This article studies the distribution of income in Luxembourg by integrating two aspects that have been previously neglected: indirect taxation and in-kind transfers. The integration of the latter is essential in Luxembourg, the country with the highest public expenditure per capita in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These issues have been understudied because of some methodological challenges, including the lack of data containing all the necessary information for this type of analysis. However, with the EUROMOD microsimulation model, different data sources, and imputation methods, we are able to obtain a more complete view of the income distribution in Luxembourg. We find that, as in many developed countries, indirect taxes are regressive. On the other hand, in-kind transfers play an important role in reducing income inequality, in particular through education and health services.
AabergeRolfBhullerManudeepLangørgenAudunMogstadMagne. 2010. “The Distributional Impact of Public Services When Needs Differ.” Journal of Public Economics94 (9–10): 549–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.06.004
2.
AabergeRolfLangørgenAudunLindgrenPetter. 2013. “The Impact of Basic Public Services on the Distribution of Income in European Countries.” In Income and Living Conditions in Europe, edited by AtkinsonAnthony B.MarlierEric, 330–44. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
3.
AabergeRolfLangørgenAudunLindgrenPetter. 2017. “The Distributional Impact of Public Services in European Countries.” In Monitoring Social Inclusion in Europe (2017 Edition), edited by AtkinsonAnthony B.GuioAnne-CatherineMarlierEric, 159–74. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
4.
BalcazarCarlos FelipeCerianiLidiaOlivieriSergioRanzaniMarco. 2017. “Rent-imputation for Welfare Measurement: A Review of Methodologies and Empirical Findings.” Review of Income and Wealth64 (3): 881–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12312
5.
BanksJamesBlundellRichardLewbelArthur. 1997. “Quadratic Engel Curves and Consumer Demand.” The Review of Economics and Statistics79 (4): 527–39.
6.
De AgostiniPaolaCapéauBartDecosterAndréFigariFrancescoKneeshawJackLeventiChrysaManiosKostasPaulusAlariSutherlandHollyVanheukelomToon. 2017. Euromod extension to indirect taxation. EUROMOD Technical Note Series EMTN/3.0.
7.
DecosterAndréLoughreyJasonO’DonoghueCathalVerwerftDirk. 2010. “How Regressive are Indirect Taxes? a Microsimulation Analysis for Five European Countries.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management29 (2): 326–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20494
8.
FigariFrancescoPaulusAlari. 2015. “The Distributional Effects of Taxes and Transfers Under Alternative Income Concepts: The Importance of Three “I”s.” Public Finance Review43 (3): 347–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142113506930
9.
FuestClemensNiehuesJudithPeichlAndreas. 2010. “The Redistributive Effects of tax Benefit Systems in the Enlarged EU.” Public Finance Review38 (4): 473–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142110373480
10.
GarfinkelIrwinRainwaterLeeSmeedingTimothy M.. 2006. “A re-Examination of Welfare States and Inequality in Rich Nations: How in-Kind Transfers and Indirect Taxes Change the Story.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management25 (4): 897–919. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20213
11.
HeckmanJames J. 1979. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica47: 153–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912352
12.
LiégeoisPhilippeBergerFrédéricIslamNizamulWagenerRaymond. 2011. “Cross-validating Administrative and Survey Datasets Through Microsimulation and the Assessment of a tax Reform.” International Journal of Microsimulation4 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.34196/IJM.00045
13.
MaitinoMaria LuisaRavagliLetiziaScicloneNicola. 2017. “Microreg: A Traditional tax-Benefit Microsimulation Model Extended to Indirect Taxes and in-Kind Transfers.” International Journal of Microsimulation10 (1): 5–38. https://doi.org/10.34196/IJM.00148
14.
MaricalFrançoisMira d’ErcoleMarcoVaalavuoMariaGerlinde VerbistG.. 2008. Publicly Provided Services and the Distribution of Households’ Economics Resources? OECD Economic Studies No. 44, 2008/1. Paris: OECD.
15.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2019. Government at a Glance 2019. Paris: OECD.
16.
PaulusAlariSutherlandHollyTsakloglouPanos. 2010. “The Distributional Impact of in-Kind Public Benefits in European Countries.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management29 (2): 243–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20490
SavageMichael. 2017. “Integrated Modelling of the Impact of Direct and Indirect Taxes Using Complementary Datasets.” The Economic and Social Review48 (2): 171–205.
19.
SmeedingTimothy M. 1982. Alternative Methods for Valuing Selected In-Kind Transfer Benefits and Measuring Their Effect on Poverty, U.S. Bureau of Census Technical Paper No. 50. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
20.
SmeedingTimothy M.SaundersPeterCoderJohnJenkinsStephenFritzellJohanHagenaarsAldi J. M.HauserRichardWolfsonMichael. 1993. “Poverty, Inequality, and Family Living Standards Impacts Across Seven Nations: The Effect of Noncash Subsidies for Health, Education and Housing.” Review of Income and Wealth39 (3): 229–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1993.tb00458.x
21.
SutherlandHollyFigariFrancesco. 2013. “EUROMOD: The European Union tax-Benefit Microsimulation Model.” International Journal of Microsimulation1 (6): 4–26. https://doi.org/10.34196/IJM.00075
22.
VerbistGerlindeFörsterMichael. 2019. “Accounting for Public Services in Distributive Analysis.” In What Drives Inequality? (Research on Economic Inequality, Volume 27), edited by DecancqKoenVan KermPhilippe, 69–87. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
23.
VerbistGerlindeFörsterMichaelVaalavuoMaria. 2012. The Impact of Publicly Provided Services on the Distribution of Resources: Review of new Results and Methods. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No 103. Paris: OECD Publishing.
24.
VergnatVincentD'AmbrosioConchitaLiégeoisPhilippe. 2020. Euromod Extension to Indirect Taxation. Luxembourg: Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research.
