Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 58 references

A World of Ginis

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Income Ginis run 4.7 points higher than consumption Ginis worldwide, the gap has widened since 2000, and most cross-database disagreement comes from more databases, not older ones drifting apart.

desk verdict Solid measurement paper: real scale, clean proliferation-vs-drift result, and usable gap magnitudes—with one oversold step from association to transferable correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24175 v1 pith:ILKHSAQQ submitted 2026-07-27 econ.GN q-fin.ECstat.AP

Lidia Ceriani , Paolo Verme This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.GNq-fin.ECstat.AP
keywords Ginicoefficientwelfaremeasurementcross-countrycomparabilityinequalitydatabasesincome–consumptiongapequivalencescalescorrectionfactorsdatabaseproliferation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper builds a single collection of more than 122,000 Gini observations from thirteen global and regional databases covering 222 countries from 1867 to 2024, then measures why the same country-year can look so unequal in different sources. It shows that the welfare concept is the main systematic gap: income-based Ginis average 4.7 points above consumption-based ones globally and as much as about 10 points in North America, with the premium larger in poorer places and larger after 2000 than before. Gross versus net income and equivalence-scale choices add further, smaller but reliable differences. The authors turn those regularities into region- and income-group correction factors so researchers can put mixed Ginis on a more comparable footing. They also show that the modest rise in cross-database range since 1960 is mostly the mechanical effect of more databases covering each country-year, not long-standing sources becoming less consistent with each other. The practical message is that better global inequality work is possible if administrators disclose full construction details and users stick to, or explicitly correct for, comparable welfare measures.

What carries the argument

A unified dataset of 122,351 Gini observations with harmonised welfare-concept and equivalence-scale labels, analysed by within-country-year ranges, pairwise concordance, matched income–consumption gaps, and a two-way fixed-effects regression of Gini on welfare concept and scale (equation 2), then condensed into the region- and income-group correction factors in Table 9.

What would settle it

Re-estimate the country-year fixed-effects welfare premia on primary microdata only (same survey, deliberately recomputed under income vs consumption and net vs gross) for a large set of countries spanning pre- and post-2000; if those primary-only premia are near zero, unstable, or far from Table 8/9, the transferable correction-factor claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Pooling thirteen databases into one unified file, the authors find that income-based Ginis exceed consumption-based ones by 4.7 Gini points on average (up to +10.2 in North America), that the gross-income premium over consumption rose from about 3.7 to 6.2 points between pre- and post-2000 samples, and that the modest post-1960 rise in within-country-year cross-database range (about +0.03 points per year) is driven by database proliferation rather than genuine divergence among long-running pairs. From matched pairs and country-year fixed-effects regressions they supply practical correction factors by region, income group, and welfare concept so mixed Ginis can be harmonised rather than naive

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats the welfare-concept and scale labels reconstructed mainly from secondary compilations as good enough markers of the same measurement contrast within a country-year that the estimated premia can be used as transferable correction factors for other sources and periods.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cross-country or panel studies that mix income and consumption Ginis without adjustment will systematically bias levels and development gradients, especially when comparing the Global North to the Global South.
  • Constant historical correction factors are unsafe: users should prefer period-specific (pre/post-2000) adjustments when series span both eras.
  • Trend comparisons and splices across databases are unreliable even when levels correlate highly; direction-of-change agreement is often only moderate and weakest for series built on different concepts.
  • National-accounts-anchored (DINA-style) series should not be pooled with survey-based Ginis without explicit separation, because levels and revision dynamics differ sharply.
  • Database publishers can shrink future discordance by shipping machine-readable metadata on welfare concept, income type, scale, coverage, and top/bottom treatment, plus versioned citable releases.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Many published growth–inequality and globalisation–inequality results that pooled secondary Ginis without concept controls may partly reflect measurement mix rather than true distributional change; re-running flagship panels with Table 9 adjustments is a direct stress test.
  • The rising income–consumption premium after 2000 is consistent with thicker top tails in income that consumption surveys still miss, so top-income corrections and welfare-concept corrections are complementary rather than substitutes.
  • Funders and SDG monitoring that treat any published Gini as interchangeable will overstate precision on inequality targets unless they require a single welfare concept or published corrections.
  • A living public registry that stores each database vintage with concept tags would turn the paper’s one-off unified file into ongoing infrastructure for reproducible inequality research.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper assembles a unified dataset of 122,351 Gini observations from thirteen global and regional databases (222 countries, 1867–2024), documents their genealogical dependencies, and quantifies cross-database disagreement using four complementary designs: within-country-year ranges, pairwise concordance matrices, matched income–consumption OLS, and a two-way fixed-effects regression on welfare-concept and equivalence-scale labels. Headline results: income-based Ginis exceed consumption-based ones by 4.7 points on average (up to +10.2 in North America); the gross-income premium rose from +3.7 to +6.2 post-2000; aggregate cross-database range has grown only modestly (+0.033 pp/yr since 1960) and the growth is attributed to database proliferation rather than genuine divergence among long-standing pairs; and Table 9 consolidates region- and income-group "correction factors" for harmonising Ginis across welfare concepts. The authors are commendably explicit about limitations: non-independence of secondary databases, exclusion of WID from the core regressions, the concentration of identifying variation in WIID/ATG, and the time-varying nature of the premia.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful and largely novel contribution to the measurement of global inequality: (i) the largest consolidated Gini collection to date, with documented genealogies and vintages; (ii) the first systematic decomposition of the cross-database divergence trend into proliferation vs. genuine within-pair drift, which overturns the naïve reading of the aggregate trend; (iii) quantified welfare-concept and equivalence-scale premia by region and income group, with an explicit demonstration that they are time-varying; and (iv) machine-readable harmonisation code and replication scripts, which the field needs. The correction factors are practically valuable as expected between-source differentials. The paper's policy-relevant upshot — that pooling Ginis across welfare concepts materially biases cross-country comparisons and that the bias is drifting — is important for the large empirical literature that treats database choice as innocuous. The findings are associations rather than causal concept effects, and the practical payoff of Table 9 depends on how honestly that distinction is carried into the advertised use; this is currently the weakest point of anotherwise

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.5, Table 9 Panel C vs. §5.4 caveat 1] The paper's identification is internally honest but its advertised use is not. §5.4 (first caveat) states that, because identifying variation comes almost entirely from WIID/ATG within-country-year contrasts, the coefficients in Eq. (2)/Table 8 'should be read as the average difference between Ginis carrying different concept labels within a country-year, not as the effect of changing the welfare concept while holding the underlying data source fixed.' Yet §5.5 describes Panel C of Table 9 as 'the most directly applicable when the goal is to translate a Gini computed under one methodological convention into the value it would take under another, holding the underlying distribution fixed.' These two statements cannot both hold. Within a country-year, the income and consumption Ginis being differenced almost always come from different surveys, fielded by different agencies, with different
  2. [§5.1, Figure 9 Panel (a)] The balanced-pair analysis concludes that long-standing databases have 'maintained or improved their internal consistency,' and the text calls this 'a reassuring finding about database quality.' But the three pairs examined (SWIID–WIID, SWIID–PIP, WIID–PIP) are genealogically dependent by construction: SWIID is model-imputed from WIID and LIS (Section 2.1), and WIID and ATG draw on overlapping primary sources (Figure 2). A stable or declining MAD between SWIID and WIID is therefore partly mechanical — it reflects the imputation model's anchoring, not independent measurement agreement. The paper acknowledges non-independence in Section 3 but does not carry it through to this conclusion. The proliferation-versus-divergence decomposition itself is sound and valuable; what needs tempering is the 'reassuring about database quality' gloss. At minimum, the authors should state that concordance
  3. [§5.1, Table 4 and Figure 8 (median-collapse rule, defined in Online Supplement §2)] Reducing each database to its median Gini per country-year is deterministic and reasonable, but it has a substantive consequence the paper does not discuss: for databases that report multiple welfare concepts for the same country-year (WIID, Eurostat's three income concepts, SWIID's market/disposable series), the median blends across concepts and thus shrinks the measured cross-database range precisely where concept heterogeneity is largest. Since §4.2 and Figure 5 show within-database concept spreads of 10–20 Gini points (Eurostat pre/post-transfer), the Table 4 ranges and the Figure 8 trend are plausibly understated and the trend slope (+0.033 pp/yr, Newey–West s.e. 0.011) could be sensitive to the collapse rule. A robustness check recomputing Tables 4 and Figure 8 with a concept-stratified collapse (e.g., one value per database-concept-country-year, or restricting to each database's f
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 9, Panel C note] The gross–net difference of +2.0 pp is computed as 5.736 − 3.698 from Table 8 but 'reported without a separate standard error.' A delta-method or linear-combination standard error is trivial to compute from the Table 8 variance-covariance matrix and should be reported, since the paper elsewhere (§5.5, recommendation 3) instructs users to propagate standard errors.
  2. [§5.4, Table 8 columns 3–4] The pre/post-2000 split is load-bearing for the 'premia are time-varying' claim but the 2000 cutoff is not motivated. A rolling-window or decade-interacted version of Eq. (2), or at least robustness to a 1995/2005 cutoff, would help; the balanced-panel check (Online Supplement §3) addresses composition but not cutoff choice.
  3. [Figure 7 caption] The SEDLAC adult-equivalence formula in the caption (A + α1K1 + α2K2)^θ is used without stating the parameter values; since the figure quantifies a 2–4 pp scale effect, the α and θ values should appear in the caption or text.
  4. [Table 6, Panel A] North America (mean gap 10.2 pp) rests on 51 matched pairs and low income on 32; these cells drive the largest correction factors in Table 9. The §5.5 caveats flag Sub-Saharan Africa (N=14) but not North America; the same small-N caution should be stated there, and in the abstract's 'as much as 10 points' phrasing.
  5. [Table 2 note] WID is excluded from Table 3 and the core regressions but included in Figures 11–13 and the Section 3 means; the exclusion logic is explained, but a one-line reminder in the Table 2 note (where WID's mean of 55.5 first appears) would prevent misreading.
  6. [§5.4, Table 8 interpretation] The phrase 'we interpret these coefficients as descriptive associations' is welcome but appears only once; given that Section 4 is titled 'Sources of Discrepancy' and uses causal-adjacent language ('contribute to explain variations in the Gini'), the associational framing should be applied consistently throughout §5.4.
  7. [Data and replication statement] Versioned DOIs are advocated in recommendation 6 and the Online Supplement documents file vintages — good practice. Consider also depositing the unified dataset itself under a DOI at submission rather than 'upon acceptance,' since the paper argues precisely that vintage stability matters for replication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical gaps and correction factors are descriptive summaries of external database contrasts, not quantities derived from themselves.

full rationale

The paper assembles 122,351 Gini observations from thirteen external databases, documents within-country-year disagreement, estimates income–consumption and gross–net differentials by OLS and two-way fixed effects (eqs. 1–2), decomposes the aggregate range trend via balanced pairs and shift-share, and tabulates those estimated differentials as practical correction factors (Table 9). None of these steps defines the target quantity in terms of a fitted parameter and then re-presents that fit as an independent prediction or first-principles result. The correction factors are explicitly period-average empirical associations with stated caveats (time-varying premia; identifying variation concentrated in secondary compilations; not the effect of changing concept holding the microdata fixed). Self-citations (e.g. Hlasny–Verme on top incomes, Ceriani et al. on imputed rent) are background literature, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes that force the headline gaps. The tension between the §5.4 identification caveat and the §5.5 advertising of Panel C as translating one convention into another ‘holding the underlying distribution fixed’ is an overclaim/correctness issue, not circularity by construction. Derivation chain is self-contained against external published sources.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Empirical measurement paper. No new physical or mathematical entities. Load-bearing choices are domain conventions about what a ‘comparable’ Gini is, how secondary metadata are coded, and which sample restrictions define the core analysis. Free parameters are the estimated premia/correction factors themselves—the objects the paper reports, not hidden tuning knobs used to force a theory.

free parameters (4)
  • Global mean income–consumption gap = +4.7 Gini points
    Primary reported average used as the headline correction; estimated from 1,124 matched country-years.
  • Region- and income-group correction factors (Table 9) = e.g. NAC +10.2; ECA +2.7; net disposable +3.7; gross +5.7 vs consumption
    Period-average matched-pair and FE coefficients offered for operational harmonisation; explicitly time-varying.
  • Aggregate divergence trend slope = +0.033 Gini points/year (NW s.e. 0.011)
    OLS slope on annual mean within-country-year range 1960–2023; used to claim modest growth.
  • Pre-2000 cutoff for period heterogeneity = 2000
    Hand-chosen split year for Table 8 columns 3–4; results are somewhat sensitive to era definition though balanced-panel check is reassuring.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gini observations carrying different disclosed welfare-concept and equivalence-scale labels within the same country-year identify meaningful measurement contrasts after country and year fixed effects.
    Identification strategy for equation (2) / Table 8; authors note identifying variation is almost entirely from WIID and ATG.
  • domain assumption Secondary-database observations can be used for within-country-year comparisons if SEs are clustered by country and SWIID imputation is checked by exclusion; full independence is not required.
    Section 3 genealogy and Section 5.4 caveats; non-independence is acknowledged rather than ignored.
  • ad hoc to paper Core sample = nationally representative, total-population observations; WID excluded from concept/scale regressions for lack of machine-readable metadata.
    Section 5 sample definition; makes estimated premia conservative relative to full cross-database divergence.
  • domain assumption Consumption and expenditure may be treated interchangeably as in the source databases.
    Footnote 1; standard in the reviewed databases but collapses a real conceptual distinction.
  • ad hoc to paper Median Gini per database-country-year is the right collapse when a source reports multiple concepts.
    Online Supplement and Table 4/5 notes; deterministic but discards within-database concept variation for range/concordance analyses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A World of Ginis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ILKHSAQQ

@misc{pith2026260724175,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A World of Ginis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ILKHSAQQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24175}
}
read the original abstract

The Gini index remains the most important measure of economic inequality worldwide, and accurate estimates of this index are essential for effective public policies. Yet, Gini estimates for the same country and year vary considerably across data sources, a problem that remains largely unresolved. The paper reviews the largest global and regional databases providing Gini estimates, surveys the related literature, and constructs a unified dataset of 122,351 Gini observations spanning 222 countries and territories and 158 years, from 1867 to 2024. The analysis of this new dataset shows that income-based Ginis exceed consumption-based ones by 4.7 points on average globally, and by as much as 10 points in some regions, with these gaps widening over time. The gross--net income distinction and the use of alternative equivalence scales together with several other measurement choices add further systematic differences. Based on these findings, the paper provides correction factors that can be used to harmonise Ginis built on different welfare concepts. We further show that overall divergence across databases has grown only modestly since 1960, and mainly through the proliferation of databases rather than through genuine divergence among long-standing sources. Thus, improving on the existing discrepancies across Ginis globally is possible, but ultimately depends on database administrators disclosing full details of Gini construction and on users selecting Ginis built on comparable measures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24175 by the authors.

Figure 9
Figure 9. The first temporal analysis is a balanced-pair analysis. For each of three long-running database pairs (SWIID–UNU-WIDER, SWIID–WB-PIP, and UNU-WIDER–WB-PIP) we com￾pute the mean absolute difference (MAD) in matched country-year Gini values by year (Panel a). All three pairwise trends are small in absolute value. The SWIID–UNU-WIDER MAD declines at −0.017 pp/yr, the UNU-WIDER–WB-PIP MAD shows a negligible increase of… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Number of Databases with Coverage per Year [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Genealogical Relationships Across Databases (Sankey Diagram). Left: data origins. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Income Ginis vs. Consumption Ginis for matched country-year observations. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Countries’ Prevalent Welfare Metric (most recent observation, most frequent defi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ginis from Different Income Sub-Metric Definitions (Eurostat, 2024). The three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Countries’ Prevalent Equivalence Scale (most recent observation, most frequent def [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Per Capita vs. Adult Equivalent: Effect on the Gini (SEDLAC data). Each point is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cross-Database Gini Divergence Over Time. Panel (a): Mean within-country-year [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Decomposing the Aggregate Divergence Trend. Panel (a): Balanced-pair mean abso [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Redistribution Effect (Market vs. Disposable Income Gini) Over Time by Re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distribution of Gini Estimates for Colombia by Year (all databases, 1964–2023) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distribution of Gini Estimates for Germany by Year (all databases, all available [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Journal of Economic Inequality , year =

    Ceriani, Lidia and Olivieri, Sergio and Ranzani, Marco , title =. The Journal of Economic Inequality , year =

  2. [2]

    Global Income Inequality, 1820--2020: The Persistence and Mutation of Extreme Inequality , volume =

    Chancel, Lucas and Piketty, Thomas , date-added =. Global Income Inequality, 1820--2020: The Persistence and Mutation of Extreme Inequality , volume =. 2021 , bdsk-url-1 =. doi:10.1093/jeea/jvab047 , journal =

    work page doi:10.1093/jeea/jvab047 2020

  3. [3]

    Bottom Incomes and the Measurement of Poverty and Inequality , url =

    Hlasny, Vladimir and Ceriani, Lidia and Verme, Paolo , date-added =. Bottom Incomes and the Measurement of Poverty and Inequality , url =. 2022 , bdsk-url-1 =. doi:10.1111/roiw.12535 , journal =

    work page doi:10.1111/roiw.12535 2022

  4. [4]

    Population Changes and the Measurement of Inequality , url =

    Ceriani, Lidia and Verme, Paolo , date =. Population Changes and the Measurement of Inequality , url =. Social Indicators Research , number =. 2022 , bdsk-url-1 =. doi:10.1007/s11205-021-02849-7 , id =

    work page doi:10.1007/s11205-021-02849-7 2022

  5. [5]

    2024 , bdsk-url-1 =

    Distributional National Accounts Guidelines: Methods and Concepts used in the World Inequality Database , url =. 2024 , bdsk-url-1 =

    2024

  6. [6]

    Guidelines for Constructing Consumption Aggregates for Welfare Analysis , type =

    Deaton, Angus and Zaidi, Salman , date-added =. Guidelines for Constructing Consumption Aggregates for Welfare Analysis , type =. 2002 , bdsk-url-1 =

    2002

  7. [7]

    The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality , year =

    Milanovic, Branko , date-added =. The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality , year =

  8. [8]

    Blanchet, Thomas and Chancel, Lucas and Flores, Ignacio and Morgan, Marc and others , date-added =

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Measuring Income Inequality Across Countries and Over Time: The

    Solt, Frederick , date-added =. Measuring Income Inequality Across Countries and Over Time: The. Social Science Quarterly , number =

  2. [10]

    2025 , bdsk-url-1 =

    Afristat , date-added =. 2025 , bdsk-url-1 =

    2025

  3. [11]

    Income poverty measurement: updated methodology and results , type =

    ECLAC , date-added =. Income poverty measurement: updated methodology and results , type =

  4. [12]

    2025 , bdsk-url-1 =

    OECD , date-added =. 2025 , bdsk-url-1 =

    2025

  5. [13]

    Poverty and Inequality Platform Methodology Handbook , year =

  6. [14]

    2024 , bdsk-url-1 =

    CEPAL , institution =. 2024 , bdsk-url-1 =

    2024

  7. [15]

    2025 , bdsk-url-1 =

    ADB , institution =. 2025 , bdsk-url-1 =

    2025

  8. [16]

    2025 , bdsk-url-1 =

    IADB , institution =. 2025 , bdsk-url-1 =

    2025

  9. [17]

    2024 , bdsk-url-1 =

    OECD , date-modified =. 2024 , bdsk-url-1 =

    2024

  10. [18]

    2024 , bdsk-url-1 =

    LIS , date-added =. 2024 , bdsk-url-1 =

    2024

  11. [19]

    2019 , bdsk-url-1 =

    Branko Milanovic , date-added =. 2019 , bdsk-url-1 =

    2019

  12. [20]

    2025 , bdsk-url-1 =

    UNU-WIDER , institution =. 2025 , bdsk-url-1 =

    2025

  13. [21]

    Inside Inequality in the

    Verme, Paolo and Milanovic, Branko and Al-Shawarby, Sherine and El Tawila, Sahar and Gadallah, May and El-Majeed, Enas Ali , publisher =. Inside Inequality in the

  14. [22]

    Top Incomes and the Measurement of Inequality in the

    Hlasny, Vladimir and Verme, Paolo , journal =. Top Incomes and the Measurement of Inequality in the

  15. [23]

    and Brandolini, Andrea , journal =

    Atkinson, Anthony B. and Brandolini, Andrea , journal =. Promise and Pitfalls in the Use of ``Secondary'' Data Sets: Income Inequality in

  16. [24]

    , journal =

    Jenkins, Stephen P. , journal =. World income inequality databases: an assessment of

  17. [25]

    Ferreira, Francisco H. G. and Lustig, Nora and Teles, Daniel , journal =. Appraising Cross-National Income Inequality Databases: An Introduction , volume =

  18. [26]

    Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization , year =

    Milanovic, Branko , publisher =. Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization , year =

  19. [27]

    Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality , year =

    Milanovic, Branko , publisher =. Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality , year =

  20. [28]

    A New Data Set Measuring Income Inequality , volume =

    Deininger, Klaus and Squire, Lyn , journal =. A New Data Set Measuring Income Inequality , volume =

  21. [29]

    Trends in Income Distribution in the Post-

    Cornia, Giovanni Andrea and Kiiski, Sampsa , type =. Trends in Income Distribution in the Post-

  22. [30]

    Inequality, Growth, and Poverty in an Era of Liberalization and Globalization , year =

  23. [31]

    Adjustment with a Human Face: Protecting the Vulnerable and Promoting Growth , year =

    Cornia, Giovanni Andrea and Jolly, Richard and Stewart, Frances , publisher =. Adjustment with a Human Face: Protecting the Vulnerable and Promoting Growth , year =

  24. [32]

    World Inequality Report 2022 , year =

    Chancel, Lucas and Piketty, Thomas and Saez, Emmanuel and Zucman, Gabriel , publisher =. World Inequality Report 2022 , year =

    2022

  25. [33]

    What Do We Know about Global Income Inequality? , volume =

    Anand, Sudhir and Segal, Paul , journal =. What Do We Know about Global Income Inequality? , volume =

  26. [34]

    Inequality among World Citizens: 1820--1992 , volume =

    Bourguignon, Fran. Inequality among World Citizens: 1820--1992 , volume =. American Economic Review , number =

    1992

  27. [35]

    Income Inequality in the Developing World , volume =

    Ravallion, Martin , journal =. Income Inequality in the Developing World , volume =

  28. [36]

    Quarterly Journal of Economics , number =

    The World Distribution of Income: Falling Poverty and. Quarterly Journal of Economics , number =

  29. [37]

    Capital in the Twenty-First Century , year =

    Piketty, Thomas , publisher =. Capital in the Twenty-First Century , year =

  30. [38]

    Handbook on Household Income Statistics , year =

  31. [39]

    Income Distribution Changes and Their Impact in the Post-

    Cornia, Giovanni Andrea and Addison, Tony and Kiiski, Sampsa , journal =. Income Distribution Changes and Their Impact in the Post-

  32. [40]

    , edition =

    Cowell, Frank A. , edition =. Measuring Inequality , year =

  33. [41]

    The Rise and Fall of Income Inequality in

    Gasparini, Leonardo and Lustig, Nora , journal =. The Rise and Fall of Income Inequality in

  34. [42]

    Recent Trends in Inequality and Poverty in Developing Countries , volume =

    Alvaredo, Facundo and Gasparini, Leonardo , booktitle =. Recent Trends in Inequality and Poverty in Developing Countries , volume =

  35. [43]

    Inclusive Finance for Inclusive Growth and Development , volume =

    Corrado, Germana and Corrado, Luisa , journal =. Inclusive Finance for Inclusive Growth and Development , volume =

  36. [44]

    Top Incomes and the Measurement of Inequality in

    Hlasny, Vladimir and Verme, Paolo , journal =. Top Incomes and the Measurement of Inequality in

  37. [45]

    and Brandolini, Andrea and Micklewright, John and Nolan, Brian , journal =

    Jenkins, Stephen P. and Brandolini, Andrea and Micklewright, John and Nolan, Brian , journal =. The Great Recession and the Distribution of Household Income , volume =

  38. [46]

    Declining Inequality in

    Lustig, Nora and Lopez-Calva, Luis Felipe and Ortiz-Juarez, Eduardo , journal =. Declining Inequality in

  39. [47]

    Nolan, Brian and Roser, Max and Thewissen, Stefan , journal =

  40. [48]

    Methods of Household Consumption Measurement through Surveys: Experimental Results from

    Beegle, Kathleen and De Weerdt, Joachim and Friedman, Jed and Gibson, John , journal =. Methods of Household Consumption Measurement through Surveys: Experimental Results from

  41. [49]

    Rent-Imputation for Welfare Measurement: A Review of Methodologies and Empirical Findings , volume =

    Balc. Rent-Imputation for Welfare Measurement: A Review of Methodologies and Empirical Findings , volume =. Review of Income and Wealth , number =

  42. [50]

    , title =

    Gottschalk, Peter and Smeeding, Timothy M. , title =. Journal of Economic Literature , year =

  43. [51]

    and Micklewright, John , title =

    Atkinson, Anthony B. and Micklewright, John , title =

  44. [52]

    Review of Economics and Statistics , year =

    Deaton, Angus , title =. Review of Economics and Statistics , year =

  45. [53]

    Journal of Economic Inequality , year =

    Solt, Frederick , title =. Journal of Economic Inequality , year =

  46. [54]

    Quarterly Journal of Economics , year =

    Piketty, Thomas and Saez, Emmanuel and Zucman, Gabriel , title =. Quarterly Journal of Economics , year =

  47. [55]

    Journal of Political Economy , year =

    Auten, Gerald and Splinter, David , title =. Journal of Political Economy , year =

  48. [56]

    , title =

    Brandolini, Andrea and Smeeding, Timothy M. , title =. The Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality , editor =. 2009 , pages =

    2009

  49. [57]

    Eurostat , institution =

  50. [58]

    Lustig, Nora , title =

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.