Pub Date : 2009-12-15DOI: 10.25071/1874-6322.23678
Eugenio Peluso, A. Trannoy
We investigate under which conditions it is possible to infer the evolution of poverty at the individual level from the knowledge of poverty among households. Poverty measurement is approached by the poverty orderings introduced by Foster and Shorrocks (1988). The analysis is based on a reduced form of household bargaining (Peluso and Trannoy, 2007) and provides results in terms of preservation of poverty orderings. We point out the main analogies and differences between inequality and poverty assessment, expressing them in terms of empirically testable conditions. In particular, knowing the change in poverty at the household level is not sufficient to deduce a similar change in poverty at the individual level. We need to know the change in the household income distributions far beyond their poverty line. The focus axiom does not hold in this context.
{"title":"Poverty orderings and intra-household inequality: The Lost Axiom","authors":"Eugenio Peluso, A. Trannoy","doi":"10.25071/1874-6322.23678","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25071/1874-6322.23678","url":null,"abstract":"We investigate under which conditions it is possible to infer the\u0000evolution of poverty at the individual level from the knowledge of\u0000poverty among households. Poverty measurement is approached by\u0000the poverty orderings introduced by Foster and Shorrocks (1988). The\u0000analysis is based on a reduced form of household bargaining (Peluso\u0000and Trannoy, 2007) and provides results in terms of preservation of\u0000poverty orderings. We point out the main analogies and differences\u0000between inequality and poverty assessment, expressing them in terms\u0000of empirically testable conditions. In particular, knowing the change\u0000in poverty at the household level is not sufficient to deduce a similar\u0000change in poverty at the individual level. We need to know the change\u0000in the household income distributions far beyond their poverty line.\u0000The focus axiom does not hold in this context.","PeriodicalId":142300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Income Distribution®","volume":"202 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127728446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-12-15DOI: 10.25071/1874-6322.23679
A. Kimhi
Differentiating between the sensitivity of income inequality to male income and female income and decomposing inequality by income determinants, we find that total income inequality is less sensitive to female income variability or the level of female income, than to male income variability or the level of male income. Uniform increases in education reduce income inequality, with increases in female education having a larger effect than increases in male education. An increase in the population fraction of ethnic minorities has a positive effect on inequality, but this operates mostly through female income. All this suggests that female income is the most adequate target for inequality-reducing policy, and that within-household gender equality is good for reducing income inequality among households.
{"title":"Male Income, Female Income, and Household Income Inequality in\u0000Israel: A Decomposition Analysis","authors":"A. Kimhi","doi":"10.25071/1874-6322.23679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25071/1874-6322.23679","url":null,"abstract":"Differentiating between the sensitivity of income inequality to male\u0000income and female income and decomposing inequality by income determinants,\u0000we find that total income inequality is less sensitive to female\u0000income variability or the level of female income, than to male\u0000income variability or the level of male income. Uniform increases\u0000in education reduce income inequality, with increases in female education\u0000having a larger effect than increases in male education. An\u0000increase in the population fraction of ethnic minorities has a positive\u0000effect on inequality, but this operates mostly through female income.\u0000All this suggests that female income is the most adequate target for\u0000inequality-reducing policy, and that within-household gender equality\u0000is good for reducing income inequality among households.","PeriodicalId":142300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Income Distribution®","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128256949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}