Blog Post

EU income inequality decline: Views from an income shares perspective

Over the past decade, the income share of low earners has increased in the EU while that of top earners has slightly declined. Although the upward convergence of the impoverished central European population is impressive, the southern European poor have faced a major setback while the southern European rich have hardly suffered.

By: Date: July 5, 2018 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

In a recent blog post, I showed that the EU-wide Gini coefficient of income inequality hit an almost three decade low in 2016. The large decline in 2016 was driven by both income convergence across countries and reductions in within-country income inequalities. Following a few commentators’ requests for a more granular analysis, I will provide more scrutiny on this situation by looking at income share developments.

Figure 1 shows that the poorest 20% of the European population received 5% of total income in 2007 – a share which has gradually increased to 6% by 2016. This indicates that income inequality is substantial as the proportion of total income is well below the weight of the population segment. However, its developments over the past decade show that the bottom earning population is catching up. The second poorest 20% group – those who belong to the poorest 20% to 40% segment in the income distribution spectrum – have also benefitted from an increase in their income share form 11.7% in 2007 to 12.3% in 2016.

In contrast, the richest 5% of EU citizens – those who held 16.3% of total household income in the EU in 2007 (and even 16.7% in 2008) – saw a slight erosion to their income share to 15.7% in 2016. The second richest 5% segment also faced some, albeit minor, decline in their income share from 2007-2016. Thereby, on average across the EU, the low earners are catching up to European middle class while the high earners are slightly falling back. The decline in the EU-wide Gini coefficient is therefore driven by developments both at top and the bottom of the income distribution spectrum.

I should also add a few remarks on the data and the methodology used to analyse the income distribution situation. Country-specific data is aggregated into the EU’s distribution of income using purchasing power standards which considers price differences across countries (e.g. prices are much higher in Luxembourg than in Bulgaria, so fewer goods can be purchased with one euro in Luxembourg than in Bulgaria).

The income data was collected from the EU-SILC survey. For data on income, underreporting can always be a big hindrance to accurate information. Indeed, it is a reality that, for example, some cleaning ladies, construction workers, lawyers, doctors, etc. do not always declare their total income. Moreover, there are cases of high earners using tax havens to hide and increase their income and wealth. Such underreporting distorts information on the level of income distribution. Unfortunately I cannot accurately assess the importance of this distortion, yet I highlight that it influences my results on the changes in income inequality only if underreporting changes too.

The EU-distribution of income depends both on within-county inequalities and between-country inequalities. Changes to between-country inequalities result from a rise (e.g. Poland) or fall (e.g. Greece) in economic health and performance. For example, the average income in Poland is well below the EU’s average. If the average Polish income increases, then the EU-wide income inequality declines as the income gap between people living in poorer and richer countries decreases.

In order to see within-country inequality developments, the charts in the annex show the same income share data for each EU country. Among the current 27 EU countries for which data is available from 2007 to 2016, the income share of the poorest 20% declined in 17 countries, remained practically unchanged in five, and increased in another five. Thus, in most EU countries the relative income position of the lowest earners has deteriorated overall in 2007-16, though developments in 2015-16 are more favourable for the poor. The share of the top 5% declined in 2007-16 in 14 countries, remained practically unchanged in two, and increased in 11.  As the numbers highlight, the country-specific results for top earners are more mixed.

The impact of convergence/divergence of countries, which influences between-country inequalities, is illustrated in Figure 2. It shows the 2007 and 2016 country-composition of the EU-wide income distribution by income deciles. Income deciles are derived by ranking all people according to their income and subsequently dividing them into ten equal groups. The lowest decile includes the lowest earners, while the 10th decile is made up out of the highest earners.

In 2007, almost one-third of the poorest 10% of EU citizens were from Romania and almost one-quarter from Poland. Altogether, in 2007, the ten central and eastern European countries accounted for 75% of the poorest 10% of EU population. The remarkable convergence of these countries is visible by comparing the two panels: their share in the lowest EU income decile declined from 75% in 2007 to 54% in 2016. This is still a large share and central Europeans hardly enter the lucky club of the richest 10% of EU citizens, but the direction of change is encouraging.

The progress of central Europeans away from the poorest deciles implies, by definition, that citizens of other countries have entered the bottom deciles. In simplified terms, if some people move up in a ranking, others must move down. The benign way such changes in relative income positions occurs when only upward convergence happens as the absolute income of people in other countries does not fall. In such a case, citizens of other countries slip into the poorest decile not because their living standards have fallen but because the living standards of central Europeans has increased. We can observe such slipping back in most northern and western EU countries.

But southern Europeans have taken an economic hit which has seriously pushed them back on the income distribution ladder. For example, Italy accounted for 4.8% of the poorest EU decile and 8.4% of the second poorest EU decile in 2007; however, by 2016, Italy’s share in these two poorest deciles had increased to 10.8% and 13.5% respectively. In terms of number of people, 6.4 million Italians belonged to the two poorest EU deciles in 2007 with their number increasing to 12.1 million by 2016. Yet the burden has not fallen equally on every shoulder in Italy or, for that matter, in Spain. Italy’s share in the richest EU decile was 11.8% in 2007 (5.9 million people) and has only marginally fallen to 10.8% in 2016 (5.5 million people). Spanish developments are even more striking. Indeed, while there was a large increase of Spaniards belonging to the two lowest EU income deciles, the share of Spain in the richest EU income decile has in fact increased from 2007 to 2016.

In sum, the wealthy Italian and Spanish lost very little (perhaps even increased their income) while lower earning Italians and Spaniards have lost a great deal.

The setback in Greece was more uniform because both the poor and the rich have fallen back. The number of Greeks in the two lowest EU income deciles increased significantly from 2.2 million to 5.7 million from 2007-16. All the while, the number of Greeks belonging to the richest 10% of EU population fell from 660 to 110 thousand.

Therefore, the overall decline in EU-wide income inequality is a welcome development, which partly reflects the progress of the poorest people in Central and Eastern Europe. That being said, the poorer southern Europeans faced a major setback, while richer Italians and Spaniards hardly suffered.

Annex: Country-specific income share developments

 


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

The Sound of Economics Live: Rebooting Europe - a framework for post COVID-19 economic recovery

Mapping out the post COVID-19 recovery.

Speakers: Maria Demertzis, Giuseppe Porcaro, Simone Tagliapietra and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: May 15, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Democracy in the times of COVID-19 with Věra Jourová

How can Europe uphold its democratic values while fighting COVID-19?

Speakers: Sam Fleming, Věra Jourová and Michael Leigh Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: May 14, 2020
Read article Download PDF
 

Policy Brief

Rebooting Europe: a framework for a post COVID-19 economic recovery

COVID-19 has triggered a severe recession and policymakers in European Union countries are providing generous, largely indiscriminate, support to companies. As the recession gets deeper, a more comprehensive strategy is needed. This should be based on four principles: viability of supported entities, fairness, achieving societal goals, and giving society a share in future profits. The effort should be structured around equity and recovery funds with borrowing at EU level.

By: Julia Anderson, Simone Tagliapietra and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 13, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

Risking their health to pay the bills: 100 million Europeans cannot afford two months without income

Nearly 100 million people in 21 EU countries do not have enough savings in their bank accounts to meet two months of basic expenses: food, utilities, rent or mortgage. Those born outside the EU are especially at risk. Government support is thus fundamental to help individuals withstand the COVID-19 crisis.

By: Catarina Midões Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 7, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

EU trade in medical goods: why self-sufficiency is the wrong approach

As countries are struggling with the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages in medical equipment led to EU export controls and war-time like procurement of respirators. While the crisis is still unfolding, there is a debate on whether the EU is too reliant on global value chains for medical goods. Looking at the world market of medical goods for the EU, we argue that self-sufficiency is the wrong approach. Global medical markets are to the benefits of the EU and stockpiling and preparation are more effective in preparing for emergencies.

By: Sybrand Brekelmans and Niclas Poitiers Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 14, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

COVID-19: The self-employed are hardest hit and least supported

Self-employed workers are hardest-hit by COVID-19 lockdowns. Yet they often receive less government support than salaried employees. Is the disparity justified?

By: Julia Anderson Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 8, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

How COVID-19 is laying bare inequality

COVID-19 is laying bare socio-economic inequalities and could exacerbate them in the near future. The virus is a risk factor particularly for those at the lower end of the income distribution, who are vulnerable to the interaction of the shock with income, socio-economic and urban inequalities.

By: Enrico Bergamini Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 31, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

What the EU should do and not do on trade in medical equipment

The European Union has introduced export controls on some medical supplies. This was a mistake. It should announce that it is withdrawing the measure, and call on other countries to do the same.

By: André Sapir Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 25, 2020
Read article Download PDF
 

External Publication

Analysis of developments in EU capital flows in the global context

This report presents an overview of the recent trends of capital flows, focused especially on the past year. It provides a detailed analysis at the global level and at the European Union level.

By: Grégory Claeys, Maria Demertzis, Marta Domínguez-Jiménez, Konstantinos Efstathiou and Tanja Linta Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 16, 2020
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

External Publication

The effect of digitalization in the energy consumption of passenger transport: An analysis of future scenarios for Europe

The paper evaluates the effects on energy consumption of digitalization in transport. Digitalization needs a tailored policy support to avoid higher energy consumption.

By: Simone Tagliapietra and Michel Noussan Topic: Energy & Climate Date: March 16, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Downsides to Hong Kong’s untargeted cash handout

The stimulus is regressive in nature, as the bulk of expenditure is a one-off cash disbursement per adult

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 4, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

What is fuelling the Dutch house price boom?

Housing prices have been rising fast in the West of the Netherlands in the last five years. However, mortgages outstanding have remained flat, raising the question of what has driven the increase. Evidence suggests that housing supply constraints have, this time around, played a role in pushing the house prices up.

By: Sybrand Brekelmans Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 19, 2020
Load more posts