The top 1% income share in the US rose from 7.9% in 1976 to 14.6% in 1998. The income share of the top 0.01% richest people quintupled from 0.56% in 1976 to 2.57% in 1998 (Piketty & Saez, 2003). Growing inequality is not confined to the US. For example, the richest 20% in the United Kingdom earned seven times as much as the poorest 20% in 1991, compared with only four times as much in 1977 (Frank & Cook, 1995). In China the top 10% income share increased from 18.7% o 27.2% and the top 1% income share more than doubled from 2.8% in 1986 to 6.0% in 2003 (Piketty & Quian, 2006).
یادداشتهای مربوط به خلاصه یا چکیده
متن يادداشت
Recently, the income inequality of most western societies is increasing.1 "The phenomenon of Superstars, wherein relatively small numbers of people earn enormous amounts of money and dominate the activities in which they engage, seems to be increasingly important in the modern world" (Rosen, 1981, p. 845).2 The starting sentence of Sherwin Rosen's seminal paper "The Economics of Superstars" applies more than ever. Technological change has enlarged the scope and the intensity of so-called winner-takes-all markets3 during the last decades.4 Rosen (1981) explicitly mentions the worlds of sports, arts and letters or the show business5 as examples of markets dominated by a few superstars. Radio, television, reproduction equipment, and advancements in communication technology have increased the scope of a performer's audience and expanded their markets. Nowadays superstar performances may be broadcasted and consumed world-wide. Media technology makes it possible for large parts of the world to be served by one person, who is paid accordingly (Borghans & Groot, 1998). Why listen to the second-best pop star or a mediocre local singer, if the best is available? As the demand for home entertainment is increasing, it is likely that superstar earnings from records, television videos and film continue to rise, which will cause even greater skewness in the future earnings distribution (Towse, 1997).