A note on the relationship between additive separability and decomposability in measuring income inequality

IF 1.6 Q2 ECONOMICS REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY Pub Date : 2020-08-06 DOI:10.1080/00346764.2020.1802055
B. Fine, Pedro Mendes Loureiro
{"title":"A note on the relationship between additive separability and decomposability in measuring income inequality","authors":"B. Fine, Pedro Mendes Loureiro","doi":"10.1080/00346764.2020.1802055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This note introduces original technical results in the theoretical measurement of inequality by specifying the relationships between additive separability and homotheticity (of measures of welfare closely related to measures of inequality), and decomposability and homogeneity in measures of inequality. More specifically, an interrogation is made of the resonances and dissonances between the classic contributions of Atkinson and Shorrocks, which are key representatives, respectively, of the 'social welfare function' and the 'axiomatic' approaches to measuring inequality. In brief, in the presence of otherwise common assumptions, it is shown that additive separability and homotheticity of welfare are stronger combined conditions than decomposability and homogeneity (of degree zero) of income inequality. The gap between the two, however, can be closed by adding an extra term around total income to the measure of welfare, allowing for wider considerations of the relationship between social welfare, total income, and the distribution of individual incomes.","PeriodicalId":46636,"journal":{"name":"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY","volume":"80 1","pages":"550 - 565"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00346764.2020.1802055","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2020.1802055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This note introduces original technical results in the theoretical measurement of inequality by specifying the relationships between additive separability and homotheticity (of measures of welfare closely related to measures of inequality), and decomposability and homogeneity in measures of inequality. More specifically, an interrogation is made of the resonances and dissonances between the classic contributions of Atkinson and Shorrocks, which are key representatives, respectively, of the 'social welfare function' and the 'axiomatic' approaches to measuring inequality. In brief, in the presence of otherwise common assumptions, it is shown that additive separability and homotheticity of welfare are stronger combined conditions than decomposability and homogeneity (of degree zero) of income inequality. The gap between the two, however, can be closed by adding an extra term around total income to the measure of welfare, allowing for wider considerations of the relationship between social welfare, total income, and the distribution of individual incomes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于衡量收入不平等中可加性可分性和可分解性之间关系的说明
本文通过具体说明(与不平等测度密切相关的福利测度的)可加可分性和同质性以及不平等测度中的可分解性和同质性之间的关系,介绍了不平等理论测度中的原始技术成果。更具体地说,对阿特金森和肖罗克斯的经典贡献之间的共鸣和不和谐进行了审问,他们分别是衡量不平等的“社会福利函数”和“公理化”方法的关键代表。简言之,在存在其他常见假设的情况下,研究表明,福利的可加可分性和同质性比收入不平等的可分解性和同质性(零度)更强。然而,可以通过在福利衡量标准中增加一个关于总收入的额外术语来缩小两者之间的差距,从而更广泛地考虑社会福利、总收入和个人收入分配之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: For over sixty-five years, the Review of Social Economy has published high-quality peer-reviewed work on the many relationships between social values and economics. The field of social economics discusses how the economy and social justice relate, and what this implies for economic theory and policy. Papers published range from conceptual work on aligning economic institutions and policies with given ethical principles, to theoretical representations of individual behaviour that allow for both self-interested and "pro-social" motives, and to original empirical work on persistent social issues such as poverty, inequality, and discrimination.
期刊最新文献
Detaching ‘neoliberalism’ from ‘free markets’: monopolistic corporations as neoliberalism’s ideal market form A political economy analysis of changes and continuities in Iran–Africa trade relations: a case of South–South dependency? Financialization and the social economy The rise and fall of Britain’s Golden Cohort: how the remarkable generation of 1925–1934 had their lives cut short by austerity The understructure of market production
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1