## Inequality: Tools from the Old Masters to Help Today’s Policymakers

_IMF Blog, October 3, 2017_

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Inequality: Tools from the Old Masters to Help Today’s Policymakers](https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2017/10/03/inequality-tools-from-the-old-masters-to-help-todays-policymakers)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/en/blogs/articles/2017/10/03/inequality-tools-from-the-old-masters-to-help-todays-policymakers/index.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/en/blogs/articles/2017/10/03/inequality-tools-from-the-old-masters-to-help-todays-policymakers/index.json)
- [Bundle manifest](/en/blogs/articles/2017/10/03/inequality-tools-from-the-old-masters-to-help-todays-policymakers/bundle-manifest.json)

## Bibliographic details
- Authors: Vitor Gaspar, Paolo Mauro, Tigran Poghosyan
- Published: October 3, 2017

---

### Overview
- Authors: Vitor Gaspar, Paolo Mauro, Tigran Poghosyan
- Publication date: October 3, 2017
- Core message: Tools developed by economists such as Arthur Pigou and Anthony Atkinson combine a country’s total income and its distribution into single measures of economic welfare; these tools are well known in academia but underutilized in policymaking and can help weigh equity and efficiency when designing fiscal policy.

### Measurement approach: Atkinson’s welfare measure
- Atkinson’s measure expresses welfare in a country’s currency and combines total income and income distribution into one summary metric.
- The measure involves explicitly weighing equity and efficiency trade-offs determined by policy choices and by the observer’s degree of aversion to inequality.
- Illustrative two-person example (used to explain the concept):
  - Rich individual income: $250,000 a year
  - Poor individual income: $10,000 a year
  - Total income: $260,000
  - Equalized income alternative (from the perspective of an external observer who strongly dislikes inequality): $20,000 for each person
  - Efficiency loss tolerated to attain equality in that example: $220,000
  - From that observer’s perspective, $20,000 is the summary measure of welfare for that two-person society.
- Analytical procedure used in the paper:
  - The authors compute Atkinson welfare for all countries, repeating the exercise for different degrees of aversion to inequality.
  - When comparing countries, the same degree of aversion to inequality is applied to all countries so they are evaluated using a common standard.
  - The paper’s figure positions countries by mean income (horizontal axis) and Atkinson welfare (vertical axis); the distance below a dotted line captures the effect of inequality on welfare for each country.
  - The figure can be viewed for different aversions to inequality; the first screen shows results for a high aversion to inequality and readers can view results for a lower aversion by selecting other tabs.

### Key empirical findings and cross-country comparisons
- General pattern:
  - Richer countries tend to enjoy greater Atkinson welfare, but inequality materially affects welfare rankings.
  - For a given level of income, Atkinson’s welfare is lower the more the external observer dislikes inequality.
- Specific comparisons highlighted:
  - South Africa vs Kyrgyz Republic and Albania:
    - South Africa’s mean income is more than double that of the Kyrgyz Republic, and substantially above that of Albania.
    - However, inequality is higher in South Africa.
    - A highly inequality-averse external observer would judge welfare to be significantly higher in the Kyrgyz Republic and Albania than in South Africa.
  - United States vs Sweden and the United Kingdom:
    - Mean incomes are higher in the United States than in Sweden or the United Kingdom.
    - Inequality is higher in the United States.
    - Thus, a highly inequality-averse observer would consider welfare to be higher in Sweden and the United Kingdom than in the United States.

### Policy implications and recommendations
- Policymakers should use combined measures of income and distribution (such as Atkinson’s measure) to assess the welfare impact of fiscal policy, explicitly accounting for equity–efficiency trade-offs.
- Applying a common degree of aversion to inequality across countries allows consistent cross-country welfare comparisons and better-informed policy choices.
- Tools that express welfare in currency units (like Atkinson’s) make trade-offs between equality and efficiency tangible and actionable for fiscal policy design.
- Given rising inequality and growing public concern about its social and economic impacts, fiscal policy analysis should incorporate these welfare measures to help make growth more inclusive.

### Upcoming related publication
- The authors note that new data and analysis on how fiscal policy can help reduce inequality will be published in the Fiscal Monitor on October 11.

*Source: IMF blog post “Inequality: Tools from the Old Masters to Help Today’s Policymakers,” October 3, 2017.*

---


## References

- [https://www.imf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BLOG-1024x600-South-Africa-man-sitting-on-side-walk-Rogan-Ward-Newscom-rtrleight920132.jpg](https://www.imf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BLOG-1024x600-South-Africa-man-sitting-on-side-walk-Rogan-Ward-Newscom-rtrleight920132.jpg)
- [paper](http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2017/10/03/Lessons-from-the-Old-Masters-on-Assessing-Equity-and-Efficiency-A-Primer-for-Fiscal-45289)

_Source: https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2017/10/03/inequality-tools-from-the-old-masters-to-help-todays-policymakers_