Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Some Logical and Normative Issues Relating to Measurement in the Social Sciences

  • Policy Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This lecture is based on the premise that measurement is very important for the social sciences. However, it also enjoins care on the practitioner’s part in his or her engagement with the project of measurement. It deals, in particular, with four often overlooked issues with which quantification in the social sciences should be concerned: (1) social indicators in relation to the contrast between outcomes and processes; (2) measurement which tends to depend on the derivation of ‘ought’ propositions from ‘is’ propositions; (3) the neglect of the role of normative values in social and economic measurement; and (4) the role of language and logic in social measurement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atkinson, A.B., and A. Brandolini. 2010. On Analyzing the World Distribution of Income. World Bank Economic Review 24: 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barakat, B. 2014. Revisiting the History of Fertility Concentration and Its Measurement. Vienna Institute of Demography Working Papers 1/2014, Vienna. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/subsites/Institute/VID/PDF/Publications/Working_Papers/WP2014_01.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.

  • Basu, K. 2001. On the Goals of Development. In Frontiers of Development Economics: The Future in Perspective, ed. G.M. Meier and J.E. Stiglitz. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, K. 2006. Globalization, Poverty, and Inequality: What is the Relationship? What Can Be Done? World Development 34(8): 1361–1373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, K. 2013. Shared Prosperity and the Mitigation of Poverty: In Practice and in Precept. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 6700. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2354167. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.

  • Basu, K., and S. Subramanian. 2019. Inequality, Growth, Poverty, and Lunar Eclipses: Policy and Arithmetic. Development and Change. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12512

  • Bosmans, K., K. Decancq, and A. Decoster. 2013. The Relativity of Decreasing Inequality Between Countries. Economica 81(322): 276–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome, J. 1996. The Welfare Economics of Population. Oxford Economic Papers 48(2): 177–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datt, G., and M. Ravallion. 1992. Growth and Redistribution Components of Changes in Poverty Measures. Journal of Development Economics 38(2): 275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhongde, S. 2002. Measuring the Impact of Growth and Income Distribution on Poverty in India. Mimeo: Department of Economics, University of California at Riverside. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.198.3867&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.

  • Dollar, D., and A. Kraay. 2002. Growth is Good for the Poor. Journal of Economic Growth 7(3): 195–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dollar, D., T. Kleineberg, and A. Kraay. 2013. Growth Still is Good for the Poor. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6568. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/496121468149676299/pdf/WPS6568.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.

  • Dollar, D., T. Kleineberg, and A. Kraay. 2014. Growth, Inequality, and Social Welfare: Cross-Country Evidence. In Economic Policy Sixtieth Panel Meeting, Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance, Rome. http://www.economic-policy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Dollar-Kraay-Kleineberg.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.

  • Dos Santos, V.F., and W. da Cruz Vieira. 2013. Effects of Growth and Reduction of Income Inequality on Poverty in Northeastern Brazil, 2003–2008. Economia Aplicada. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-80502013000400006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J. 1997. The Mismeasure of Man. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassoun, N. 2009. Another Mere Addition Paradox? A Problem for Some Common Poverty Indexes in Variable Populations. Carnegie Mellon University Working Paper.

  • Jain, L.R., and S.D. Tendulkar. 1990. The Role of Growth and Distribution in the Observed Change in Head-Count Ratio Measure of Poverty: A Decomposition Exercise for India. Indian Economic Review 25(2): 165–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayaraj, D., and S. Subramanian. 2009. The Wellbeing Implications of a Change in the Sex-Ratio of a Population. Social Choice and Welfare 33(1): 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayaraj, D., and S. Subramanian. 2015. Growth and Inequality in the Distribution of India’s Consumption Expenditure: 1983 to 2009–2010. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(32): 39–47.

  • Kakwani, N., and K. Subbarao. 1990. Rural Poverty and its Alleviation in India. Economic and Political Weekly 25: A2–A16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanbur, S.R., and D. Mukherjee. 2007. Premature Mortality and Poverty Measurement. Bulletin of Economic Research 19(4): 339–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolm, SCh. 1976a. Unequal Inequalities I. Journal of Economic Theory 12(3): 416–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolm, SCh. 1976b. Unequal Inequalities II. Journal of Economic Theory 13(1): 82–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krtscha, M. 1994. A New Compromise Measure of Inequality. In Models and Measurement of Welfare and Inequality, ed. W. Eichhorn. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nino-Zarazua, M., L. Roope, and F. Tarp. 2017. Global Inequality: Relatively Lower, Absolutely Higher. Review of Income and Wealth 63(4): 661–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patillo, C., S. Gupta, and K. Carey. 2005. Sustaining Growth Accelerations and Pro-poor Growth in Africa. IMF Working Paper WP/05/195. Washington, D.C.. International Monetary Fund. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.511.2979&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.

  • Rosenblatt, D., and T. McGavock. 2013. A Note on the Simple Algebra of the Shared Prosperity Indicator. Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 6645. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/894291468337199450/A-note-on-the-simple-algebra-of-the-shared-prosperity-indicator. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.

  • Sen, A. 1967. The Nature and Classes of Prescriptive Judgements. The Philosophical Quarterly 17(66): 46–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shorrocks, A.F. 1984. Inequality Decomposition by Population Sub-groups. Econometrica 52(6): 1369–1385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shorrocks, A.F. 1988. Aggregation Issues in Inequality Measurement. In Measurement in Economics: Theory and Applications in Economic Indices, ed. W. Eichhorn. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shorrocks, A.F. 2013. Decomposition Procedures for Distributional Analysis: A Unified Framework Based on the Shapley Value. Journal of Economic Inequality 11(1): 99–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian, S. 2010. Introduction. In Poverty, Inequality, and Population: Essays in Development and Applied Measurement, ed. D. Jayaraj and S. Subramanian. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian, S., and M. Lalvani. 2018. Poverty, Growth, Inequality: Some General and India-Specific Considerations. Indian Growth and Development Review 11(2): 136–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, B. 2007. Unit-Consistent Decomposable Inequality Measures. Economica 74(293): 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Independent Scholar, Chennai, India

    S. Subramanian

Authors
  1. S. Subramanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Subramanian.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This is the text of the C. Chandrasekaran Memorial Lecture, delivered at The International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) in Mumbai on March 11th 2019. In preparing the lecture, I have drawn considerably on earlier work in which I have been involved, either singly or in collaboration. For discussions over the years on the issues dealt with in the lecture, I am grateful to D. Jayaraj, Kaushik Basu, Nicole Hassoun, Sanjay Reddy and Mala Lalvani. This lecture was published as Paper No. 18 in the IIPS Working Papers Series (IIPS: Mumbai, April 2019); and I am grateful to the Institute for permission to reproduce the paper here.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Subramanian, S. Some Logical and Normative Issues Relating to Measurement in the Social Sciences. J. Quant. Econ. 17, 937–948 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40953-019-00187-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40953-019-00187-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation