Talk:List of countries by income equality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"This is a sortable list of countries or dependencies" It is NOT sortable. Sorting does not work. 84.147.249.4 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Works fine for me, every column. (I have no idea how this is implemented, so I can't comment on why it might not work for anybody else). Gzuckier 17:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Works fine in firefox, does not work in Safari
It's odd - works sometimes. Sometimes I get 105 sorted in between 10.9 and 11.0 like it's using alphabetical order
but if I click the sort a couple of more times it does it right.
I am using Firefox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.202.146 (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a better source of information that this? The UN report cites figures for individual countries that go back to 1996 or even earlier (the Rwanda figure is from 1983 for Chrissake!)

Contents

[edit] Japan not colored right in Picture

In the image titled "Gini coefficient, income distribution by country." Japan is colored yellow, which would mean it has the lowest Gini coefficient of all nations (<0.25). However, Japan's Gini value is 0.38 which would make it light green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.234.52 (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template?

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
(2) Rank of country’s HDI;
(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005

Interesting article by BBC News at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1763410.stm regarding world income inequality. Vivaldi4Stagioni 21:20, 25 February 2006

Sorry for not getting the formatting correct here, but I think it would be valuable if someone added an extra column on the left side that had 1 though however many countries there are, that way when you reorganize the list by one of the values you can get rankings. I counted down the us as like 74th (UN listing) because I wanted to know, a simple 1-170ish on the side would provide instant rankings and make it easier for people referencing the article to list a number in the country data on country pages as well as the high, medium, or low qualifier of GINI. Thanks.



[edit] Wealth and equality

Is there any way to compare income equality with GDP or per capita income? I'd like to see if there is any correlation.

Does leveling income also reduce the general wealth?

Do free market economies make the rich get richer and the poor get richer (as capitalists like to claim), or do the rich get richer while the poor get poorer as Marxists claim? --Uncle Ed 21:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If you plot the data on the Gini coefficient vs. the GDP (PPP) per capita, you see a slightly negative correlation. Countries with pro-capita GDP under about 15000 $ have Gini coefficient that vary from 26 (Bosnia) to 71 (Nambia). Countries with pro-capita GDP over 15000 $ have all Gini coefficient from 25 (Denmark) to 42 (Singapore).
A possible "capitalist" interpretation is that, as a country becomes richer, there's a "tricle down" effect that reduces the inequality. A possible "Marxist" explanation is that countries that are (for historical reasons) inequal grow less that their potential (perhaps because the poor have little access to education and health care).
Perhaps you should see the evolution with time. On the Gini coefficient page, there's a graphic of the evolution of the coefficient with time for some industrialized countries after WWII. Most remained roughtly at the same level (Japan, Germany, Australia, India, Belgium, Sweden, Mexico), some had the inequality grow (USA, China, Brazil, UK), a few other have become more equal (France, Italy, Norway) StefanoC 12:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

using terms like rich and poor can be confusing. the vast majority of the population could be above the poverty line, yet still have a lot less wealth than the richest segment of the population. Rds865 (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical comparison?

It could be interesting to have data on where ancient societies would fall in the list (eg. Victorian Britain, feudal Europe, ancient Rome, etc.). StefanoC 12:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be impossible to make

[edit] The World Map

It seems like the World map of the Gini coefficient doesn't agree with the table in the article. --Starylon 18:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What year does the world map show? --Spitzl 13:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


The map doesn't seem to have a source, and differs sharply from the provided data for, at least, Bolivia. 71.206.247.227 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I am not very good at editing sources or anything like that but according this this image: http://www.opte.cl/es/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/world_map_gini_coefficient_opte.png the cited source is 'UN 2006 Development Programme Report' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.146.158 (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

woops that last comment was by me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelersfan7roe (talk • contribs) 08:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on Richest to Poorest Column Heading

In this column of the table -Richest 10% to poorest 10%, and 20% - This needs clarification: Is the ratio expressing numbers of individuals in the top and bottom %, or the average per capita income differential between the two?

For example, Denmark's value is 8.1 in the 10% column. Does this mean that there are 8.1 times more people in the bottom 10% then the top 10%, or that an average individual in the top 10% makes 8.1 times more then the average individual in the bottom 10%?


I was going to ask the same question. How exactly is this measured? It's a bit confusing. Jcp20 20:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the later. How can you have more people in the top 10% than the bottom 10%? They're equal at 10% of the population by definition. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 11:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. The article explains the Gini index, but does not explain the "UN Richest 10% to poorest 10%" and the "UN Richest 20% to poorest 20%" headings. The "per capita income differential" explanation does not make sense to me. Terms understood only by specialists should not be used in Wikipedia without adequate explanation in layman's terms. We will appreciate clarifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yishaika (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shall we add missing countries? Such as Cuba

I was curious about the position of Cuba and I searched for it but it is not in the list. Shall we add a note mentioning the missing countries? And a citation of the reason for them missing? --phauly 14:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Slovakia

Im Slovakian and i have to add that in 1996 my coutry was just in beggining of transition to modern market economy, so compare equality with year 2006 is worthless ...so much change, look at Economy of Slovakia

I you have new, cited numbers, make sure to put them in. Wouter Lievens 09:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gini index field

this seems to be a mashup of both sources, the cia and the undp (which comes from the world bank). the rest of the data in the table is from the undp, which I discover only after having laboriously updated the gini fields to reflect the latest cia data. somebody needs to add a second gini field for undp gini stats, as it shouldn't be oranges and apples lumped together. i will do it myself pretty soon if nobody beats me to it. Gzuckier 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japan

According to the CIA world fact book, as of 2000 Japan has a Gini index of 37.9 (NOT 24.9!); I know it does not state Richest 10% to poorest 10%, but this really needs to be changed; those feilds should just be left blank. The data on this table for Japan is from 1993--A lot has changed since then and Japan is far from the 3rd most income equality; it is somewhere around 59th.

ChristopherMannMcKay 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. 24.9 seemed a little off to me. 142.163.66.144 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ranked

Can this table have countries ranked by Gini coefficient rather than alphabetically? Leon 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, since the article is called "list of countries by income equality the list of countries in the article should be organized from most equal to less equal.

--Tsboncompte 17:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the different numbers?

Does anyone know why the UN and CIA get different numbers sometimes, even when the surveys take place in the same year? Esn 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete Rwanda statistic

I found a more recent Rwanda gini coefficient over here (income inequality has risen quite a lot, it seems). However, I haven't been able to find the richest/poorest 10/20% statistics in the paper (though it does seem to say that the poorest 20% only get 4% of the wealth). What to do? Esn 20:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing "country"

Wikipedia editors are normally happy to include the European Union on lists of countries, but not this one. Whyever not? Mk270 11:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is in the list. There is just no data from the UN study. The dots meant "no data available". To make it more clear, I now changed them to "n/a". --Spitzl 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iceland and Lux are missing

Data for Iceland and Luxembourg is missing from the table. Please add these two countries. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Same thing as above, Iceland and Luxembourg are not covered by the given studies. However, you are welcome to add data from another source. --Spitzl 23:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] explanation of numbers

there needs to be a short explanation of the numbers and where they come from. Rds865 (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)