Presentation on theme: "Data From the Tárki Household Monitor survey"— Presentation transcript:
1 Data From the Tárki Household Monitor survey István György Tóth Effects of the crisis on the income distribution in Hungary (some initial results)Data From the Tárki Household Monitor survey
2 The context of the crisis in HU The crisis found a country with an already large debt serviceThe country just passed a wave of budgetary adjustments (austerity measures) before the crisisHu is a small and very open economy (multinationals producing a very large part of GDP)Among households, a large debt is taken in foreign currencies – large exposure to exchange rate volatility..
3 … has gone in the same direction. First: improvements Social policy measures affecting the shape of the income distribution in …Before Summer 2006 :Public sector wage risesPension increases (indexation, 13th month pension)Redirecting family support to lower income groups (abolishing family taxallowances, raising family allowances)Other taxes: decrease of VAT ratesAfter Summer 2006:Social insurance contributions: extension, increasePIT, EVA: special „solidarity” taxes, increase of top ratesOther taxes: VAT, dutiesLayoffs in public sector… has gone in the same direction. First: improvementsfor the lower middle classes, then worsening for uppermiddle classes
4 Major economic indicators, Hungary, 2000-2009 GDP growth %,Inflation, %,HHold consumptionGross and net real earningsNote same quarter of the previous year=100
5 The data series CSO Income Surveys (- 1987) Hungarian Household Panel ( )TÁRKI Household Monitor (1998-)
6 Themes of the 2009 Tárki Household Monitor Major research questions:Income distribution, poverty,Labour market,social stratification and inequalities,Social and political attitudes.Sample: N= 2048 households, N= 3670 persons.Questionnaires: hhold and personal (16+ respondents).Field: February-March
7 Estimates of various inequality measures and their confidence intervals between 1987 and 2009 (person ekvivalent incomesP90/P10S10/S1Gini
8 Estimates for % of people and for 000 persons falling within the various median% brackets % distributionWell off (med 200%+)Upper middle (med %)Middle (med %)Lower middle (med50-80%)Poor (-med50%)total000 personsWell off (med 200%+)Upper middle (med %)Middle (med %)Lower middle (med50-80%)Poor (-med50%)Poverty estimates, 000 persons con. intervalUpperlowerTotal population, 000 persons*based on st err, 95% conf int
9 Share of per capita personal income deciles from total HH disposable incomes between 1962 and 2009 Source: 1962–1987: KSH income surveys, Atkinson–Micklewright  Table HI1.; 1992–1996: HHP waves I–VI., 2000–2009: Tárki Household Monitor.
10 Change in average incomes of various income deciles (person equivalent Change in average incomes of various income deciles (person equivalent* income) between 2007 and 2009Inflation (14%)Average income growth (7%)No change level* e=0.73
11 Polarization and shrinkage of the middle class between 1987 and 2005: distribution of persons in the 1987 per capitaincome deciles, based on current incomes deflated to 1987, percentNote: 1987 decile cutpoints are deflated median growth indices.Source: 1987: CSO Income distribution survey, 1996: HHP, 2003, 2005:Tárki Household Monitor.
12 Shifts between income groups, and : income decile cutpoints fixed at 2005, deflated by median income growth)2005 levelDistribution of persons, current yearPersonal income deciles, based on 2005 equivalent incomesSource: Tárki Household Monitor 2005, 2007 and 2009Notes: distribution of persons in 2005 and 2007, within incomes 2005income decile brackets (deflated by median incomes dynamics for 2007)
13 Persons living in households with different emplyoment composition adults (estimate, 000 persons) head pensioner,no employedhead pensioner,+ employedHh head empl,no other empl.Hh head empl,+ other empl.Hh headinactive
14 Summary: the combined income effects in HU … … so far Lower real incomes, larger inequalitiesStage I (2005- mid 2006): Winners: lower middle classes and public sector employeesStage II (mid ): Loosers: upper middle classes and public servantsStage III ( ): loosers: lowest and (somewhat less) the upper deciles
15 Further research: a potential frame of analysis for an intergenerational assessment of the effects of the crisisCrisis areaFinancial/bankingReal/productionSocial/employmentPublic financeDimensionsSavings, investments, pension assetsIncome generating jobsHuman capital, social capitalTax/benefit systems and in kind servicesAffected groups nowAsset holders, current and future pensioners, homeownersEmployed (poor and non-poor)„Usual”/ Traditional vulnerable groupsCash and in kind benefit recipientsWays how these affect future generationsRe-emerging claims to reconsider public/private pension portfolios increase strain on tax based public pensionsPoverty risk of active age families (more likely with with children)Child poverty and deprivation in marginalised groupsPotential access restrictions to quality in pre-school institutions, schools and healthcare