4.6 Article

Trends and Causes of Regional Income Inequality in China

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su15097673

关键词

income inequality; spatial disparity; Theil index

向作者/读者索取更多资源

China has successfully reduced national income inequality, but regional income inequality remains fluctuating. The top 10% and 1% have seen an increase in their pre-tax income shares since 1978, reaching around 40% and 15% respectively in 2015. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% have experienced a decline in their pre-tax income share, falling below that of the top 1% in 2015. This study examines the trends of income inequality from 2000 to 2020 in different regions of China and analyzes the factors influencing it.
Although China has been successful in reducing national income inequality over the past decade, regional income inequality shows a fluctuating trend. The pre-tax income shares of the top 10% and 1% have grown since 1978 and reached about 40% and 15% of the total income share in 2015. Meanwhile, the pre-tax income shares of the bottom 50% have been falling, having dropped from one-quarter of the total income share to less than that of the top 1% in 2015. With this background, this study investigated the trends of income inequality from 2000 to 2020 in west, central, northeast, and east regions in China and analysed their influence factors. Income data from 271 prefecture-level cities in mainland China between 2010 and 2019 were used to calculate the Theil index in each province and region. The analysis was segregated based on urban and rural areas in four regions: east, northeast, central, and west. The Theil index indicated that the income inequality of different regions in China showed a declining trend in rural areas, and a declining and then increasing trend in urban areas. Furthermore, local economic development has a positive impact on income inequality, whereas the urbanization rate and fiscal spending rate have negative impacts on income inequality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据