South Africa had the highest inequality in income distribution in 2024, with a Gini score of **. Its South African neighbor, Namibia, followed in second. The Gini coefficient measures the deviation of income (or consumption) distribution among individuals or households within a country from a perfectly equal distribution. A value of 0 represents absolute equality, and a value of 100 represents absolute inequality. All the 20 most unequal countries in the world were either located in Africa or Latin America & The Caribbean.

Brazil is one of the most unequal countries in terms of income in Latin America. In 2022, it was estimated that almost 57 percent of the income generated in Brazil was held by the richest 20 percent of its population. Among the Latin American countries with available data included in this graph, Colombia came in first, as the wealthiest 20 percent of the Colombian population held over 59 percent of the country's total income.

Based on the degree of inequality in income distribution measured by the Gini coefficient, Colombia was the most unequal country in Latin America as of 2022. Colombia's Gini coefficient amounted to 54.8. The Dominican Republic recorded the lowest Gini coefficient at 37, even below Uruguay and Chile, which are some of the countries with the highest human development indexes in Latin America. The Gini coefficient explained The Gini coefficient measures the deviation of the distribution of income among individuals or households in a given country from a perfectly equal distribution. A value of 0 represents absolute equality, whereas 100 would be the highest possible degree of inequality. This measurement reflects the degree of wealth inequality at a certain moment in time, though it may fail to capture how average levels of income improve or worsen over time. What affects the Gini coefficient in Latin America? Latin America, as other developing regions in the world, generally records high rates of inequality, with a Gini coefficient ranging between 37 and 55 points according to the latest available data from the reporting period 2010-2023. According to the Human Development Report, wealth redistribution by means of tax transfers improves Latin America's Gini coefficient to a lesser degree than it does in advanced economies. Wider access to education and health services, on the other hand, have been proven to have a greater direct effect in improving Gini coefficient measurements in the region.

Comparing the *** selected regions regarding the gini index , South Africa is leading the ranking (**** points) and is followed by Namibia with **** points. At the other end of the spectrum is Slovakia with **** points, indicating a difference of *** points to South Africa. The Gini coefficient here measures the degree of income inequality on a scale from * (=total equality of incomes) to *** (=total inequality).The shown data are an excerpt of Statista's Key Market Indicators (KMI). The KMI are a collection of primary and secondary indicators on the macro-economic, demographic and technological environment in more than *** countries and regions worldwide. All input data are sourced from international institutions, national statistical offices, and trade associations. All data has been are processed to generate comparable datasets (see supplementary notes under details for more information).

This table contains data on income inequality. The primary measure is the Gini index – a measure of the extent to which the distribution of income among families/households within a community deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. The index ranges from 0.0, when all families (households) have equal shares of income (implies perfect equality), to 1.0 when one family (household) has all the income and the rest have none (implies perfect inequality). Index data is provided for California and its counties, regions, and large cities/towns. The data is from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. Income is linked to acquiring resources for healthy living. Both household income and the distribution of income across a society independently contribute to the overall health status of a community. On average Western industrialized nations with large disparities in income distribution tend to have poorer health status than similarly advanced nations with a more equitable distribution of income. Approximately 119,200 (5%) of the 2.4 million U.S. deaths in 2000 are attributable to income inequality. The pathways by which income inequality act to increase adverse health outcomes are not known with certainty, but policies that provide for a strong safety net of health and social services have been identified as potential buffers. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

Cross-national research on the causes and consequences of income inequality has been hindered by the limitations of the existing inequality datasets: greater coverage across countries and over time has been available from these sources only at the cost of significantly reduced comparability across observations. The goal of the Standardized World Income Inequality Database (SWIID) is to meet the needs of those engaged in broadly cross-national research by maximizing the comparability of income inequality data while maintaining the widest possible coverage across countries and over time. The SWIID’s income inequality estimates are based on thousands of reported Gini indices from hundreds of published sources, including the OECD Income Distribution Database, the Socio-Economic Database for Latin America and the Caribbean generated by CEDLAS and the World Bank, Eurostat, the World Bank’s PovcalNet, the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, national statistical offices around the world, and academic studies while minimizing reliance on problematic assumptions by using as much information as possible from proximate years within the same country. The data collected and harmonized by the Luxembourg Income Study is employed as the standard. The SWIID currently incorporates comparable Gini indices of disposable and market income inequality for 198 countries for as many years as possible from 1960 to the present; it also includes information on absolute and relative redistribution.

New York was the state with the greatest gap between rich and poor, with a Gini coefficient score of 0.52 in 2023. Although not a state, District of Columbia was among the highest Gini coefficients in the United States that year.

In this study we use economic input-output analysis to calculate the inequality footprint of nations. An inequality footprint shows the link that each country's domestic economic activity has to income distribution elsewhere in the world. To this end we use employment and household income accounts for 187 countries and an historical time series dating back to 1990. Our results show that in 2010, most developed countries had an inequality footprint that was higher than their within-country inequality, meaning that in order to support domestic lifestyles, these countries source imports from more unequal economies. Amongst exceptions are the United States and United Kingdom, which placed them on a par with many developing countries. Russia has a high within-country inequality nevertheless it has the lowest inequality footprint in the world, which is because of its trade connections with the Commonwealth of Independent States and Europe. Our findings show that the commodities that are inequality-intensive, such as electronic components, chemicals, fertilizers, minerals, and agricultural products often originate in developing countries characterized by high levels of inequality. Consumption of these commodities may implicate within-country inequality in both developing and developed countries.

Analysis of ‘GapMinder - Income Inequality’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/psterk/income-inequality on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Content

This analysis focuses on income inequailty as measured by the Gini Index* and its association with economic metrics such as GDP per capita, investments as a % of GDP, and tax revenue as a % of GDP. One polical metric, EIU democracy index, is also included.

The data is for years 2006 - 2016

This investigation can be considered a starting point for complex questions such as:

1. Is a higher tax revenue as a % of GDP associated with less income inequality?
2. Is a higher EIU democracy index associated with less income inequality?
3. Is higher GDP per capita associated with less income inequality?
4. Is higher investments as a % of GDP associated with less income inequality?

This analysis uses the gapminder dataset from the Gapminder Foundation. The Gapminder Foundation is a non-profit venture registered in Stockholm, Sweden, that promotes sustainable global development and achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by increased use and understanding of statistics and other information about social, economic and environmental development at local, national and global levels.

*The Gini Index is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income or wealth distribution of a nation's residents, and is the most commonly used measurement of inequality. It was developed by the Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini and published in his 1912 paper Variability and Mutability.

The dataset contains data from the following GapMinder datasets:

EIU Democracy Index:

"This democracy index is using the data from the Economist Inteligence Unit to express the quality of democracies as a number between 0 and 100. It's based on 60 different aspects of societies that are relevant to democracy universal suffrage for all adults, voter participation, perception of human rights protection and freedom to form organizations and parties. The democracy index is calculated from the 60 indicators, divided into five ""sub indexes"", which are:

1. Electoral pluralism index;
2. Government index;
3. Political participation indexm;
4. Political culture index;
5. Civil liberty index.

The sub-indexes are based on the sum of scores on roughly 12 indicators per sub-index, converted into a score between 0 and 100. (The Economist publishes the index with a scale from 0 to 10, but Gapminder has converted it to 0 to 100 to make it easier to communicate as a percentage.)" https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d0noZrwAWxNBTDSfDgG06_aLGWUz4R6fgDhRaUZbDzE/edit#gid=935776888

Income: GDP per capita, constant PPP dollars

GDP per capita measures the value of everything produced in a country during a year, divided by the number of people. The unit is in international dollars, fixed 2011 prices. The data is adjusted for inflation and differences in the cost of living between countries, so-called PPP dollars. The end of the time series, between 1990 and 2016, uses the latest GDP per capita data from the World Bank, from their World Development Indicators. To go back in time before the World Bank series starts in 1990, we have used several sources, such as Angus Maddison. https://www.gapminder.org/data/documentation/gd001/

Investments (% of GDP)

Capital formation is a term used to describe the net capital accumulation during an accounting period for a particular country. The term refers to additions of capital goods, such as equipment, tools, transportation assets, and electricity. Countries need capital goods to replace the older ones that are used to produce goods and services. If a country cannot replace capital goods as they reach the end of their useful lives, production declines. Generally, the higher the capital formation of an economy, the faster an economy can grow its aggregate income.

Tax revenue (% of GDP)

refers to compulsory transfers to the central governement for public purposes. Does not include social security. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS

Context

Gapminder is an independent Swedish foundation with no political, religious or economic affiliations. Gapminder is a fact tank, not a think tank. Gapminder fights devastating misconceptions about global development. Gapminder produces free teaching resources making the world understandable based on reliable statistics. Gapminder promotes a fact-based worldview everyone can understand. Gapminder collaborates with universities, UN, public agencies and non-governmental organizations. All Gapminder activities are governed by the board. We do not award grants. Gapminder Foundation is registered at Stockholm County Administration Board. Our constitution can be found here.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to gapminder.org for organizing the above datasets.

Inspiration

Below are some research questions associated with the data and some initial conclusions:

Research Question 1 - Is Income Inequality Getting Worse or Better in the Last 10 Years?

Answer:

Yes, it is getting better, improving from 38.7 to 37.3

On a continent basis, all were either declining or mostly flat, except for Africa.

Research Question 2 - What Top 10 Countries Have the Lowest and Highest Income Inequality?

Answer:

Lowest: Slovenia, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Norway, Slovak Republic, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Finland, Belarus,Kyrgyz Republic

Highest: Colombia, Lesotho, Honduras, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Zambia, Suriname, Namibia, Botswana, South Africa

Research Question 3 Is a higher tax revenue as a % of GDP associated with less income inequality?

Answer: No

Research Question 4 - Is Higher Income Per Person - GDP Per Capita associated with less income inequality?

Answer: No, but weak negative correlation.

Research Question 5 - Is Higher Investment as % GDP associated with less income inequality?

Answer: No

Research Question 6 - Is Higher EIU Democracy Index associated with less income inequality?

Answer: No, but weak negative correlation.

The above results suggest that there are other drivers for the overall reduction in income inequality. Futher analysis of additional factors should be undertaken.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Income InequalityThe level of income inequality among households in a county can be measured using the Gini index. A Gini index varies between zero and one. A value of one indicates perfect inequality, where only one household in the county has any income. A value of zero indicates perfect equality, where all households in the county have equal income.The United States, as a country, has a Gini Index of 0.47 for this time period. For comparision in this map, the purple counties have greater income inequality, while orange counties have less inequality of incomes. For reference, Brazil has an index of 0.58 (relatively high inequality) and Denmark has an index of 0.24 (relatively low inequality).The 5-year Gini index for the U.S. was 0.4695 in 2007-2011 and 0.467 in 2006-2010. Appalachian Regional Commission, September 2013Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, 5-Year American Community Survey, 2006-2010 & 2007-2011

This paper was created in 2011; Abstract: This paper examines the relationship between educational inequalities to income inequality across countries by using Gini Coefficient and Cobb-Douglas (CD) production function. Also, the paper reinforces the future vision of the literature on this subject by utilizing the most recent cross-section data, and we create a new combination of controls for both the labour market and socio-political. There are country-specific variables that can have an effect on each of them, and thus make it difficult to assess income inequality across countries. Considering these difficulties, the structural components of each country were controlled. Specifically, separate regressions are performed that takes into account the level of development of the country. Then we discuss how to address this matter in the literature, and also demonstrated the theoretical bases of the paper in addition to an empirical explanation model, and suggest policy recommendations in accordance with the results. This would provide governments with more direction to improve this income inequality.

United States US: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data was reported at 41.500 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 41.000 % for 2013. United States US: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data is updated yearly, averaging 40.400 % from Dec 1979 (Median) to 2016, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 41.500 % in 2016 and a record low of 34.600 % in 1979. United States US: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income (or, in some cases, consumption expenditure) among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Lorenz curve plots the cumulative percentages of total income received against the cumulative number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual or household. The Gini index measures the area between the Lorenz curve and a hypothetical line of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of the maximum area under the line. Thus a Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect inequality.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

Goal 10Reduce inequality within and among countriesTarget 10.1: By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national averageIndicator 10.1.1: Growth rates of household expenditure or income per capita among the bottom 40 per cent of the population and the total populationSI_HEI_TOTL: Growth rates of household expenditure or income per capita (%)Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other statusIndicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 per cent of median income, by sex, age and persons with disabilitiesSI_POV_50MI: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income (%)Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regardIndicator 10.3.1: Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights lawVC_VOV_GDSD: Proportion of population reporting having felt discriminated against, by grounds of discrimination, sex and disability (%)Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equalityIndicator 10.4.1: Labour share of GDPSL_EMP_GTOTL: Labour share of GDP (%)Indicator 10.4.2: Redistributive impact of fiscal policySI_DST_FISP: Redistributive impact of fiscal policy, Gini index (%)Target 10.5: Improve the regulation and monitoring of global financial markets and institutions and strengthen the implementation of such regulationsIndicator 10.5.1: Financial Soundness IndicatorsFI_FSI_FSANL: Non-performing loans to total gross loans (%)FI_FSI_FSERA: Return on assets (%)FI_FSI_FSKA: Regulatory capital to assets (%)FI_FSI_FSKNL: Non-performing loans net of provisions to capital (%)FI_FSI_FSKRTC: Regulatory Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets (%)FI_FSI_FSLS: Liquid assets to short term liabilities (%)FI_FSI_FSSNO: Net open position in foreign exchange to capital (%)Target 10.6: Ensure enhanced representation and voice for developing countries in decision-making in global international economic and financial institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutionsIndicator 10.6.1: Proportion of members and voting rights of developing countries in international organizationsSG_INT_MBRDEV: Proportion of members of developing countries in international organizations, by organization (%)SG_INT_VRTDEV: Proportion of voting rights of developing countries in international organizations, by organization (%)Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policiesIndicator 10.7.1: Recruitment cost borne by employee as a proportion of monthly income earned in country of destinationIndicator 10.7.2: Number of countries with migration policies that facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of peopleSG_CPA_MIGRP: Proportion of countries with migration policies to facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, by policy domain (%)SG_CPA_MIGRS: Countries with migration policies to facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, by policy domain (1 = Requires further progress; 2 = Partially meets; 3 = Meets; 4 = Fully meets)Indicator 10.7.3: Number of people who died or disappeared in the process of migration towards an international destinationiSM_DTH_MIGR: Total deaths and disappearances recorded during migration (number)Indicator 10.7.4: Proportion of the population who are refugees, by country of originSM_POP_REFG_OR: Number of refugees per 100,000 population, by country of origin (per 100,000 population)Target 10.a: Implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance with World Trade Organization agreementsIndicator 10.a.1: Proportion of tariff lines applied to imports from least developed countries and developing countries with zero-tariffTM_TRF_ZERO: Proportion of tariff lines applied to imports with zero-tariff (%)Target 10.b: Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to States where the need is greatest, in particular least developed countries, African countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their national plans and programmesIndicator 10.b.1: Total resource flows for development, by recipient and donor countries and type of flow (e.g. official development assistance, foreign direct investment and other flows)DC_TRF_TOTDL: Total assistance for development, by donor countries (millions of current United States dollars)DC_TRF_TOTL: Total assistance for development, by recipient countries (millions of current United States dollars)DC_TRF_TFDV: Total resource flows for development, by recipient and donor countries (millions of current United States dollars)Target 10.c: By 2030, reduce to less than 3 per cent the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5 per centIndicator 10.c.1: Remittance costs as a proportion of the amount remittedSI_RMT_COST: Remittance costs as a proportion of the amount remitted (%)SI_RMT_COST_BC: Corridor remittance costs as a proportion of the amount remitted (%)SI_RMT_COST_SC: SmaRT corridor remittance costs as a proportion of the amount remitted (%)

The OECD Income Distribution database (IDD) has been developed to benchmark and monitor countries' performance in the field of income inequality and poverty. It contains a number of standardised indicators based on the central concept of "equivalised household disposable income", i.e. the total income received by the households less the current taxes and transfers they pay, adjusted for household size with an equivalence scale. While household income is only one of the factors shaping people's economic well-being, it is also the one for which comparable data for all OECD countries are most common. Income distribution has a long-standing tradition among household-level statistics, with regular data collections going back to the 1980s (and sometimes earlier) in many OECD countries.

Achieving comparability in this field is a challenge, as national practices differ widely in terms of concepts, measures, and statistical sources. In order to maximise international comparability as well as inter-temporal consistency of data, the IDD data collection and compilation process is based on a common set of statistical conventions (e.g. on income concepts and components). The information obtained by the OECD through a network of national data providers, via a standardized questionnaire, is based on national sources that are deemed to be most representative for each country.

Small changes in estimates between years should be treated with caution as they may not be statistically significant.

Fore more details, please refer to: https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/IDD-Metadata.pdf and https://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm

This statistic shows the inequality of income distribution in China from 2005 to 2023 based on the Gini Index. In 2023, China reached a score of ************ points. The Gini Index is a statistical measure that is used to represent unequal distributions, e.g. income distribution. It can take any value between 1 and 100 points (or 0 and 1). The closer the value is to 100 the greater is the inequality. 40 or 0.4 is the warning level set by the United Nations. The Gini Index for South Korea had ranged at about **** in 2022. Income distribution in China The Gini coefficient is used to measure the income inequality of a country. The United States, the World Bank, the US Central Intelligence Agency, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development all provide their own measurement of the Gini coefficient, varying in data collection and survey methods. According to the United Nations Development Programme, countries with the largest income inequality based on the Gini index are mainly located in Africa and Latin America, with South Africa displaying the world's highest value in 2022. The world's most equal countries, on the contrary, are situated mostly in Europe. The United States' Gini for household income has increased by around ten percent since 1990, to **** in 2023. Development of inequality in China Growing inequality counts as one of the biggest social, economic, and political challenges to many countries, especially emerging markets. Over the last 20 years, China has become one of the world's largest economies. As parts of the society have become more and more affluent, the country's Gini coefficient has also grown sharply over the last decades. As shown by the graph at hand, China's Gini coefficient ranged at a level higher than the warning line for increasing risk of social unrest over the last decade. However, the situation has slightly improved since 2008, when the Gini coefficient had reached the highest value of recent times.

Between 2010 and 2023, Brazil's data on the degree of inequality in wealth distribution based on the Gini coefficient reached 52. That year, Brazil was deemed one of the most unequal country in Latin America. Prior to 2010, wealth distribution in Brazil had shown signs of improvement, with the Gini coefficient decreasing in the previous 3 reporting periods. The Gini coefficient measures the deviation of the distribution of income (or consumption) among individuals or households in a given country from a perfectly equal distribution. A value of 0 represents absolute equality, whereas 100 would be the highest possible degree of inequality.

Abstract

This file contains data on Gini coefficients, cumulative quintile shares, explanations regarding the basis on which the Gini coefficient was computed, and the source of the information. There are two data-sets, one containing the "high quality" sample and the other one including all the information (of lower quality) that had been collected.

The database was constructed for the production of the following paper:

Deininger, Klaus and Lyn Squire, "A New Data Set Measuring Income Inequality", The World Bank Economic Review, 10(3): 565-91, 1996.

This article presents a new data set on inequality in the distribution of income. The authors explain the criteria they applied in selecting data on Gini coefficients and on individual quintile groups’ income shares. Comparison of the new data set with existing compilations reveals that the data assembled here represent an improvement in quality and a significant expansion in coverage, although differences in the definition of the underlying data might still affect intertemporal and international comparability. Based on this new data set, the authors do not find a systematic link between growth and changes in aggregate inequality. They do find a strong positive relationship between growth and reduction of poverty.

Geographic coverage

In what follows, we provide brief descriptions of main features for individual countries that are included in the data-base. Without being comprehensive, these notes are intended to indicate some of the considerations underlying our decision to include or exclude certain observations.

Argentina Various permanent household surveys, all covering urban centers only, have been regularly conducted since 1972 and are quoted in a wide variety of sources and years, e.g., for 1980 (World Bank 1992), 1985 (Altimir 1994), and 1989 (World Bank 1992). Estimates for 1963, 1965, 1969/70, 1970/71, 1974, 1975, 1980, and 1981 (Altimir 1987) are based only on Greater Buenos Aires. Estimates for 1961, 1963, 1970 (Jain 1975) and for 1970 (van Ginneken 1984) have only limited geographic coverage and do not satisfy our minimum criteria.

Despite the many urban surveys, there are no income distribution data that are representative of the population as a whole. References to national income distribution for the years 1953, 1959, and 1961(CEPAL 1968 in Altimir 1986 ) are based on extrapolation from national accounts and have therefore not been included. Data for 1953 and 1961 from Weisskoff (1970) , from Lecaillon (1984) , and from Cromwell (1977) are also excluded.

Australia Household surveys, the result of which is reported in the statistical yearbook, have been conducted in 1968/9, 1975/6, 1978/9, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1989, and 1990.

Data for 1962 (Cromwell, 1977) and 1966/67 (Sawyer 1976) were excluded as they covered only tax payers. Jain's data for 1970 was excluded because it covered income recipients only. Data from Podder (1972) for 1967/68, from Jain (1975) for the same year, from UN (1985) for 78/79, from Sunders and Hobbes (1993) for 1986 and for 1989 were excluded given the availability of the primary sources. Data from Bishop (1991) for 1981/82, from Buhman (1988) for 1981/82, from Kakwani (1986) for 1975/76, and from Sunders and Hobbes (1993) for 1986 were utilized to test for the effect of different definitions. The values for 1967 used by Persson and Tabellini and Alesina and Rodrik (based on Paukert and Jain) are close to the ones reported in the Statistical Yearbook for 1969.

Austria: In addition to data referring to the employed population (Guger 1989), national household surveys for 1987 and 1991 are included in the LIS data base. As these data do not include income from self-employment, we do not report them in our high quality data-set.

Bahamas Data for Ginis and shares are available for 1973, 1977, 1979, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, and 1993 in government reports on population censuses and household budget surveys, and for 1973 and 1975 from UN (1981). Estimates for 1970 (Jain 1975), 1973, 1975, 1977, and 1979 (Fields 1989) have been excluded given the availability of primary sources.

Bangladesh Data from household surveys for 1973/74, 1976/77, 1977/78, 1981/82, and 1985/86 are available from the Statistical Yearbook, complemented by household-survey based information from Chen (1995) and the World Development Report. Household surveys with rural coverage for 1959, 1960, 1963/64, 1965, 1966/67 and 1968/69, and with urban coverage for 1963/64, 1965, 1966/67, and 1968/69 are also available from the Statistical yearbook. Data for 1963/64 ,1964 and 1966/67, (Jain 1975) are not included due to limited geographic coverage, We also excluded secondary sources for 1973/74, 1976/77, 1981/82 (Fields 1989), 1977 (UN 1981), 1983 (Milanovic 1994), and 1985/86 due to availability of the primary source.

Barbados National household surveys have been conducted in 1951/52 and 1978/79 (Downs, 1988). Estimates based on personal tax returns, reported consistently for 1951-1981 (Holder and Prescott, 1989), had to be excluded as they exclude the non-wage earning population. Jain's figure (used by Alesina and Rodrik) is based on the same source.

Belgium Household surveys with national coverage are available for 1978/79 (UN 1985), and for 1985, 1988, and 1992 (LIS 1995). Earlier data for 1969, 1973, 1975, 1976 and 1977 (UN 1981) refer to taxable households only and are not included.

Bolivia The only survey with national coverage is the 1990 LSMS (World Development Report). Surveys for 1986 and 1989 cover the main cities only (Psacharopoulos et al. 1992) and are therefore not included. Data for 1968 (Cromwell 1977) do not refer to a clear definition and is therefore excluded.

Botswana The only survey with national coverage was conducted in 1985-1986 (Chen et al 1993); surveys in 74/75 and 85/86 included rural areas only (UN 1981). We excluded Gini estimates for 1971/72 that refer to the economically active population only (Jain 1975), as well as 1974/75 and 1985/86 (Valentine 1993) due to lack of national coverage or consistency in definition.

Brazil Data from 1960, 1970, 1974/75, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1987 and 1989 are available from the statistical yearbook, in addition to data for 1978 (Fields 1987) and for 1979 (Psacharopoulos et al. 1992). Other sources have been excluded as they were either not of national coverage, based on wage earners only, or because a more consistent source was available.

Bulgaria: Data from household surveys are available for 1963-69 (in two year intervals), for 1970-90 (on an annual basis) from the Statistical yearbook and for 1991 - 93 from household surveys by the World Bank (Milanovic and Ying).

Burkina Faso A priority survey has been undertaken in 1995.

Central African Republic: Except for a household survey conducted in 1992, no information was available.

Cameroon The only data are from a 1983/4 household budget survey (World Bank Poverty Assessment).

Canada Gini- and share data for the 1950-61 (in irregular intervals), 1961-81 (biennially), and 1981-91 (annually) are available from official sources (Statistical Yearbook for years before 1971 and Income Distributions by Size in Canada for years since 1973, various issues). All other references seem to be based on these primary sources.

Chad: An estimate for 1958 is available in the literature, and used by Alesina and Rodrik and Persson and Tabellini but was not included due to lack of primary sources.

Chile The first nation-wide survey that included not only employment income was carried out in 1968 (UN 1981). This is complemented by household survey-based data for 1971 (Fields 1989), 1989, and 1994. Other data that refer either only to part of the population or -as in the case of a long series available from World Bank country operations- are not clearly based on primary sources, are excluded.

China Annual household surveys from 1980 to 1992, conducted separately in rural and urban areas, were consolidated by Ying (1995), based on the statistical yearbook. Data from other secondary sources are excluded due to limited geographic and population coverage and data from Chen et al (1993) for 1985 and 1990 have not been included, to maintain consistency of sources..

Colombia The first household survey with national coverage was conducted in 1970 (DANE 1970). In addition, there are data for 1971, 1972, 1974 CEPAL (1986), and for 1978, 1988/89, and 1991 (World Bank Poverty Assessment 1992 and Chen et al. 1995). Data referring to years before 1970 -including the 1964 estimate used in Persson and Tabellini were excluded, as were estimates for the wage earning population only.

Costa Rica Data on Gini coefficients and quintile shares are available for 1961, 1971 (Cespedes 1973),1977 (OPNPE 1982), 1979 (Fields 1989), 1981 (Chen et al 1993), 1983 (Bourguignon and Morrison 1989), 1986 (Sauma-Fiatt 1990), and 1989 (Chen et al 1993). Gini coefficients for 1971 (Gonzalez-Vega and Cespedes in Rottenberg 1993), 1973 and 1985 (Bourguignon and Morrison 1989) cover urban areas only and were excluded.

Cote d'Ivoire: Data based on national-level household surveys (LSMS) are available for 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1995. Information for the 1970s (Schneider 1991) is based on national accounting information and therefore excluded

Cuba Official information on income distribution is limited. Data from secondary sources are available for 1953, 1962, 1973, and 1978, relying on personal wage income, i.e. excluding the population that is not economically active (Brundenius 1984).

Czech Republic Household surveys for 1993 and 1994 were obtained from Milanovic and Ying. While it is in principle possible to go back further, splitting national level surveys for the former Czechoslovakia into their independent parts, we decided not to do so as the same argument could be used to

Worldwide, income and wealth inequality have increased in many countries. Such inequalities yield various social ills, including the decline of social cohesion, a pattern visible amidst recent crises and global political upheavals. Nevertheless, scholars of social and political disaffection have focused primarily on income inequality in OECD countries. This article’s contribution is to expand that focus by: (1) examining the impact of wealth inequality, which no study has done before; (2) extending the link between inequality and social trust to political trust; and (3) taking a global approach. The authors produce an original dataset, combining a novel wealth-inequality measure with 60 waves of Barometers and Values surveys across 309 country-year units and other relevant indicators. Results show that income inequality undermines social trust, but reveal no significant effect for wealth inequality. The effects of income and wealth inequality on political trust are moderated by democracy levels and country wealth, respectively.

The World Top Incomes Database provides statistical information on the shares of top income groups for 30 countries. The construction of this database was possible thanks to the research of over thirty contributing authors. There has been a marked revival of interest in the study of the distribution of top incomes using tax data. Beginning with the research by Thomas Piketty of the long-run distribution of top incomes in France, a succession of studies has constructed top income share time series over the long-run for more than twenty countries to date. These projects have generated a large volume of data, which are intended as a research resource for further analysis. In using data from income tax records, these studies use similar sources and methods as the pioneering work by Kuznets for the United States.The findings of recent research are of added interest, since the new data provide estimates covering nearly all of the twentieth century -a length of time series unusual in economics. In contrast to existing international databases, generally restricted to the post-1970 or post-1980 period, the top income data cover a much longer period, which is important because structural changes in income and wealth distributions often span several decades. The data series is fairly homogenous across countries, annual, long-run, and broken down by income source for several cases. Users should be aware also about their limitations. Firstly, the series measure only top income shares and hence are silent on how inequality evolves elsewhere in the distribution. Secondly, the series are largely concerned with gross incomes before tax. Thirdly, the definition of income and the unit of observation (the individual vs. the family) vary across countries making comparability of levels across countries more difficult. Even within a country, there are breaks in comparability that arise because of changes in tax legislation affecting the definition of income, although most studies try to correct for such changes to create homogenous series. Finally and perhaps most important, the series might be biased because of tax avoidance and tax evasion. The first theme of the research programme is the assembly and analysis of historical evidence from fiscal records on the long-run development of economic inequality. “Long run” is a relative term, and here it means evidence dating back before the Second World War, and extending where possible back into the nineteenth century. The time span is determined by the sources used, which are based on taxes on incomes, earnings, wealth and estates. Perspective on current concerns is provided by the past, but also by comparison with other countries. The second theme of the research programme is that of cross-country comparisons. The research is not limited to OECD countries and will draw on evidence globally. In order to understand the drivers of inequality, it is necessary to consider the sources of economic advantage. The third theme is the analysis of the sources of income, considering separately the roles of earned incomes and property income, and examining the historical and comparative evolution of earned and property income, and their joint distribution. The fourth theme is the long-run trend in the distribution of wealth and its transmission through inheritance. Here again there are rich fiscal data on the passing of estates at death. The top income share series are constructed, in most of the cases presented in this database, using tax statistics (China is an exception; for the time being the estimates come from households surveys). The use of tax data is often regarded by economists with considerable disbelief. These doubts are well justified for at least two reasons. The first is that tax data are collected as part of an administrative process, which is not tailored to the scientists' needs, so that the definition of income, income unit, etc., are not necessarily those that we would have chosen. This causes particular difficulties for comparisons across countries, but also for time-series analysis where there have been substantial changes in the tax system, such as the moves to and from the joint taxation of couples. Secondly, it is obvious that those paying tax have a financial incentive to present their affairs in a way that reduces tax liabilities. There is tax avoidance and tax evasion. The rich, in particular, have a strong incentive to understate their taxable incomes. Those with wealth take steps to ensure that the return comes in the form of asset appreciation, typically taxed at lower rates or not at all. Those with high salaries seek to ensure that part of their remuneration comes in forms, such as fringe benefits or stock-options which receive favorable tax treatment. Both groups may make use of tax havens that allow income to be moved beyond the reach of the national tax net. These shortcomings limit what can be said from tax data, but this does not mean that the data are worthless. Like all economic data, they measure with error the 'true' variable in which we are interested. References Atkinson, Anthony B. and Thomas Piketty (2007). Top Incomes over the Twentieth Century: A Contrast between Continental European and English-Speaking Countries (Volume 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 585 pp. Atkinson, Anthony B. and Thomas Piketty (2010). Top Incomes over the Twentieth Century: A Global Perspective (Volume 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 776 pp. Atkinson, Anthony B., Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez (2011). Top Incomes in the Long Run of History, Journal of Economic Literature, 49(1), pp. 3-71. Kuznets, Simon (1953). Shares of Upper Income Groups in Income and Savings. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 707 pp. Piketty, Thomas (2001). Les Hauts Revenus en France au 20ème siècle. Paris: Grasset, 807 pp. Piketty, Thomas (2003). Income Inequality in France, 1901-1998, Journal of Political Economy, 111(5), pp. 1004-42.

Chiapas, the state with the highest share of population living in poverty, had the highest wealth inequality in the country based on the Gini coefficient as well. This index measures the deviation of the income distribution situation in a given country from a perfectly equal distribution. A value of 0 represents an ideal situation of equality, whereas 1 would be the highest possible degree of inequality. As of 2022, Mexico City, the country's capital, had a Gini coefficient of 0.46, second highest recorded figure.