Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T02:59:50.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Income Distribution and Social Change Revisited*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

A. B. Atkinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Eleven years after the publication of Richard Titmuss's essay on Income Distribution and Social Change, the official statisticians are still drawing optimistic conclusions about the tendency of income inequality to decline in Britain. This article re-examines some of the critical questions raised by Titmuss concerning the accuracy and interpretation of the official statistics. It considers the definition of income, the implications of capital gains, fringe benefits and the benefits from owner-occupation, the role of life-cycle factors, and the measurement of inequality. It concludes with an assessment of the impact of Titmuss's study on the quality of statistical information and on attitudes and beliefs.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 1975 , pp. 57 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 P. 15. All references are to Income Distribution and Social Change, London: George Allen and Unwin, 1962, unless otherwise indicated.Google Scholar

2 Inland Revenue, The Survey of Personal Incomes 1969–70, London: HMSO, 1972, p. 4.Google Scholar

3 Op. cit., p. 18.Google Scholar

4 Op. cit., p. 1.Google Scholar

5 Op. cit., pp. 190–1.Google Scholar

6 Op. cit., p. 34.Google Scholar

7 Ibid., p. 35.

8 This exaggeration is recognized in The Survey of Personal Incomes 1969–70, op. cit., page 3, footnote c.

9 Webb, A. L. and Sieve, J. E. B., income Redistribution and the Welfare State, Occasional Papers on Social Administration, London: Bell, 1971.Google Scholar

10 In Wedderburn, D. (ed.), Poverty, Inequality and Class Structure, London: C.U.P., 1974.Google Scholar

11 Op. cit., p. 68.Google Scholar

12 Prest, A. R. and Stark, T., ‘Some Aspects of Income Distribution in the U.K. since World War II’, Manchester School, 1967, p. 239.Google Scholar

13 It may be noted that Pareto himself regarded an increase in the index as indicating increased inequality (see Chipman, J. S., ‘The Welfare Ranking of Pareto Distributions’Google Scholar, forthcoming), although in the present case the Inland Revenue's procedure seems appropriate:

14 Tawney, R. H., Equality, London: George Allen and Unwin, 1964, pp. 44–5.Google Scholar

15 Nicholson, R. J., ‘The Distribution of Personal Income’, Lloyds Bank Review, no. 83, 1967, pp. 11–21.Google Scholar

16 Op. cit., p. 194.Google Scholar