Measuring Income and Income Inequality

C. H. D. Clarke & Wojciech Kopczuk

Journal of Economic Perspectives2025https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.20241424article
AJG 4ABDC A*
Weight
0.53

Abstract

Income inequality is important, but attempts to measure it arrive at strikingly different conclusions. Why? We use recent disputes over measuring United States income inequality to return to first principles about both the income concept and inequality measurement. We emphasize two broad points. First, no measure of the income distribution is truly comprehensive, or could attempt to be comprehensive without making controversial choices. We document the practical and conceptual problems that the standard ideal — comprehensive Haig-Simons income — raises. Second, much of the controversy in this area turns on the many tradeoffs between starting with individual tax data versus more expansive income concepts. Individual tax data reflect only a shrinking subset of a more comprehensive income concept — but they are individual data. More expansive alternatives, on the other hand, are harder to allocate to individuals. We document some of the most important and contestable assumptions that such an allocation requires.

8 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.20241424

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{c.2025,
  title        = {{Measuring Income and Income Inequality}},
  author       = {C. H. D. Clarke & Wojciech Kopczuk},
  journal      = {Journal of Economic Perspectives},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.20241424},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Measuring Income and Income Inequality

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.53

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.70 × 0.15 = 0.10
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.