1 / 27

Distributions of Money, Income, and Wealth: The Social Inequality Data

Distributions of Money, Income, and Wealth: The Social Inequality Data. Victor M. Yakovenko with A. A. Dragulescu, A. C. Silva, and A. Banerjee. Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, USA http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/econophysics.html. Publications.

iain
Download Presentation

Distributions of Money, Income, and Wealth: The Social Inequality Data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Distributions of Money, Income, and Wealth: The Social Inequality Data Victor M. Yakovenko with A. A. Dragulescu, A. C. Silva, and A. Banerjee Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, USA http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/econophysics.html Publications • European Physical Journal B 17, 723 (2000), cond-mat/0001432 • European Physical Journal B 20, 585 (2001), cond-mat/0008305 • Physica A 299, 213 (2001), cond-mat/0103544 • Modeling of Complex Systems: Seventh Granada Lectures, • AIP Conference Proceeding 661, 180 (2003), cond-mat/0211175 • Europhysics Letters 69, 304 (2005), cond-mat/0406385 • Physica A 370, 54 (2006), physics/0601176 • Springer Encyclopedia of Complexity and System Science, arXiv:0709.3662

  2. Boltzmann-Gibbs versus Pareto distribution Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) Boltzmann-Gibbs probability distribution P()exp(/T), where  is energy, and T= is temperature. Pareto probability distribution P(r)1/r(+1) of income r. An analogy between the distributions of energy  and money m or income r

  3. Collisions between atoms Conservation of energy: 1 + 2 = 1′ + 2′ 1 1′ = 1 +  Detailed balance: w121’2’P(1) P(2) = w1’2’12P(1′) P(2′) 2′ = 2 −  2 Economic transactions between agents Conservation of money: m1 + m2 = m1′+ m2′ m1 m1′ = m1 + m Detailed balance: w121’2’P(m1) P(m2) = w1’2’12P(m1′) P(m2′) m2′ = m2 − m m2 money Boltzmann-Gibbs probability distribution of energy Boltzmann-Gibbs probability distribution P()  exp(−/T) of energy , where T =  is temperature. It is universal – independent of model rules, provided the model belongs to thetime-reversal symmetry class. Boltzmann-Gibbs distribution maximizes entropyS = − P() lnP() under the constraint of conservation law  P()  = const. Boltzmann-Gibbs probability distribution P(m)  exp(−m/T) of moneym, where T = m is the money temperature.

  4. Computer simulation of money redistribution The stationary distribution of money m is exponential: P(m)  e−m/T

  5. Comparing theoretical models of money distribution with the data Where can one find and get access to the data on money distribution among individuals? These data is not routinely collected by statistical agencies ... (unlike income distribution data) However, assuming that most people keep most of their data in banks, the instantaneous distribution of bank accounts balances would approximate the money distribution. There are some technical issues: individuals may have multiple accounts in multiple banks, etc. The BIG problem: Banks would not share these data with the public. It would be easy for a big commercial bank to run a computer query and generate the distribution of account balances. Most likely, banks actually do this operation routinely. However, they have no incentives to share the results with the research community, even though the confidentiality of clients would not be compromised. If anybody can help with access to the bankers, please do!

  6. Probability distribution of individual income US Census data 1996 – histogram and points A PSID: Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 1992 (U. Michigan) – points B Distribution of incomer is exponential: P(r)  e−r/T

  7. Probability distribution of individual income IRS data 1997 – main panel and points A, 1993 – points B Cumulative distribution of incomer is exponential:

  8. r* Income distribution in the USA, 1997 Two-class society • Upper Class • Pareto power law • 3% of population • 16% of income • Income > 120 k$: • investments, capital • Lower Class • Boltzmann-Gibbs • exponential law • 97% of population • 84% of income • Income < 120 k$: • wages, salaries “Thermal” bulk and “super-thermal” tail distribution

  9. (income / temperature) Income distribution in the USA, 1983-2001 No change in the shape of the distribution – only change of temperatureT Very robust exponential law for the great majority of population

  10. (income / average income T) Income distribution in the USA, 1983-2001 The rescaled exponential part does not change, but the power-law part changes significantly.

  11. Time evolution of the tail parameters The Pareto index  in C(r)1/r is non-universal. It changed from 1.7 in 1983 to 1.3 in 2000. • Pareto tail changes in time non-monotonously, in line with the stock market. • The tail income swelled 5-fold from 4% in 1983 to 20% in 2000. • It decreased in 2001 with the crash of the U.S. stock market.

  12. The fraction of total income in the upper tail The average income in the exponential part is T (the “temperature”). The excessive income in the upper tail, as fraction of the total incomeR, is where N is the total number of people

  13. Time evolution of income temperature The nominal average incomeT doubled: 20 k$198340 k$2001, but it is mostly inflation.

  14. The origin of two classes • Different sources of income:salaries and wages for the lower class, and capital gains and investments for the upper class. • Their income dynamics can be described by additive and multiplicativediffusion, correspondingly. • From the social point of view, these can be the classes of employees and employers. • Emergence of classes from the initially equal agents was recently simulated by Ian Wright "The Social Architecture of Capitalism“ Physica A346, 589 (2005)

  15. For a stationary distribution, tP = 0 and Diffusion model for income kinetics Suppose income changes by small amounts r over time t. ThenP(r,t) satisfies the Fokker-Planck equation for 0<r<: For the lower class,r are independent of r – additive diffusion, so A and B are constants. Then, P(r)  exp(-r/T), where T = B/A, – an exponential distribution. For the upper class,r  r– multiplicative diffusion, so A = ar and B = br2. Then, P(r)  1/r+1, where  = 1+a/b, – a power-law distribution. For the upper class, income does change in percentages, as shown by Fujiwara, Souma, Aoyama, Kaizoji, and Aoki (2003) for the tax data in Japan. For the lower class, the data is not known yet.

  16. Additive and multiplicative income diffusion If the additive and multiplicative diffusion processes are present simultaneously, then A= A0+ar and B= B0+br2 = b(r02+r2). The stationary solution of the FP equation is • It interpolates between the exponential and the power-law distributions and has 3 parameters: • T = B0/A0 – the temperature of the exponential part •  = 1+a/b – the power-law exponent of the upper tail • r0 – the crossover income between the lower and upper parts. Yakovenko (2007) arXiv:0709.3662, Fiaschi and Marsili (2007) Web site preprint

  17. Lorenz curve (0<r<): A measure of inequality, the Gini coefficient is G = Area(diagonal line - Lorenz curve) Area(Triangle beneath diagonal) For exponential distribution,G=1/2 and the Lorenz curve is With a tail, the Lorenz curve is where f is the tail income, and Gini coefficient is G=(1+f)/2. Lorenz curves and income inequality

  18. Income distribution for two-earner families The average family income is 2T. The most probable family income is T.

  19. No correlation in the incomes of spouses Every family is represented by two points (r1, r2) and (r2, r1). The absence of significant clustering of points (along the diagonal) indicates that the incomes r1andr2are approximately uncorrelated.

  20. Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient for families Lorenz curve is calculated for families P2(r)r exp(-r/T). The calculated Gini coefficient for families is G=3/8=37.5% No significant changes in Gini and Lorenz for the last 50 years. The exponential (“thermal”) Boltzmann-Gibbs distribution is very stable, since it maximizes entropy. Maximum entropy (the 2nd law of thermodynamics)  equilibrium inequality: G=1/2 for individuals, G=3/8 for families.

  21. World distribution of Gini coefficient The data from the World Bank (B. Milanović) In W. Europe and N. America, G is close to 3/8=37.5%, in agreement with our theory. Other regions have higher G, i.e. higher inequality. A sharp increase of G is observed in E.Europe and former Soviet Union (FSU) after the collapse of communism – no equilibrium yet.

  22. Income distribution in Australia The coarse-grained PDF (probability density function) is consistent with a simple exponential fit. The fine-resolution PDF shows a sharp peak around 7.3 kAU$, probably related to a welfare threshold set by the government.

  23. Wealth distribution in the United Kingdom For UK in 1996, T = 60 k£ Pareto index  = 1.9 Fraction of wealth in the tail f = 16%

  24. Conclusions • The analogy in conservation laws between energy in physics and money in economics results in the exponential (“thermal”) Boltzmann-Gibbsprobability distribution of money and income P(r)exp(-r/T) for individuals and P(r)r exp(-r/T) for two-earner families. • The tax and census data reveal a two-class structure of the income distribution in the USA: the exponential (“thermal”) law for the great majority(97-99%) of population and the Pareto (“superthermal”) power law for the top 1-3% of population. • The exponential part of the distribution is very stable and does not change in time, except for slow increase of temperature T (the average income). The Pareto tail is not universal and was increasing significantly for the last 20 years with the stock market, until its crash in 2000. • Stability of the exponential distribution is the consequence of entropy maximization. This results in the concept of equilibrium inequality in society: the Gini coefficientG=1/2for individuals and G=3/8for families. These numbers agree well with the data for developed capitalist countries.

  25. Income distribution in the United Kingdom For UK in 1998, T = 12 k£ = 20 k$ Pareto index  = 2.1 For USA in 1998, T = 36 k$

  26. Money (energy) Low T1, developing countries High T2, developed countries T1 < T2 Products Thermal machine in the world economy In general, different countries have different temperatures T, which makes possible to construct a thermal machine: Prices are commensurate with the income temperature T (the average income) in a country. Products can be manufactured in a low-temperature country at a low price T1 and sold to a high-temperature country at a high price T2. The temperature differenceT2–T1 is the profit of an intermediary. Money (energy) flows from high T2 to low T1 (the 2nd law of thermodynamics– entropy always increases)  Trade deficit In full equilibrium,T2=T1  No profit  “Thermal death” of economy

More Related