Paper detail

Rawls' Fairness, Income Distribution and Alarming Level of Gini Coefficient

The argument that the alarming level of Gini coefficient is 0.4 is very popular, especially in the media industry, all around the world for a long time. Although the 0.4 standard is widely accepted, the derivation of the value lacks rigid theoretical foundations. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, it is not based on any prevalent and convincing economic theories. In this paper, we incorporate Rawls' principle of fair equality of opportunity into Arrow-Debreu's framework of general equilibrium theory with heterogeneous agents, and derive the alarming level of Gini coefficient formally. Our theory reveals that the exponential distribution of income not only satisfies Pareto optimality, but also obeys social fairness in Rawls' sense. Therefore, we specify the maximal value of the Gini coefficient when income follows exponential distribution as a possible alarming level. Our computations show that the alarming level should be specified at least equal or larger than 0.5 rather than 0.4. We empirically investigate if our model receives support from a large data set of all kinds of countries all over the world from Word Bank in 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 using the distribution fitting and statistical decision methodology. The results suggest that the value of 0.4 is around the mean of the Gini coefficients, corresponding to the most probable event in a peaceful world, rather than the alarming level, while the two-sigma rule shows that in our sample the alarming levels are all larger than 0.5, conforming to the predictions of our theory.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.