On the Measurement of Inequality
TL;DR: In this paper, the problem of comparing two frequency distributions f(u) of an attribute y which for convenience I shall refer to as income is defined as a risk in the theory of decision-making under uncertainty.
About: This article is published in Journal of Economic Theory.The article was published on 1970-09-01. It has received 5002 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Income inequality metrics & Income distribution.
Citations
More filters
243 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: This paper examined the different ways in which unemployment creates deprivation, and what implications these issues have on the relative merits of American and European attitudes respectively to individual responsibility and social commitment, and found that unemployment causes deprivation in many other ways as well.
Abstract: Inequality of incomes can differ substantially from inequality in other 'spaces' such as well-being, freedom, health, longevity, and quality of life. Given the massive sclae of unemployment in contemporary European economies, concentrating only on income inequality can be particularly deceptive for studying economic inequality, since unemployment causes deprivation in many other ways as well. This paper examines the different ways in which unemployment creates deprivation (other than through low income), and what implications these issues have on the relative merits of American and European attitudes respectively to individual responsibility and social commitment.
243 citations
241 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors estimate poverty rates and headcounts by integrating the density function below the $1/day and $2/day poverty lines and find that poverty ratesdecline substantially over the last twenty years.
Abstract: We estimate the world distribution of income by integrating individualincome distributions for 125 countries between 1970 and 1998. Weestimate poverty rates and headcounts by integrating the density functionbelow the $1/day and $2/day poverty lines. We find that poverty ratesdecline substantially over the last twenty years. We compute povertyheadcounts and find that the number of one-dollar poor declined by 235million between 1976 and 1998. The number of $2/day poor declined by 450million over the same period. We analyze poverty across different regionsand countries. Asia is a great success, especially after 1980. LatinAmerica reduced poverty substantially in the 1970s but progress stoppedin the 1980s and 1990s. The worst performer was Africa, where povertyrates increased substantially over the last thirty years: the number of$1/day poor in Africa increased by 175 million between 1970 and 1998,and the number of $2/day poor increased by 227. Africa hosted 11% ofthe world s poor in 1960. It hosted 66% of them in 1998. We estimatenine indexes of income inequality implied by our world distribution ofincome. All of them show substantial reductions in global incomeinequality during the 1980s and 1990s.
238 citations
Additional excerpts
...See footnote 20....
[...]
...23 See Atkinson (1970)....
[...]
...See Mulligan (2002) for a discussion and for some estimates of the bias of assuming a lognormal function for all levels of income....
[...]
...22 See Cowell (1995) for a description and properties of each of them....
[...]
...10 Most of the literature on income distribution agrees that country income distributions are close to lognormal (See Mulligan (2002) and Cowell (1995))....
[...]
TL;DR: The authors generalize the axiomatic approach to the design of income inequality measures to the multiattribute context and explore two majorization criteria which are partial orders ranking distributions of attributes by their degree of inequality.
Abstract: This paper generalizes the axiomatic approach to the design of income inequality measures to the multiattribute context. While the extension of most axioms considered desirable for inequality indices is straightforward, it is not entirely clear when a situation is more unequal than another when each person is characterised by a vector of attributes of well-being. We explore two majorization criteria which are partial orders ranking distributions of attributes by their degree of inequality. The two criteria are motivated by the Pigou-Dalton Transfer Principle in the unidimensional context and its equivalent formulation. These criteria gauge inequality loosely speaking with respect to the dispersion of the multidimensional distribution of the attributes. They, however, fail to address a different dimension of multivariate inequality pertaining to an increase in the correlation of the attributes. In this connection, this paper introduces a correlation-increasing majorization criterion proposed by Boland and Proschan (1988). Finally, in conjunction with other axioms commonly invoked in the literature on inequality, the majorization criteria lead inexorably to the class of multidimensional generalized entropy measures.
237 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, a measure of risk aversion in the small, the risk premium or insurance premium for an arbitrary risk, and a natural concept of decreasing risk aversion are discussed and related to one another.
Abstract: This paper concerns utility functions for money. A measure of risk aversion in the small, the risk premium or insurance premium for an arbitrary risk, and a natural concept of decreasing risk aversion are discussed and related to one another. Risks are also considered as a proportion of total assets.
5,207 citations
Posted Content•
1,748 citations
"On the Measurement of Inequality" refers background in this paper
...3 See Rothschild and Stiglitz [13], Hadar and Russell [ 5 ], and Hanoch and Levy [6]....
[...]
1,738 citations
"On the Measurement of Inequality" refers methods in this paper
...Then by applying the results of Pratt [l 11, Arrow [ 2 ], and others, we can see that this requirement (which may be referred to as constant (relative) inequality-aversion) implies that U(y) has the form...
[...]
TL;DR: JSTOR as discussed by the authors is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship, which is used to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources.
Abstract: you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
1,544 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, an analysis of the first step of the decision-making process of an individual decision maker among alternative risky ventures is presented, in terms of a single dimension such as money, both for the utility functions and for the probability distributions.
Abstract: Publisher Summary The choice of an individual decision maker among alternative risky ventures may be regarded as a two-step procedure. The decision maker chooses an efficient set among all available portfolios, independently of his tastes or preferences. Then, the decision maker applies individual preferences to this set to choose the desired portfolio. The subject of this chapter is the analysis of the first step. It deals with optimal selection rules that minimize the efficient set by discarding any portfolio that is inefficient in the sense that it is inferior to a member of the efficient set, from point of view of each and every individual, when all individuals' utility functions are assumed to be of a given general class of admissible functions. The analysis presented in the chapter is carried out in terms of a single dimension such as money, both for the utility functions and for the probability distributions. However, the results may easily be extended, with minor changes in the theorems and the proofs, to the multivariate case. The chapter explains a necessary and sufficient condition for efficiency, when no further restrictions are imposed on the utility functions. It presents proofs of the optimal efficiency criterion in the presence of general risk aversion, that is, for concave utility functions.
1,160 citations