Income Inequality Debate Summary
Oishi and Kesebir’s research addresses the assumption that economic growth will influence one’s happiness. In their research, Income Inequality Explains Why Economic Growth Does Not Always Translate to an Increase in Happiness, they provide one explanation for why some countries show the paradox of economic growth, but the results is not producing happiness. Using data on economic growth, income and inequality, and happiness from 34 different countries, Oishi and Kesebir found initial support for the idea of the Easterlian paradox. This paradox is explained, and the toxic effect of it does not help to over income inequality . Their hypothesis ustilized data from World database of Happiness. Sisteen developed countries in Europe and Asia
…show more content…
The GINI coefficient measured income inequality. The research findings were that changes in income inequality could help to explain happiness better than GDP per capita alone. Economic growth is associated with increases in life stratification in years when income inequality was small. Also, economic prosperity had very little effect on a population’s happiness when there were large disparities in income equality. There second set of data was collected from a representative public opinion survey collect annual in 18 Latin American countries and Spain and goes by the name of Latinobrometro. The analyses from both sets of research found a significant interaction between GDP per capita and the GINI coefficient and that inhabitants’ life satification was lower in years of greater income inequality. Considering the recent trend of growing inequality in many parts of the world the findings suggest that more of the Easterlian paradox will be played out and economic growth and increasing happiness of a countries citizens are not increasing at the same pace. Just as any person’s happiness would seem too dependent on more than money, the research seems to bare out that a country’s economic growth doesn’t always translate into greater happiness for its citizens. The analyses that Oishi and Kesebir researched, revealed that once one considers income inequality, it is not such a paradoxical idea when considering the Easterlian paradox is not so
The GINI coefficient measured income inequality. The research findings were that changes in income inequality could help to explain happiness better than GDP per capita alone. Economic growth is associated with increases in life stratification in years when income inequality was small. Also, economic prosperity had very little effect on a population’s happiness when there were large disparities in income equality. There second set of data was collected from a representative public opinion survey collect annual in 18 Latin American countries and Spain and goes by the name of Latinobrometro. The analyses from both sets of research found a significant interaction between GDP per capita and the GINI coefficient and that inhabitants’ life satification was lower in years of greater income inequality. Considering the recent trend of growing inequality in many parts of the world the findings suggest that more of the Easterlian paradox will be played out and economic growth and increasing happiness of a countries citizens are not increasing at the same pace. Just as any person’s happiness would seem too dependent on more than money, the research seems to bare out that a country’s economic growth doesn’t always translate into greater happiness for its citizens. The analyses that Oishi and Kesebir researched, revealed that once one considers income inequality, it is not such a paradoxical idea when considering the Easterlian paradox is not so