{"title":"关于社会不平等的公理和直觉","authors":"Samuel Bowles, Wendy Carlin","doi":"10.25071/1874-6322.40591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We show that Corrado Gini’s “concentration ratio” is an informative measure of experienced inequality that (as he pointed out) varies from one (his “maximum concentration”) to zero (“minimum concentration”), a feature that does not hold (except in infinite populations) for the measure advocated in the contribution to this symposium by our colleague, Debraj Ray. Through a social network representation of inequality and a series of examples, we clarify the differing intuitions about the nature of inequality that alternative measures of inequality capture. ","PeriodicalId":142300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Income Distribution®","volume":"59 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Axioms and Intuitions about Societal Inequality\",\"authors\":\"Samuel Bowles, Wendy Carlin\",\"doi\":\"10.25071/1874-6322.40591\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We show that Corrado Gini’s “concentration ratio” is an informative measure of experienced inequality that (as he pointed out) varies from one (his “maximum concentration”) to zero (“minimum concentration”), a feature that does not hold (except in infinite populations) for the measure advocated in the contribution to this symposium by our colleague, Debraj Ray. Through a social network representation of inequality and a series of examples, we clarify the differing intuitions about the nature of inequality that alternative measures of inequality capture. \",\"PeriodicalId\":142300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Income Distribution®\",\"volume\":\"59 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Income Distribution®\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25071/1874-6322.40591\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Income Distribution®","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25071/1874-6322.40591","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
We show that Corrado Gini’s “concentration ratio” is an informative measure of experienced inequality that (as he pointed out) varies from one (his “maximum concentration”) to zero (“minimum concentration”), a feature that does not hold (except in infinite populations) for the measure advocated in the contribution to this symposium by our colleague, Debraj Ray. Through a social network representation of inequality and a series of examples, we clarify the differing intuitions about the nature of inequality that alternative measures of inequality capture.