An Important New Book on Income and Wealth Inequality
I just got an email from LIS (the group that runs the Luxembourg Income Study and Luxembourg Wealth Study) giving notice of a new book:
Income Inequality: Economic Disparities and the Middle Class in Affluent Countries
Contrary to the title, there’s a whole section on wealth inequality.
The book’s 17 chapters by 17 established researchers/research teams all draw on the extensive LIS databases of micro-level income and wealth data from 28 affluent countries 1980–2004. That large-sample, carefully normalized database holds promise of delivering insights that have been unavailable from previous data sets.
Given my interest in inequality and growth in advanced countries, I’ve been watching LIS for a while. I’ve tried working with their data, but it’s so micro-level that a great deal of work would have been required — more than I as an interested amateur was prepared to devote. I’m excited to see what these researchers have done with it.
Unfortunately it’s $65, and I don’t see any indication that the researchers have made their compiled/analyzed data sets (much less spreadsheets/stata files,etc.) available in electronic form for vetting and consideration by the likes of me (and more-competent others). But I’ll probably break down and buy it anyway.
Cross-posted at Asymptosis.
If you do buy it, I’d be interested to hear what you think of it.
You may be able to order an inter-library copy and save the bucks.
Spoken like a true economist, borrow it rather than buy it. Juan, that won’t add to the economic well being of the authors, the publisher and the distributor. Libraries may be counter productive to the publishing industry.
” Libraries may be counter productive to the publishing industry.”
Hey Jack, some books are very far out of print, na, other than via inter-library loan……Other hand, the one discussed is readily available , 58.50 from Amazon.
And yes, the publishing industry should not be transformed into kindles – imo, a printed paper book is much more enjoyable [possibly better for one’s eyes] than a screen.