Frank Cowell: TU Lisbon – Inequality & Poverty Inequality Measurement July 2006 Inequality...
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
1
Transcript of Frank Cowell: TU Lisbon – Inequality & Poverty Inequality Measurement July 2006 Inequality...
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Inequality Measurement
July 2006 July 2006
Inequality measurement Measurement Inequality measurement Measurement
Technical University of LisbonTechnical University of Lisbon
Frank CowellFrank Cowellhttp://darp.lse.ac.uk/lisbon2006http://darp.lse.ac.uk/lisbon2006
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Issues to be addressed
Builds on lecture 3Builds on lecture 3 ““Distributional Equity, Social Welfare” Distributional Equity, Social Welfare”
Extension of ranking criteriaExtension of ranking criteria Parade diagramsParade diagrams Generalised Lorenz curveGeneralised Lorenz curve
Extend SWF analysis to inequalityExtend SWF analysis to inequality Examine structure of inequalityExamine structure of inequality Link with the analysis of povertyLink with the analysis of poverty
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Major Themes
Contrast three main approaches to the subjectContrast three main approaches to the subject intuitiveintuitive via SWF via SWF via analysis of structurevia analysis of structure
Structure of the populationStructure of the population Composition of Inequality measurementComposition of Inequality measurement Implications for measuresImplications for measures
The use of axiomatisationThe use of axiomatisation Capture what is “reasonable”?Capture what is “reasonable”? Find a common set of axioms for related problemsFind a common set of axioms for related problems
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Overview...Inequality rankings
Inequality measures
Inequality axioms
Inequality decomposition
Inequality in practice
Inequality measurement
Relationship with welfare rankings
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Inequality rankings
Begin by using welfare analysis of previous lectureBegin by using welfare analysis of previous lecture Seek inequality rankingSeek inequality ranking We take as a basis the second-order distributional We take as a basis the second-order distributional
rankingranking ……but introduce a small modificationbut introduce a small modification
The 2nd-order dominance concept was originally The 2nd-order dominance concept was originally expressed in a more restrictive form.expressed in a more restrictive form.
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Inequality rankings
Using the welfare analysis above…Using the welfare analysis above… Seek an Seek an inequalityinequality ranking ranking Take as a basis the 2nd-order distributional rankingTake as a basis the 2nd-order distributional ranking
……but introduce a small modificationbut introduce a small modification Normalise by dividing by the meanNormalise by dividing by the mean Away of forcing an “iso-inequality” path as mean income Away of forcing an “iso-inequality” path as mean income
changeschanges The 2nd-order dominance concept was originally The 2nd-order dominance concept was originally
expressed in this more restrictive form…expressed in this more restrictive form…
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Yet another important relationship
The The shareshare of the proportion of the proportion qq of distribution of distribution FF is given is given by by L(F;q) := C(F;q) / (F)
Yields Lorenz dominance, or the “shares” rankingYields Lorenz dominance, or the “shares” ranking
For given , G Lorenz-dominates FW(G) > W(F) for all WW2
The Atkinson (1970) result:The Atkinson (1970) result:
G Lorenz-dominates Fmeans: for every q, L(G;q) L(F;q), for some q, L(G;q) > L(F;q)
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
The Lorenz diagram
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
prop
orti
on o
f in
com
e
proportion of population
L(G;.)
L(F;.)
L(.; q)
q
Lorenz curve for FLorenz curve for F
practical example, UK
practical example, UK
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Application of ranking
The tax and -benefit system maps one distribution into The tax and -benefit system maps one distribution into another...another...
Use ranking tools to assess the impact of this in welfare Use ranking tools to assess the impact of this in welfare terms.terms.
Typically this uses one or other concept of Lorenz Typically this uses one or other concept of Lorenz dominance.dominance.
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
original income+ cash benefits
gross income- direct taxes
disposable income- indirect taxes
post-tax income+ non-cash benefits
final income
Official concepts of income: UK
What distributional ranking would we expect to apply to these 5 concepts?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Proportion of population
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
co
me
Original Income
Gross Income
Disposable Income
After Tax Income
Final Income
(Equality Line)
Impact of Taxes and Benefits. UK 2000/1. Lorenz Curve
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Assessment of example
We might have guessed the outcome…We might have guessed the outcome… In most countries:In most countries:
Income tax progressiveIncome tax progressive So are public expendituresSo are public expenditures But indirect tax is regressiveBut indirect tax is regressive
So Lorenz-dominance is not surprising.So Lorenz-dominance is not surprising. But what happens if we look at the situation over time?But what happens if we look at the situation over time?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Proportion of population
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
co
me
1993
2000-1
(Equality Line)
“Final income” – Lorenz
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Proportion of population
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
co
me
1993
2000-1
(Equality Line)
“Original income” – Lorenz
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Lorenz curves intersect
Is 1993 more equal?
Or 2000-1?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Inequality ranking: Summary Second-order (GL)-dominance is equivalent to ranking Second-order (GL)-dominance is equivalent to ranking
by cumulations. by cumulations. From the welfare lectureFrom the welfare lecture
Lorenz dominance equivalent to ranking by shares. Lorenz dominance equivalent to ranking by shares. Special case of GL-dominance normalised by means.Special case of GL-dominance normalised by means.
Where Lorenz-curves intersect unambiguous inequality Where Lorenz-curves intersect unambiguous inequality orderings are not possible.orderings are not possible.
This makes inequality measures especially interesting.This makes inequality measures especially interesting.
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
A further look at inequality
The Atkinson SWF route provides a coherent approach to The Atkinson SWF route provides a coherent approach to inequality.inequality.
But do we need to approach via social welfareBut do we need to approach via social welfare An indirect approachAn indirect approach Maybe introduces unnecessary assumptions,Maybe introduces unnecessary assumptions,
Alternative route: “distance” and inequalityAlternative route: “distance” and inequality Consider a generalisation of the Irene-Janet diagramConsider a generalisation of the Irene-Janet diagram
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Overview...Inequality rankings
Inequality measures
Inequality axioms
Inequality decomposition
Inequality in practice
Inequality measurement
Three ways of approaching an index
•Intuition•Social welfare•Distance
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
An intuitive approach
Lorenz comparisons (second-order dominance) may be Lorenz comparisons (second-order dominance) may be indecisiveindecisive
But we may want to “force a solution”But we may want to “force a solution” The problem is essentially one of aggregation of The problem is essentially one of aggregation of
informationinformation Why worry about aggregation?Why worry about aggregation?
It may make sense to use a very simple approachIt may make sense to use a very simple approach Go for something that you can “see”Go for something that you can “see”
Go back to the Lorenz diagramGo back to the Lorenz diagram
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.5
prop
ortion of in
come
proportion of population
Gini CoefficientGini Coefficient
The best-known inequality measure?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Equivalent ways of writing the Gini:Equivalent ways of writing the Gini:1.1. Normalised area above Lorenz curveNormalised area above Lorenz curve
The Gini coefficient
2.2. Normalised difference between income pairs. Normalised difference between income pairs.
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Intuitive approach: difficulties
Essentially arbitraryEssentially arbitrary Does not mean that Gini is a bad indexDoes not mean that Gini is a bad index But what is the basis for it?But what is the basis for it?
What is the relationship with social welfare?What is the relationship with social welfare? The Gini index also has some “structural” problemsThe Gini index also has some “structural” problems
We will see this in the next sectionWe will see this in the next section
What is the relationship with social welfare?What is the relationship with social welfare? Examine the welfare-inequality relationship directlyExamine the welfare-inequality relationship directly
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Overview...Inequality rankings
Inequality measures
Inequality axioms
Inequality decomposition
Inequality in practice
Inequality measurement
Three ways of approaching an index
•Intuition•Social welfare•Distance
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
SWF and inequality
Issues to be addressed:Issues to be addressed: the derivation of an indexthe derivation of an index the nature of inequality aversionthe nature of inequality aversion the structure of the SWFthe structure of the SWF
Begin with the SWF Begin with the SWF WW Examine contours in Irene-Janet spaceExamine contours in Irene-Janet space
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Equally-Distributed Equivalent Income
O xi
xj
The Irene &Janet diagram A given distribution Distributions with same mean Contours of the SWF
•E
(F) (F)
•F
Construct an equal distribution E such that W(E) = W(F) EDE incomeSocial waste from inequality
Curvature of contour indicates society’s willingness to tolerate “efficiency loss” in pursuit of greater equality
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Atkinson assumed an additive social welfare Atkinson assumed an additive social welfare function that satisfied the other basic axioms.function that satisfied the other basic axioms.
(F)I(F) = 1 – ——
(F)Mean incomeMean income
Ede incomeEde income
Welfare-based inequality
x1 - – 1 u(x) = ————, 1 –
Introduced an extra assumption: Iso-elastic Introduced an extra assumption: Iso-elastic welfare.welfare.
From the concept of social waste Atkinson (1970) From the concept of social waste Atkinson (1970) suggested an inequality measure:suggested an inequality measure:
W(F) = u(x) dF(x)
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
The Atkinson Index Given scale-invariance, additive separability of welfareGiven scale-invariance, additive separability of welfare Inequality takes the form:Inequality takes the form:
Given the Harsanyi argument…Given the Harsanyi argument… index of inequality aversion index of inequality aversion based on risk aversion.based on risk aversion.
More generally see it as a stament of social valuesMore generally see it as a stament of social values Examine the effect of different values of Examine the effect of different values of
relationship between relationship between uu((xx) and ) and xx relationship between relationship between uu′′((xx) and ) and xx
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Social utility and relative income
1 2 3 4 5
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
U
x /
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Relationship between welfare weight and income
0 1 2 3 4 50
1
2
3
4
=1/2
=0
=1
U'
x /
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Overview...Inequality rankings
Inequality measures
Inequality axioms
Inequality decomposition
Inequality in practice
Inequality measurement
Three ways of approaching an index
•Intuition•Social welfare•Distance
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
A distance interpretation
Can see inequality as a deviation from the normCan see inequality as a deviation from the norm The norm in this case is perfect equalityThe norm in this case is perfect equality Two key questions…Two key questions… ……what distance concept to use?what distance concept to use? How are inequality contours on one level “hooked up” to How are inequality contours on one level “hooked up” to
those on another?those on another?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Another class of indices Consider the Consider the Generalised EntropyGeneralised Entropy class of inequality class of inequality
measures:measures:
The parameter The parameter is an indicator sensitivity of each is an indicator sensitivity of each member of the class.member of the class. large and positive gives a “top -sensitive” measurelarge and positive gives a “top -sensitive” measure negative gives a “bottom-sensitive” measurenegative gives a “bottom-sensitive” measure
Related to the Atkinson classRelated to the Atkinson class
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Inequality and a distance concept The Generalised Entropy class can also be written:The Generalised Entropy class can also be written:
Which can be written in terms of income shares Which can be written in terms of income shares ss
Using the distance criterion Using the distance criterion ss11−−/ [1/ [1−−] …] … Can be interpreted as weighted distance of each income shares from an equal shareCan be interpreted as weighted distance of each income shares from an equal share
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
The Generalised Entropy Class
GE class is richGE class is rich Includes two indices from Henri Theil:Includes two indices from Henri Theil:
= 1: = 1: [ [ xx / / ((FF)] log ()] log (xx / / ((FF)) d)) dFF((xx))
= 0: = 0: – – log ( log (xx / / ((FF)) d)) dFF((xx)) For For < 1 it is ordinally equivalent to Atkinson class < 1 it is ordinally equivalent to Atkinson class
= 1 = 1 – – .. For For = 2 it is ordinally equivalent to (normalised) = 2 it is ordinally equivalent to (normalised)
variance.variance.
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Inequality contours
Each family of contours related to a different concept of Each family of contours related to a different concept of distancedistance
Some are very obvious…Some are very obvious… ……others a bit more subtleothers a bit more subtle Start with an obvious oneStart with an obvious one
the Euclidian casethe Euclidian case
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
GE contours: 2
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
GE contours: 225
− −
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
GE contours: a limiting case
−∞
Total priority to the poorestTotal priority to the poorest
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
GE contours: another limiting case
Total priority to the richestTotal priority to the richest
+∞
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
By contrast: Gini contours
Not additively separableNot additively separable
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Overview...Inequality rankings
Inequality measures
Inequality axioms
Inequality decomposition
Inequality in practice
Inequality measurement
A fundamentalist approach
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
A further look at inequality
The Atkinson SWF route provides a coherent approach to The Atkinson SWF route provides a coherent approach to inequality.inequality.
But do we need to approach via social welfareBut do we need to approach via social welfare An indirect approachAn indirect approach Maybe introduces unnecessary assumptions,Maybe introduces unnecessary assumptions,
Alternative route: “distance” and inequalityAlternative route: “distance” and inequality
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
The 3-Person income distribution
0 Irene's income
Jan
et's
inco
me
Karen's income
ix
kx
xj
ray of
equali
ty
Income DistributionsWith Given Total
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Inequality contours
0
ix
kx
xj
Set of distributions for given total Set of distributions for a higher (given) total Perfect equality Inequality contours for original levelInequality contours for higher level
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Themes Cross-disciplinary conceptsCross-disciplinary concepts Income differencesIncome differences Reference incomesReference incomes Formal methodologyFormal methodology
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Methodology Exploit common structureExploit common structure
povertypoverty deprivationdeprivation complaints and inequalitycomplaints and inequality see see Cowell (2005)Cowell (2005)
Axiomatic methodAxiomatic method minimalist approachminimalist approach characterise structurecharacterise structure introduce ethicsintroduce ethics
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
“Structural” axioms
Take some social evaluation function Take some social evaluation function ContinuityContinuity
Linear homogeneityLinear homogeneity
Translation invarianceTranslation invariance
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Structural axioms: illustration
x1
x3
x2
DD for for nn=3=3 An income distributionAn income distribution Perfect equalityPerfect equality Contours of “Absolute” GiniContours of “Absolute” Gini ContinuityContinuity
Continuous approach to Continuous approach to I I = 0= 0 Linear homogeneityLinear homogeneity
Proportionate increase in Proportionate increase in II Translation invarianceTranslation invariance
II constant constant
DD for for nn=3=3 An income distributionAn income distribution Perfect equalityPerfect equality Contours of “Absolute” GiniContours of “Absolute” Gini ContinuityContinuity
Continuous approach to Continuous approach to I I = 0= 0 Linear homogeneityLinear homogeneity
Proportionate increase in Proportionate increase in II Translation invarianceTranslation invariance
II constant constant
0
1•
x*
•
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Amiel-Cowell (1999) approach
BC
Irene's income
Jan
et's
inco
me
xi
xj
0
ray o
f equal
ity
The Irene &Janet diagram A distribution
Possible distributions of a small increment
Does this direction keep inequality unchanged? Or this direction?
Consider the iso-inequality path.
Also gives what would be an inequality-preserving income reduction
A “fair” tax?
A
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
xi
xj
Scale independence
Example 1.
Equal proportionate additions or subtractions keep inequality constant
Corresponds to regular Lorenz criterion
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
xi
xjx2
Translation independence
Example 2.
Equal absolute additions or subtractions keep inequality constant
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
xi
xj
Intermediate case
Example 3.
Income additions or subtractions in the same “intermediate” direction keep inequality constant
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
xi
xjx2
Dalton’s conjecture
Amiel-Cowell (1999) showed that individuals perceived inequality comparisons this way.
Pattern is based on a conjecture by Dalton (1920)
Note dependence of direction on income level
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Overview...Inequality rankings
Inequality measures
Inequality axioms
Inequality decomposition
Inequality in practice
Inequality measurement
Structural issues
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Why decomposition?
Resolve questions in decomposition and population Resolve questions in decomposition and population heterogeneity:heterogeneity: Incomplete informationIncomplete information International comparisonsInternational comparisons Inequality accountingInequality accounting
Gives us a handle on axiomatising inequality measuresGives us a handle on axiomatising inequality measures Decomposability imposes structure.Decomposability imposes structure. Like separability in demand analysisLike separability in demand analysis
first, some terminology
first, some terminology
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
A partition
population share
subgroupinequality
income share
j
sj
Ij
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(iv)
• The populationThe population• Attribute 1Attribute 1
• One subgroupOne subgroup• Attribute 2Attribute 2
(1)(2)
(3) (4)(5) (6)
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
What type of decomposition?
Distinguish three types of decomposition by subgroupDistinguish three types of decomposition by subgroup In increasing order of generality these are:In increasing order of generality these are:
Inequality accountingInequality accounting Additive decomposabilityAdditive decomposability General consistencyGeneral consistency
Which type is a matter of judgmentWhich type is a matter of judgment More on this belowMore on this below Each type induces a class of inequality measuresEach type induces a class of inequality measures The “stronger” the decomposition requirement…The “stronger” the decomposition requirement… ……the “narrower” the class of inequality measuresthe “narrower” the class of inequality measures
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
adding-up propertyadding-up property
weight functionweight function
1:Inequality accounting
This is the most restrictive form This is the most restrictive form of decomposition:of decomposition: accounting equationaccounting equation
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
2:Additive Decomposability
As type 1, but no adding-up As type 1, but no adding-up constraint:constraint:
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
population sharespopulation shares
3:General Consistency
The weakest version:The weakest version:
income sharesincome shares
increasing in each subgroup’s inequalityincreasing in each subgroup’s inequality
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
A class of decomposable indices
Given scale-invariance and additive decomposability,Given scale-invariance and additive decomposability, Inequality takes the Inequality takes the Generalised EntropyGeneralised Entropy form: form:
Just as we had earlier in the lecture.Just as we had earlier in the lecture. Now we have a formal argument for this family.Now we have a formal argument for this family. The weight The weight jj on inequality in group on inequality in group jj is is jj = = jj
ssjj11−−
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
What type of decomposition? Assume scale independence…Assume scale independence… Inequality accounting:Inequality accounting:
Theil indices only (Theil indices only ( Here Here jj = = jj or or jj = = ssjj
Additive decomposability:Additive decomposability: Generalised Entropy IndicesGeneralised Entropy Indices
General consistency:General consistency: moments, moments, Atkinson, ...Atkinson, ...
But is there something missing here?But is there something missing here? We pursue this laterWe pursue this later
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
What type of partition?
GeneralGeneral The approach considered so farThe approach considered so far Any characteristic used as basis of partitionAny characteristic used as basis of partition Age, gender, region, incomeAge, gender, region, income Induces specific class of inequality measuresInduces specific class of inequality measures ... but excludes one very important measure... but excludes one very important measure
Non-overlapping in incomesNon-overlapping in incomes A weaker versionA weaker version Partition just on the basis of incomePartition just on the basis of income Allows one to include the "missing" inequality measureAllows one to include the "missing" inequality measure
Distinction between them is crucial for one special Distinction between them is crucial for one special inequality measureinequality measure
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Different (equivalent) Different (equivalent) ways of writing the Gini:ways of writing the Gini:
Normalised area under the Normalised area under the Lorenz curveLorenz curve
The Gini coefficient
Normalised pairwise differencesNormalised pairwise differences
A ranking-weighted averageA ranking-weighted average
But ranking depends on reference distributionBut ranking depends on reference distribution
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
prop
ortion of in
come
proportion of population
Gini CoefficientGini Coefficient
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Partitioning by income...
x*
N1 N2
0
x**N1
x'x
Case 2: effect on Gini differs in subgroup and population
x'x
Case 1: effect on Gini is same in subgroup and population
Non-overlapping income groups
Overlapping income groups
Consider a transfer:Case 1
Consider a transfer:Case 2
x
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Overview...Inequality rankings
Inequality measures
Inequality axioms
Inequality decomposition
Inequality in practice
Inequality measurement
Performance of inequality measures
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Non-overlapping decomposition
Can be particularly valuable in empirical Can be particularly valuable in empirical applicationsapplications
Useful for rich/middle/poor breakdownsUseful for rich/middle/poor breakdowns Especially where data problems in tailsEspecially where data problems in tails
Misrecorded dataMisrecorded data Incomplete dataIncomplete data Volatile data componentsVolatile data components
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Choosing an inequality measure
Do you want an index that accords with Do you want an index that accords with intuition?intuition? If so, what’s the basis for the intuition?If so, what’s the basis for the intuition?
Is decomposability essential?Is decomposability essential? If so, what type of decomposability?If so, what type of decomposability?
Do you need a welfare interpretation?Do you need a welfare interpretation? If so, what welfare principles to apply?If so, what welfare principles to apply?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty Atkinson and Brandolini. (2004)
Absolute vs Relative measures
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
Inequality measures and US experience
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
GiniGE0GE1A.25A.50A.75
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty T
U L
isbon – Inequality & P
overty
References AmielAmiel, Y. and Cowell, F. A. (1999), Y. and Cowell, F. A. (1999) Thinking about InequalityThinking about Inequality, Cambridge , Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, Chapter 7.University Press, Cambridge, Chapter 7. Atkinson, A. B. (1970) “On the Measurement of Inequality,” Journal of
Economic Theory, 2, 244-263 Atkinson, A. B. and Brandolini. A. (2004) “Global World Inequality:
Absolute, Relative or Intermediate?” Paper presented at the 28th General Conference of the International Association for Research on Income and Wealth. August 22. Cork, Ireland.
Cowell, F. A. (2000)Cowell, F. A. (2000) “Measurement of Inequality,” in Atkinson, A. B. and “Measurement of Inequality,” in Atkinson, A. B. and Bourguignon, F. (eds) Bourguignon, F. (eds) Handbook of Income DistributionHandbook of Income Distribution, North Holland, , North Holland, Amsterdam, Chapter 2, 87-166Amsterdam, Chapter 2, 87-166
Cowell, F. A. (2006)Cowell, F. A. (2006) “Theil, Inequality Indices and Decomposition,” “Theil, Inequality Indices and Decomposition,” Research Research on Economic Inequalityon Economic Inequality, , 1313, 345-360, 345-360
Piketty, T. and E. Saez (2003) “Income inequality in the United States, 1913-1998,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1-39.
ShorrocksShorrocks, A. F. (1983), A. F. (1983) “Ranking Income Distributions,” “Ranking Income Distributions,” EconomicaEconomica, , 5050, 3-17, 3-17 Theil, H. (1967) Theil, H. (1967) Economics and Information TheoryEconomics and Information Theory, North Holland, , North Holland,
Amsterdam, chapter 4, 91-134Amsterdam, chapter 4, 91-134