Comparing degrees of inequality aversion
- 81 Downloads
- 5 Citations
Abstract
We propose a straightforward dominance procedure for comparing social welfare orderings (SWOs) with respect to the degree of inequality aversion they express. Three versions of the procedure are considered, each of which uses a different underlying criterion of inequality comparisons: (i) a concept based on the Lorenz quasi-ordering, which we argue to be the ideal version, (ii) a concept based on a minimalist criterion of inequality, and (iii) a concept based on the relative differentials quasi-ordering. It turns out that the traditional Arrow–Pratt approach is equivalent to the latter two concepts for important classes of SWOs, but that it is profoundly inconsistent with the Lorenz-based concept. With respect to the problem of combining extreme inequality aversion and monotonicity, concepts (ii) and (iii) identify as extremely inequality averse a class of SWOs that includes leximin as a special case, whereas the Lorenz-based concept (i) concludes that extreme inequality aversion and monotonicity are incompatible.
Keywords
Risk Aversion Income Distribution Econ Theory Social Welfare Function Inequality AversionPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Atkinson AB (1970) On the measurement of inequality. J Econ Theory 2:244–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bosmans K (2007) Extreme inequality aversion without separability. Econ Theory (forthcoming)Google Scholar
- Bossert W, Weymark JA (2004) Utility in social choice. In: Barberá S, Hammond PJ, Seidl C (eds) Handbook of utility theory, vol 2, extensions. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1099–1177Google Scholar
- Champernowne DG, Cowell FA (1998) Economic inequality and income distribution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Chateauneuf A, Moyes P (2004) Lorenz non-consistent welfare and inequality measurement. J Econ Inequal 2:61–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cowell FA (1985) ‘A fair suck of the sauce bottle’ or what do you mean by inequality?. Econ Rec 6:567–579Google Scholar
- Foster JE (1985) Inequality measurement. In: Young HP (ed) Fair allocation. American Mathematical Society, Providence, pp 31–68Google Scholar
- Hammond PJ (1975) A note on extreme inequality aversion. J Econ Theory 11:465–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kolm S-Ch (1969) The optimal production of social justice. In: Margolis J, Guitton H (eds) Public economics. Macmillan, London, pp 145–200Google Scholar
- Kolm S-Ch (1976) Unequal inequalities II. J Econ Theory 13:82–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lambert PJ (2001) The distribution and redistribution of income, 3rd edn. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
- Mas-Colell A, Whinston MD, Green JR (1995) Microeconomic theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Moyes P (1994) Inequality reducing and inequality preserving transformations of incomes: symmetric and individualistic transformations. J Econ Theory 63:271–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pratt JW (1964) Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32:122–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ross SA (1981) Some stronger measures of risk aversion in the small and the large with applications. Econometrica 49:621–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sen AK (1997) Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrica 65:745–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tungodden B (2000) Egalitarianism: is leximin the only option?. Econ Philos 16:229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tungodden B (2003) The value of equality. Econ Philos 19:1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tungodden B, Vallentyne P (2005) On the possibility of Paretian egalitarianism. J Philos 102: 126–154Google Scholar