Here are some videos of presentations I have given, listed in reverse chronological order.
Age-cohort-period methods have been used by a number of researchers to explore intergenerational inequality. When these methods have been used in this way, cohort effects, controlling for period effects, have been taken to be indicators of intergenerational inequalities. In my own work, I have used an indicator (the IGI index) that does not control for period effects. In these discussant comments, I argue briefly against the practice of using age-cohort-period methods in this way in order to measure intergenerational inequality.
Fiscal sustainability and intergenerational equity are distinct concepts, although they are often conflated by social scientists who presume that a lack of fiscal sustainability will lead to inequitable or unequal effects on later generations. In this paper these two concepts are distinguished and the relationship between them explored. Based on data from the Australian National Transfer Accounts, the paper explores fiscal sustainability and intergenerational equity in the Australian generational economy during the 28-year time period between 1981-82 and 2009-10 as well as into the future under a range of economic and demographic scenarios. Fiscal sustainability is measured by comparisons of the present values of consumption and labour income under the various economic and demographic scenarios, while intergenerational equity is measured by the IGI index of intergenerational inequality developed recently by Rice, Temple, and McDonald.
Inequality between generations is a central feature of human societies. Moreover, many institutions have developed within human societies that mould and shape intergenerational inequality, including the state. Nevertheless, intergenerational inequality remains ill-defined as a concept and is rarely directly measured empirically. This article examines intergenerational inequality - in particular, intergenerational inequality in income. In order to provide greater definition to the concept of intergenerational inequality, the article introduces a new measure of intergenerational inequality: the I index. With this new index added to its methodological toolkit, the article examines the empirical evidence on intergenerational inequality in income, as well as how the state works to alter intergenerational inequality through the redistributive effect of public transfers. The empirical evidence examined is drawn from the recently developed Australian National Transfer Accounts, which include data on the incomes and public transfers paid and received by different ages and generations in Australia during the 28-year time period between 1981-82 and 2009-10. The analyses presented suggest that there are substantial inequalities in the incomes received by different generations, with earlier generations generally receiving less income in real terms over their lifetimes than later generations. As the state has operated through time - receiving public transfers from some individuals and paying public transfers to others - it has worked to increase intergenerational inequality. This implies that the state has worked to decrease the incomes of earlier generations relative to those of later generations. In this way, the state could be described as exhibiting a bias in favour of later generations.