To date, one of the most commonly used measure of income inequality is the Gini index. The Gini coefficient measures income inequality on a scale from 0 to 1. On this scale 0 represents perfect equality with everyone having the exact same income and 1 represents perfect inequality with one person having all income. According to the United Nations (UN), gini index ratings for countries range from 24.7 in Denmark to 74.3 in Namibia. Most post-industrial nations had a gini coefficient in the high twenties to mid thirties. In 2005 the gini index for the EU was estimated at 31[6], as a comparison the USA have 46.3, a surprising result since the EU has virtually no interstate income redistribution power and poorer new member states joined in 2004.
Comparing the richest areas of the EU can be a difficult task. This is because the NUTS 1 & 2 regions are not homogenous, some of them being very large regions, such as NUTS-1 Hesse (21,100 km²) or NUTS-1 Île-de-France (12,011 km²), whilst other NUTS regions are much smaller, for example NUTS-1 Hamburg (755 km²) or NUTS-1 Greater London (1,580 km²). An extreme example is Finland, which is divided for historical reasons into mainland Finland with 5.3 million inhabitants and Åland, an island with a population of 26,700, or about the population of a small Finnish city. One problem with this data is that in some areas, including Greater London, are subject to a large number of commuters coming into the area, thereby artificially inflating the figures. It has the effect of raising GDP but not altering the number of people living in the area, inflating the GDP per capita figure. Similar problems can be produced by a large number of tourists visiting the area.
Comparing the richest areas of the EU can be a difficult task. This is because the NUTS 1 & 2 regions are not homogenous, some of them being very large regions, such as NUTS-1 Hesse (21,100 km²) or NUTS-1 Île-de-France (12,011 km²), whilst other NUTS regions are much smaller, for example NUTS-1 Hamburg (755 km²) or NUTS-1 Greater London (1,580 km²). An extreme example is Finland, which is divided for historical reasons into mainland Finland with 5.3 million inhabitants and Åland, an island with a population of 26,700, or about the population of a small Finnish city. One problem with this data is that in some areas, including Greater London, are subject to a large number of commuters coming into the area, thereby artificially inflating the figures. It has the effect of raising GDP but not altering the number of people living in the area, inflating the GDP per capita figure. Similar problems can be produced by a large number of tourists visiting the area.
No comments:
Post a Comment