Ways to Define and Measure Inequality

This article discusses various methods to define and measure inequality, including within-country, international, and global inequality. It explores the trends and patterns of inequality within and between nations, with a focus on the significance of global inequality in recent times.

Political science

Ways to define and measure inequality.
Within or intra country inequality method addresses income inequalities within a
nation. It compares the differences between individuals or households. It is centred on the
nation’s GDP and overlooks the internal inequalities between residents. It takes into account
of population of a nation but not essentially. This method is related for the results of the
inequality surveys. For instance, in the case of Latin America, the overall inequality reduced
in the first half of 2000s. It is substantial to indicate Mexico and Brazil which held for 56% of
the whole population (McNabb, 2015). The country encountered stronger income unions than
other nations, Bolivia, Venezuela and Uruguay by distinction faced an upsurge in the
inequality.
The international inequality associates the income differences between nations. The
international inequality has been falling from the last 70 years. The major reason behind this
is the economic growth of the large developing economies mainly China and India. Although,
the inequality trend has been upturned with the international inequality increasing from 1989s
and ahead. Intra country inequality in China and India has robustly up surged in the recent
decades. It reflects to the broadening income inequalities between the rich and poor (Fioretos,
Falleti & Sheingate, 2016).
The global inequality covers both intra country and international inequality. The
global inequality states to the inequality between the citizens of the globe by comparing the
incomes of individuals across the globe. It comprises within country inequality centred on the
data gathered from the household surveys. Such data are more wide and differentiated than
the GDI per capita income (Alvaredo, et al. 2017). But this data is only accessible for the
1980s and so on. Even though, international inequality dropped for the first time after the
industrial revolution taken place. It has been considered that this trend can only continue if
the nation’s mean incomes unite further and inequality within the nations is supervised
(Milanovic, 2016).
Out of all the methods, it is hard to choose one method which can measure the income
inequality. But the global inequality is significant and helpful in comprehending recent
inequality patterns signifying the tradition configuration between low and middle income
nations is disappearing. It has been believed that majority of the poor now live in the middle
income nations such as China, India, Nigeria, Indonesia and Pakistan than in the poorest
countries like Sub-Saharan Africa.

References
Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2017). Global inequality
dynamics: New findings from WID. world. American Economic Review, 107(5), 404-
09.
Fioretos, O., Falleti, T. G., & Sheingate, A. (2016). Historical institutionalism in political
science. The Oxford handbook of historical institutionalism, 3-30.
McNabb, D. E. (2015). Research methods for political science: Quantitative and qualitative
methods. Routledge.
Milanovic, B. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization.
Harvard University Press.