is established the ARDL ( model is estimated as follows:

This step involves selecting the orders of the ARDL ( model in the variables using Schwarz Bayesian criterion. The choice of the appropriate lags according to Akaike information criterion has been, also, conducted. Then, as described above the long-run coefficients are estimated. In the third and final step, the short-run dynamic parameters have been obtained by the estimation of an error correction model associated with the long-run estimates. This is specified as follows:

Here a, b, c, d, e, f, are the short-run dynamic coefficients of the models convergence to equilibrium and is the speed of adjustment back to long run equilibrium after a short run shock.

5. Estimation Results Unit roots tests A variable is stationary, or integrated of order zero, when the mean and the variance do not depend on time. If the stochastic process that generate the time series does not alter in time, i.e. it is stationary, then it is feasible to model this process through regression and therefore estimate the coefficients. On the contrary, the non stationarity of the time series could lead to issues about the robustness of the estimated standard errors and therefore the credibility of the model will be limited. The variables of interest will be tested for the stationarity status for the determination of their order of integration. Since the bounds test is based on the assumption that the variables are I(0) or I(1), the implementation of unit root tests are necessary in order to ensure that none of the variables is integrated of order two or beyond. Two econometric tests are applied in this study: the Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) test and the Phillips-Perron (PP) test. The results for the ADF and PP tests with no exogenous, one exogenous (intercept) and two exogenous (intercept and trend) regressors are illustrated in the following table.

Table 1. Summary results for ADF and PP tests for stationarity ADF (firt difference) Phillips-Perron (first difference) No constant constant constant No constant constant No trend No trend trend No trend No trend Tis_01 -3.013876* -3.055774** -5.560674* -5.661297* -5.662898* Rgdp_pc -3.347194* -4.249739* -4.241093* -3.356625* -4.320717* Trade -5.458381* -5.535058* -5.595912* -3.711501* -3.575065* Credit -4.222798* -4.733619* -4.968420* -4.402065* -4.939950* Cpi_r -6.571467* -6.500329* -6.243614* -6.644670* -6.555692* Population_r -4.832358* -4.784957* -4.732516* -4.550032* -4.473749* Note: Reject null hypothesis of unit root at 10% (***), 5% (**) and 1% (*) significance level

constant trend -5.736735* -4.312802* -3.442633*** -5.077983* -8.046719* -4.393780*

The analysis indicates that no variable is integrated above order one, therefore the ARDL approach of cointegration can be implemented.

10

Bounds test for cointegration In the first step of ARDL analysis, the presence of long-run relationships is tested using equation (9)1. The maximum length of lags applied was two, three and four lags. Apart from the dependent variable of income inequality the model contains as regressors, proxies for growth, openness, financial development, inflation and population. The following tables illustrate the results from the Wald restriction as well the critical values provided by Pesaran (2001).
Table 2. Critical values by Pesaran (2001), case III: No intercept and no trend
k 5 90% I(0) 1.81 I(1) 2.93 95% I(0) 2.14 I(1) 3.34 97,5% I(0) 2.44 I(1) 3.71 99% I(0) 2.82 I(1) 4.21 Mean I(0) 1.02 I(1) 1.84 Variance I(0) 0.34 I(1) 0.67

Table 3. Critical values by Pesaran (2001), case III: Unrestricted intercept and no trend
k 5 90% I(0) 2.26 I(1) 3.35 95% I(0) 2.62 I(1) 3.79 97,5% I(0) 2.96 I(1) 4.18 99% I(0) 3.41 I(1) 4.68 Mean I(0) 1.34 I(1) 2.17 Variance I(0) 0.48 I(1) 0.79

Table 4. Critical values by Pesaran (2001), case V: Unrestricted intercept and unrestricted trend
k 5 90% I(0) 2.75 I(1) 3.79 95% I(0) 3.12 I(1) 4.25 97,5% I(0) 3.47 I(1) 4.67 99% I(0) 3.93 I(1) 5.23 Mean I(0) 1.72 I(1) 2.53 Variance I(0) 0.59 I(1) 0.91

Table 5. Results for Wald restrictions


Variable Tis_01 ARDL 2 Exogenous C C+T none 3 C C+T none 4 C C+T none Note: * 1%, ** 5% and *** 10% significance F-stat (joint by Wald restrictions) 3.711542*** 3.107592 2.433334 2.500047 2.357803 2.069196 1.476491 1.304211 1.386082

The estimated F-statistic with Wald restrictions is compared with the critical values provided by Pesaran. The results suggest that the null hypothesis of no long run relationship is rejected at 10% significance with the presence of one exogenous regressor and with two lags. The important issue is that the existence of the intercept. Having establish the existence of a relationship in the long term the ARDL model is estimated. The choice of the appropriate lags has been made according to Schwarz Bayesian Criterion (SBC). The selected model is ARDL (1,1,0,0,2,0). The use of Akaike Criterion (AC) yields similar results [ARDL (1,1,2,0,2,0)2]. The models were selected on the basis of SBC because it is known that SBC selects the most parsimonious model3.
1 2

The model changes if trend is included or the intercept is abolished Results are available upon request 3 Pesaran 1997, p. 354

11

The Autoregressive Distributed Lag estimates are:


Table 6. ARDL (1,1,0,0,2,0) selected based on Schwarz Bayesian Criterion Regressors Coefficient Standard error Income inequality (-1) .75384 .052755 Real GDP per capita -.0024391 .8042E-3 Real GDP per capita (-1) .0017415 .8838E-3 Openness .019831 .0054353 Financial Development -.0022669 .0033658 Inflation -.023687 .0064304 Inflation (-1) -.014150 .0064304 Inflation (-2) -.015110 .0082045 Population .11964 .095015 intercept .018672 .0047723

T-ratio 14.2894 -3.0330 1.9706 3.6485 -.67350 -3.6836 -1.6105 -1.8417 1.2592 3.9125

[prob] [.000] [.004] [.056] [.001] [.505] [.001] [.116] [.073] [.216] [.000]

The diagnostic tests for the underlying ARDL model are:


Table 7. Diagnostic tests Test Statistics A:Serial Correlation B:Functional Form C:Normality D:Heteroscedasticity R-squared

Test Statistics CHSQ( 1)= .49166[.483] CHSQ( 1)= .96419[.326] CHSQ( 2)= 12.9720[.002] CHSQ( 1)= 2.0967[.148] .98558

F Version F( 1, 37)= .38291[.540] F( 1, 37)= .75846[.389] Not applicable F( 1, 46)= 2.1011[.154]

The r-squared statistic yields a very high value meaning the good fitness of the model. The Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test suggests that there is no serial correlation of the residuals (autocorrelation). The model also seems to pass the test for the presence of heteroscedasticity, since that the null hypothesis is not rejected. Moreover, the Ramsey RESET test indicates that the functional form is suitable. Nevertheless, the model does not pass the test for normality of the residuals. The stability of the coefficients was tested by applying the CUSUM and CUSUM of squares test (Brown, Durbin, and Evans, 1975). In both tests movement outside the critical lines is suggestive of parameter or variance instability. Figures 1 and 2 present the results for CUSUM and CUSUM of squares test.

Figure 1. Plot of Cumulative Sum of Recursive Residuals

20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 1962

1967

1972

1977

1982

1987

1992

1997

2002

2007

The straight lines represent critical bounds at 5% significance level

12

Figure 2. Plot of Cumulative Sum of Squares of Recursive Residuals

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 1962

1967

1972

1977

1982

1987

1992

1997

2002

2007

The straight lines represent critical bounds at 5% significance level

The model succeeds in all diagnostic tests, except normality, and according to CUSUM and CUSUM of squares test the stability of the coefficients is satisfactory; the specification of the model seems robust enough. Since the ARDL model is chosen, we proceed in the estimation of the equation (10) and then in the estimation of the long-run coefficients. The following table presents the long-run estimates of the selected ARDL model for the case of intercept.
Table 8. Estimated long run coefficients of ARDL (1,1,0,0,2,0) based on Schwarz Bayesian Criterion Regressors Coefficient Standard error T-ratio Real GDP per capita -.0028337 .9293E-3 -3.0493 Openness (trade % GDP) .080561 .028594 2.8174 Financial Development (credit -.0092090 .014756 -.62407 % GDP) Inflation (CPI rate) -.21509 .033824 -6.3592 Population (population rate) .48604 .38795 1.2528 intercept .075852 .0059700 12.7056 [prob] [.004] [.008] [.536] [.000] [.218] [.000]

The statistical significance of the intercept indicates that it should be included in the equation. Growth seems to relate with income inequality. The real GDP per capita has an impact on the long term, since the coefficient is statistical significant at 1% level. The relationship with the proxy of income inequality is negative. A significant impact, also, yields the openness of economy. Trade as a percentage of GDP influences positively top income shares. Like the two previous independent variables, inflation, expressed as the growth rate of CPI, is statistical significant at 1% level and it yields negative sign. On the contrary the pattern of financial development (domestic credit to private sector as percentage of GDP) and population (growth rate of population) does not affect income inequality in the long run; their coefficients does not differ statistically from zero. The next step is the estimation of the short-run coefficients associated with the longrun relationships (equation (11)). The results for the case of intercept are illustrated below
Table 9. Error correction representation for the selected ARDL model (1,1,0,0,2,0) based on Schwarz Bayesian Criterion

Regressors D(Real GDP per capita) D(Openness) D(Financial Development )

Coefficient -.0024391 .019831 -.0022669

Standard error .8042E-3 .0054353 .0033658

T-ratio -3.0330 3.6485 -.67350

[prob] [.004] [.001] [.505]

13

D(Inflation) D(Inflation)(1) D(Population) D(intercept) ECM(-1)

-.023687 .015110 .11964 .018672 -.24616

.0064304 .0082045 .095015 .0047723 .052755

-3.6836 1.8417 1.2592 3.9125 -4.6661

[.001] [.073] [.215] [.000] [.000]

The coefficient of ECM is statistically significant at 1% level and yields the correct sign. This is important because in a different case there would not be an adjustment back to the long-run equilibrium after a short-run shock. The equilibrium correction coefficient implies a significant speed of adjustment to equilibrium after a shock. Approximately 25% of disequilibria from the previous years shock converge back to the long-run equilibrium in the current year. The impact of the movements of growth, openness and inflation is significant in the short term as well. The signs of the shortrun dynamic impacts are similar to the corresponding ones of the long-run equilibrium. Once again, the movements of financial development and population do not affect income inequality.

6. Control of empirical results ARDL approach with alternative inequality measures In this section the ARDL approach for cointegration is applied for alternative inequality measures. The aim is to verify if the empirical findings hold for other proxies of income inequality. The ARDL procedure will be tested with three top income shares: 0,1%, 2,5% and 10%. Furthermore the approach will be applied with three aggregate income inequality measures: Gini and Atkinson with risk aversion parameter of 0,5 and 1,5. Gini coefficient is more sensitive in transfers around median. A low value of inequality aversion parameter e is used when there is sensitivity to changes at the top end of distribution and a high value is employed when there is sensitivity for the transfers at the low end of the distribution. All time series were tested for the order of integration with ADF and PP test. The results4 indicate that the order of integration for all variables is one, that is I(1) for 1% statistical significance level. As in the case of the main proxy of income inequality (1% top income share) no variable is integrated above order one, therefore the ARDL approach of cointegration can be implemented. The three steps of ARDL approach to cointegration are applied for each alternative measure. The null hypothesis of no long relationship5 is rejected for 0,1% (tis_001) and 2,5% (tis_025) top income share whereas it is not conclusive for 10% (tis_010) top income share. Setting Gini coefficient and Atkinson (0,5) index as the dependent variable seems to establish long-run relationship; the results are inconclusive for the case of Atkinson (1,5) index.
4 5

Results are available upon request Results are available upon request

14

Having establish the existence of a relationship in the long term the ARDL models are estimated. The choice of the appropriate lags has been made according to Schwarz Bayesian Criterion (SBC). The following tables illustrate the long-run coefficients and the short-run dynamics for the alternative inequality income proxies.

Table 10. Results for long-run coefficients and short-run dynamics


TIS ARDL max lag 2 3 2 ARDL max lag 2 3 2 exogenous Schwarz Bayesian criterion (1,0,0,0,1,0) (1,3,0,0,0,0) (1,1,0,0,0,0) Schwarz Bayesian criterion (1,0,0,0,1,0) (1,3,0,0,0,0) (1,1,0,0,0,0) SB - Long run C2 rgdp_pc -.0010888 sig1 -.0049202 sig5 no SB - Short run C2 rgdp_pc -.2577E-3 sig2 -.00492106 sig2 -.013009 sig2 C3 trade .024455 sig5 .16233 sig5 no C4 credit no no no no no C5 cpir -.051780 sig1 -.29034 sig1 no C6 popr no no no no no

Tis_001 Tis_025 Tis_10 TIS

C C C exogenous

Tis_001 Tis_025 Tis_10

C C C

C3 trade .0057878 sig2 .036287 sig1 .058650 sig5

C4 credit no no no no no no

C5 cpir no no -.064901 sig1 -.11183 sig1

C6 popr no no no no no no

ECM -.23667 sig1 sig5 sig5 no no

Note: sig1: 1%, sig2: 2%, sig5: 5% and sig10: 10% significance.

Table 11. Results for long-run coefficients and short-run dynamics


TIS ARDL max lag 3 2 2 ARDL max lag 3 2 2 exogenous Schwarz Bayesian criterion (1,0,0,2,1,2) (1,0,0,2,1,2) (2,1,1,0,0,0) Schwarz Bayesian criterion (1,0,0,2,1,2) (1,0,0,2,1,2) (2,1,1,0,0,0) SB - Long run C2 rgdp_pc no no .0056802 sig10 -.046182 sig1 SB - Short run C2 rgdp_pc no no .0025995 sig10 .044205 sig2 C3 trade .15791 sig10 .099282 sig10 no no C3 trade .063817 sig10 no no no no C4 credit -.081795 sig5 -.062659 sig5 .30562 sig1 C4 credit -.16262 sig5 -.13621 sig10 .29075 sig1 C5 cpir -.49906 sig1 -.34511 sig1 .88567 sig1 C5 cpir no no no no .84259 sig1 C6 popr 5.7475 sig1 3.7559 sig1 -3.9933 sig10 C6 popr 2.87957 sig1 2.05868 sig1 -3.7991 sig10 ECM -.40414 sig1 -.45764 sig1 -.95137 sig1

GINI ATK_05 ATK_15 TIS

C+T C+T C+T exogenous

GINI ATK_05 ATK_15

C+T C+T C+T

Note: sig1: 1%, sig2: 2%, sig5: 5% and sig10: 10% significance.

The independent variables that impose a statistically significant effect on the long-run are the same for 0,1% and 2,5% top income shares. Growth, openness and inflation influence these two upper shares, while there is no evidence for a long-run relationship for financial development and population. The real GDP per capita, the sum of imports and exports (as a percentage of GDP) and the rate of CPI yield a negative, positive and negative sign correspondingly. It is noted that the same variables are significant with the same type of relationship for the main proxy of income inequality, that is 1% top income share. Nevertheless, none of the variables is imposing a significant effect on the long-run for the 10% upper share. The effects of the short-run dynamics are similar for all three top income shares. Growth, openness
6 7

Also coefficient with positive sign at 5%: .0044605 Also coefficient with negative sign at 1%: -4.1016 8 Also coefficient with negative sign at 1%: -3.4847

15

and inflation is significant on the short run (with the exception of inflation for 0,1% tis), while financial development and population is not. The signs of the coefficients are the same as in the case of long-run equilibrium. Once again, the same variables are significant with the same type of relationship for the 1% top income share. The findings for the aggregate income inequality measures of Gini and Atkinson (0,5) indicate the following. On the long-run, openness, financial development, inflation and population influence the Gini coefficient and the Atkinson (0,5), whereas growth is statistically significant only for the Atkinson (0,5) index. The sum of imports and exports (as a percentage of GDP), the domestic credit to private sector (as a percentage of GDP), the rate of CPI and the growth rate of population yield a positive, negative, negative and positive sign correspondingly. The real GDP per capita affects positively the Atkinson (0,5) index. On the short-run, financial development and population have an impact on both indices, while inflation is not statistically significant. Growth affects only Atkinson (0,5) while openness affects only the Gini coefficient. The sings of the coefficients are similar to the corresponding ones of the long-run equilibrium. The behavior of Atkinson (1,5) index is different. The long-run coefficients suggest that growth, financial development and inflation have positive impact, population has negative impact while openness does not affect the inequality index. The short-run dynamics indicate that the statistically significant independent variables are the same as in the case of long-run equilibrium; the regressors yield the same sign with the exception of growth which has a positive effect on the short-run. Comparing the aggregate income inequality measure with the 1% top income share on the long-run certain similarities and differences are detected. Growth imposes a positive effect on Atkinson (0,5) index, a negative effect on Atkinson (1,5) index while is not significant for the Gini coefficient. The top 1% yields a negative relationship with real GDP per capita. Openness affects positively all aggregate measures (except Atkinson (1,5) which has no effect) and the upper share. On the contrary, inflation affects negatively all aggregate measures (except Atkinson (1,5) which has positive effect) and the upper share. It is reminded that financial development and population are not related in the long-run with 1% top income share, while the effects for aggregate income inequality measures are described above. The comparison for the short-run dynamics indicates, also differences. Growth has a positive effect for the two Atkinson indices, no effect for Gini coefficient and negative effect for the 1% upper share. Openness yields no relationship with the two Atkinson indices, while is positively related for Gini and top 1%. Inflation is negatively related to top 1%, positively related to Atkinson (0,5) index and no related with the other two inequality measures. It is noted that financial development and population are not related in the short-run with 1% top income share. Detecting the different (opposite) impact that growth exerts on the two Atkinson indices due to the variation of the inequality aversion parameter we estimate the ARDL model for the lower part of the upper decile. The construction of the tis_90_95 is the result of the subtraction of the 5% top income share from the 10% upper share, that is tis_90_95=tis_10-tis_05. This time series is integrated of order one and the
16

results from Wald restrictions implies a long run relationship. Applying the procedure for the selection of the appropriate lags, the ARDL model is
Table 12. Results for long-run coefficients and short-run dynamics
TIS ARDL max lag 2 exogenous Schwarz Bayesian criterion (2,0,0,0,0,0) SB - Long run C2 rgdp_pc C3 trade C4 credit C5 cpir C6 popr

tis_90_95

.0047820 sig5

no no

-.041226 sig10

no no

no no

Note: sig1: 1%, sig2: 2%, sig5: 5% and sig10: 10% significance

The effect of the growth on the lower part of the high income class is positive and statistically significant. This is consistent with the estimations of the Atkinson index with low inequality aversion parameters (e=0,5) which is sensitive with transfers in the upper part of the distribution.

Supplementary econometric approach: VAR and VECM This section describes the cointegration method in a Vector Autoregression (VAR) framework. The aim is to control the robustness of the results of the ARDL approach. The mathematical representation of a VAR is:

where is a k vector of endogenous variables, is a d vector of exogenous variables and B are matrices of coefficients to be estimated, and is a vector of innovations that may be contemporaneously correlated but are uncorrelated with their own lagged values and uncorrelated with all with all of the right-hand side variables. In order to proceed to cointegration analysis two assumptions are to be fulfilled - The variables are non-stationary - The variables are integrated in the same order Engel and Granger (1987) pointed out that a linear combination of two or more nonstationary series may be stationary. If such a stationary linear combination exists, the non-stationary series are said to be cointegrated. The stationary linear combination is called the cointegrated equation and may be interpreted as a long-run equilibrium relationship among the variables. Two common tests for the identification of a long-run relationship is the EngelGranger residual based test and the Johansen-Juselius test. Engel and Granger (1987) identify that the cointegrated variables must have an Error Correction Model (ECM) representation. In this study, the cointegration analysis according to Johansen (1991) (1995) is applied.

17

The typical VAR can be rewritten as

Where

Grangers representation theorem asserts that if the coefficient matrix has a reduced rank r<k, then there exist k x r matrices and each with rank such that = and is I(0). R is the number of cointegrating relations (the cointegrating rank) and each column of is the cointegrating vector. Johansens method is to estimate the matrix from an unrestricted VAR and to test whether the restrictions implied by the reduced rank of can be rejected. When the cointegration is detected then it is appropriate to estimate a Vector Error Correction Model (VECM) and not the unrestricted VAR. A VECM is a restricted VAR. The VECM has cointegration relations built into the specification so that it restricts the long-run behavior of the endogenous variables to converge to their cointegrating relationships while allowing for short-run adjustment dynamics. The cointegration term is known as the error correction term since the deviation from long-run equilibrium is corrected gradually through a series of partial short-run adjustments. The first step to VAR-approach of cointegration analysis is to detect whether the variables are stationary or not. In the previous section using ADF and PP tests the variables were shown to be integrated of order I(1), that is non stationary at level and stationary at first differences. The Johansen test for cointegration was applied for the variables that were found to have a long-run relationship with the ARDL approach. - Proxy of Income inequality: Top Income Share 1% (tis_01) - Proxy of Growth: Real GDP per capita growth rate (rgdp_pc_r)9 - Proxy of Trade: Imports and exports as % of GDP (trade) - Proxy of Inflation: CPI rate (cpi_r) The results of Johansen tests are illustrated in the following tables. It is noted that the model does not include intercept or trend and the lag interval is 1.

In ARDL approach this proxy was real GDP per capita

18

Table 13. Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Trace) Hypothesized No. of CE(s) None * At most 1 At most 2 At most 3 Trace Statistic 53.66299 8.381636 2.159334 0.077925 0.05 Critical Value 40.17493 24.27596 12.32090 4.129906

Eigenvalue 0.610683 0.121581 0.042436 0.001622

Prob.** 0.0013 0.9371 0.9376 0.8188

Table 14. Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Maximum Eigenvalue) Hypothesized No. of CE(s) None * At most 1 At most 2 At most 3 Max-Eigen Statistic 45.28135 6.222303 2.081409 0.077925 0.05 Critical Value 24.15921 17.79730 11.22480 4.129906

Eigenvalue 0.610683 0.121581 0.042436 0.001622

Prob.** 0.0000 0.8799 0.9139 0.8188

The empirical results indicate that one cointegration equation exists. This is an evidence of long-run relationship between aggregate income inequality, growth, trade and inflation in Greece during the investigated period. Having detected cointegration for the variables we proceed to the estimation of the restricted VAR, that is the estimation of Vector Error Correction Model. The estimated long-run function is reported below.
Table 15. Long-run estimates of the VAR model Income inequality Growth Trade tis_01 rgdp_pc_r (import+export) % GDP -0.735910 -0.059285 (0.04606) (0.00805) [-15.9777] [-7.36595]

Variable Proxy Estimate SE t-statistic

Inflation cpi_r -0.051437 (0.02520) [-2.04077]

19

The VECM is presented in the following table


Table 16. VECM estimates of the VAR model (Dependent: d(tis_01)) ECM D(TIS_01(-1)) D(RGDP_PC_R(-1)) D(TRADE(-1)) D(CPI_R(-1)) Coefficient -0.064846 0.369398 -0.025430 -0.001098 -0.020446 Std. Error 0.027889 0.133822 0.013771 0.011198 0.010857 t-Statistic -2.325119 2.760375 -1.846620 -0.098019 -1.883184 Prob. 0.0249 0.0085 0.0717 0.9224 0.0665

The diagnostic tests for the VECM are included in the following table
Table 17. Diagnostic tests for VECM R-square 0.216492 Jarque-Bera 3.966050 Probability Durbin-Watson 2.033106 Breusch-Godfrey 2.962735 Prob. Chi-Square(2) ARCH Test 0.265023 Prob. Chi-Square(1) White Test 10.27782 Prob. Chi-Square(16)

Fitting Normality Autocorrelation Heteroscedasticity

0.137652 0.227327 0.606690 0.851723

Table 16 presents the short-run dynamic adjustment of all the variables. The significant and negative error correction term (ECM) is an indication of the existence of stable long-run relationship between the variables. The feedback coefficient shows that 6,5% of disequilibrium on average is corrected in the next years. The diagnostic tests for the VECM are presented in table 17. The JarqueBera test indicates normal distribution of the residuals while the model does not suffer from autocorrelation. Moreover, there is no evidence of heteroscedasticity. Nevertheless, the value of r-square is not very high. The long-run estimates indicate that the 1 % top income share is related with negative sign with all the independent variables, that is growth, trade and inflation. In all cases the coefficients are statistically significant. These results are consistent to a significant degree with the results of the ARDL approach. In the ARDL framework the 1% top income share is associated with these independent variables (growth, trade, inflation) in the long-run. The ECM term of the short-run dynamics is also statistically significant. Both growth and inflation are associated negatively with income inequality. The only difference in the ARDL approach is that trade imposes positive effect on the 1 % top income share.

7. Conclusions The goal of the paper is the examination of the relationship between income inequality and macroeconomic activity. The macroeconomic indicators of most interest are the economic growth and the openness of the economy. Other control variables such as financial development, inflation and the growth of population were incorporated in the econometric modeling.
20

This study employed the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) (or bounds testing) cointegration procedure for the empirical analysis of the long-run relationships and dynamic interacting among the variables of interest. This procedure was popularized by Pesaran and Pesaran (1997), Pesaran and Smith (1998), Pesaran and Shin (1999) and Pesaran et al (2001). This approach consists of three steps. The first step in the ARDL bounds testing approach is to examine for the existence of a long-run relationship among the variables of interest by conducting an F-test for the joint significance of the coefficients of the lagged levels of the variables. The estimated F-statistic with Wald restrictions is then compared with the critical values provided by Pesaran (2001). In the second step, once cointegration is established the appropriate ARDL long-run model is estimated. This step involves selecting the orders of the ARDL model in the variables using Schwarz Bayesian criterion. The choice of the appropriate lags according to Akaike information criterion has been, also, conducted. In the third and final step, the short-run dynamic parameters have been obtained by the estimation of an error correction model associated with the long-run estimates. The empirical findings for the relationship of income inequality and macroeconomic activity suggest the following. Income inequality (estimated applying 1% top income share as a proxy) is the dependent variable. Growth seems to relate with income inequality. The real GDP per capita has an impact on the long term and the relationship is negative. A significant impact, also, yields the openness of economy. Trade as a percentage of GDP influences positively top income shares. Like the two previous independent variables, inflation, expressed as the growth rate of CPI, is statistical significant and it yields negative sign. On the contrary the pattern of financial development (domestic credit to private sector as percentage of GDP) and population (growth rate of population) does not affect income inequality in the long run; their coefficients do not differ statistically from zero. The coefficient of ECM is statistically significant at 1% level and yields the correct sign. This is important because in a different case there would not be an adjustment back to the long-run equilibrium after a short-run shock. The equilibrium correction coefficient implies a significant speed of adjustment to equilibrium after a shock. Approximately 25% of disequilibria from the previous years shock converge back to the long-run equilibrium in the current year. The impact of the movements of growth, openness and inflation is significant in the short term as well. The signs of the shortrun dynamic impacts are similar to the corresponding ones of the long-run equilibrium. Once again, the movements of financial development and population do not affect income inequality. The VAR-approach of cointegration analysis (Johansen test) was implemented as a supplementary econometric methodology to control the robustness of the results. The Johansen test for cointegration was applied for the variables that were found to have a long-run relationship with the ARDL approach: 1% Top Income Share, real GDP per capita growth rate10, the sum of imports and exports as a percentage of GDP and CPI
10

In ARDL approach this proxy was real GDP per capita

21

rate. The empirical findings are consistent to a significant degree with the results of the ARDL approach. The Johansen test indicates one cointegration relationship for all four variables (1% tis, growth, trade, inflation) similarly to the ARDL framework in the long-run. The ECM term of the short-run dynamics is also statistically significant. Both growth and inflation are associated negatively with income inequality. The only difference in the ARDL approach is that trade imposes positive effect on the 1 % top income share. The ARDL approach for cointegration was applied for alternative inequality measures. The aim was to verify if the empirical findings hold for other proxies of income inequality. The ARDL procedure was tested with three top income shares (0,01%, 2,5% and 10%) and with three aggregate income inequality measures (Gini and Atkinson with risk aversion parameter of 0,5 and 1,5). Gini coefficient is more sensitive in transfers around median. A low value of inequality aversion parameter e is used when there is sensitivity to changes at the top end of distribution and a high value is employed when there is sensitivity for the transfers at the low end of the distribution. The empirical findings in the long-run equilibrium suggest that growth is negatively associated with the very upper income shares (0,01%, 1% and 2,5%) but no with top 10%. Moreover, growth imposes a positive effect on Atkinson (0,5) index, a negative effect on Atkinson (1,5) index while is not significant for the Gini coefficient. There are two explanations for these results; the fist has to do with the underlying properties of the indices and the second with the certain limitations of tax data for measuring inequality in all distribution, since tax data are truncated below a threshold level of income. Moreover, the evidence indicate that the lower part of the very high income class (tis_90_95) is related positively with growth. Therefore, growth influences in different patterns the various parts of the income distribution. The very top parts are affected negatively, while the lower parts of high income class and upper parts of middle class are related positively with economic growth. On the contrary, it seems to exist a negative relationship with lower sectors of the distribution. Growth does not seem to pose an impact on the Gini coefficient, which is more sensitive in transfers around median, implying that the inequality is unaffected for the main parts of the middle class. It should be noted that the conclusions for the specific parts of the income distribution are derived according to the properties of the aggregate inequality indices since there are no estimations for the actual shares of income; therefore these limitations should be taken into consideration. These results are partly consistent with the findings of Voitchovsky (2005) who has found evidence that while top-end inequality is positively associated with growth, bottom-end inequality may be negatively related to growth. The effects of openness of economy in the long-run are clearer. In almost all cases the impact is positive; except in 10% upper share and Atkinson (1,5) where the long-run relationship does not seem to hold. The results are similar to the findings of Bergh and Nilsson (2010), Barro (2000), Hurrell and Woods (2000) and Carter (2007). The empirical findings for inflation suggest that income inequality is affected negatively. Almost all proxies imply this type of relationship; once again the
22

exception is the 10% top income share (no relationship) and Atkinson (1,5) (positive relationship). The results are consistent with the findings of Easterly and Fisher (2001) and Beck et al. (2007). The empirical results for financial development and population are contradictory. The main proxy of income inequality (1% upper share) and the alternative three top income shares does not relate at the long run. Nevertheless, the aggregate income inequality measures indicate a relationship. Credit affects negatively the Gini coefficient and Atkinson (0,5) and positively the Atkinson (1,5). The effect is reverse for the population; positive impact for the Gini coefficient and Atkinson (0,5) and negative for the Atkinson (1,5) index.

23

References
Aghion, P., Caroli, E., and Garcia-Penalosa, C., (1999), Inequality and economic growth: the perspective of the new growth theories, Journal of Economic Literature 37, 1615 -1660. Alesina, A., Rodrik, D., (1994), Distributive politics and economic growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics 109, 465-490. Andrews, D., Jenks, C., and Leigh, A., (2009), Do rising top incomes lift all boats?, Harvard Kennedy School, Research Working Paper 09-018. Ang, J.B., (2010), Finance and inequality: the case of India, Southern Economic Journal 76, 738761. Banerjee, A., Dolado, J., Galbraith, J.W., and Hendry, D.F. (1993), Co -integration, error correction and the econometric analysis of non-stationary data, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Barro, R.J., (2000), Inequality and growth in a panel of countries, Journal of Economic Growth 8, 267-299. Beck, T., Demirg-Kunt, A., Levine, R., (2007), Finance, inequality and the poor, Journal of Economic Growth 12, 2749. Benabou, R., (1996), Inequality and Growth, NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 1173. Bergh, A., and Nilsson, T., (2010), Do liberalization and globalization increase income inequality? European Journal of Political Economy 26, 488 -505. Bourguignon, F., (1981), Pareto superiority of unegalitarian equilibria in Stiglitz model of wealth distribution with convex saving function, Econometrica 49, 1469 -1475. Brown, R. L., J. Durbin, and J. M. Evans (1975), Techniques for Testing the Constancy of Regression Relationships Over Time, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 37, 149192. Carter, J.R., (2007), An empirical note on economic freedom and income inequality, Public Choice 130, 163-177. Chrissis, K. and Livada, A., (2012), Income inequality measurement in Greece and alternative data sources: 1957-2009, Technical Report 262, Department of Statistics, Athens University of Economic and Business. Chrissis, K., Livada, A. and Tsakloglou, P., (2011), Top Income Shares in Greece: 19572009, Technical Report 256, Department of Statistics, Athens University of Economic and Business. Clarke, G., Xu, L.C., Zou, H.f., (2006), Finance and income inequality: what do the data tell us? Southern Economic Journal 72, 578596. Cutler, D.M., Katz, L., (1991), Macroeconomic performance and the disadvantaged, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2, 1 61. Deininger, K. and Squire, L., (1996), A new data set measuring income inequality, World Bank Economic Review 10 (3): 565-591. Dickey, D.A. and W.A. Fuller (1979). Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 427431. Dobson, S. and Ramlogan, C., (2009), Is there an openness Kuznets curve?, Kyklos 62, 226 238. Easterly, W., Fischer, S., (2001), Inflation and the poor, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 33, 160178. Engel, R.F. and Granger, C.W., (1987), Co -integration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing, Econometrica 55:2, 251 -276. Forbes, K., (2000), A reassessment of the relationship between inequality and growth, The American Economic Review 90, 869-887. Frank, M.W., (2009), Inequality and growth in the United State: evidence from a new state level panel of income inequality measures. Economic Inquiry 47, 55-68. Glomm, G., and Kaganovich., M., (2008), Social security, public education and the growth inequality relationship, European Economic Review 52, 1009 -1034. Hurrell, A., Woods, N., (2000), Globalization and inequality. In: Higgott, R. (Ed.), The New Political Economy of Globalization. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

24

Jalil, A., (2012), Modeling income inequality and openness in the framework of Kuznets curve: New evidence from China, Economic Modelling 29, 309 -315. Johansen, S., (1991), Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Cointegration Vectors in Gaussian Vector Autoregressive Models, Econometrica, 59, 15511580. Johansen, S., (1995), Likelihood-based Inference in Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive Models, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kaldor, N., (1956), Alternative theories of distribution, The Review of Economic Studies 23, 83-100. Kuznets, S., (1953), Shares of Upper Income Groups in Income and Savings , National Bureau of Economic Research. Kuznets, S., (1955), Economic growth and income inequality, American Economic Review 45, 1-28. Lee, J, (2010), Inequality in the globalizing Asia, Applied Economics 42, 2975 -2984 Li, H., and Zou, H., (1998), Income inequality is not harmful for growth: theory and evidence, Review of Development Economics 2, 318-334. Panizza, U., (2002). Income inequality and economic growth: Evidence from American data, Journal of economic growth, 7, 25-41. Park, W., and Brat, D., (1995), A global Kuznets curve?, Kyklos 48, 105 -131. Perotti, R., (1996), Growth, Income Distribution, and Democracy: What the Data Say, Journal of Economic Growth 1, 149187. Persson, T., and Tabellini, G.E., (1994), Is inequality harmful for growth? Theory and Evidence, The American Economic Review 84, 600 -621. Pesaran, M.H. and Smith, R.J., (1998), Structural analysis of cointegrating VARs, Journal of Economic Survey 12, 471-505. Pesaran, M.H., and Pesaran, B., (1997), Working with Microfit 4.0: interactive econometric analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Pesaran, M.H., and Shin, Y., (1999), An autoregressive distributed lag modeling approach to cointegration analysis, in: Strom, S. (ed.), Econometrics and Economic Theory in 20 th century: the Ragnar Frisch Centennial Symposium, Chapter 11. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pesaran, M.h., Shin, Y., and Smith, R.J., (2001), Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships, Journal of Applied Econometrics 16, 289 -326. Phillips, P.C.B. and P. Perron (1988) , Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression, Biometrika, 75, 335346. Piketty, T., (2001), Les hauts revenus en France au 20me sicle. Ingalits et redistributions, 1901-1998, Editions Grasset. Quah, D., (2001), Some simple arithmetic on how income inequality and economic growth matter, LSE Economics Working Paper. Ram, R., (1989), Level of development and income inequality: an extension of Kuznets Hypothesis to the world economy, Kyklos 42, 73 -88. Roine, J, Vlachos, J., and Waldenstrom, D., (2007), What determines top income shares? Evidence from the twentieth century, Working Paper 721, Research Institute of Industrial Economics. Voitchovsky, S., (2005), Does the profile of income inequality matter for economic growth?: Distinguishing between the effects of inequality in different parts of the income distribution, Journal of Economic Growth, 10, 273-96.

25