Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 565–576 | Cite as

Disparities in socio-economic outcomes: some positive propositions and their normative implications

Original Paper
  • 190 Downloads

Abstract

Demographic disparities between the rates of occurrence of an adverse economic outcome can be observed to be increasing even as general social improvements supposedly lead towards the elimination of the adverse outcome in question. Scanlan (Chance 19(2):47–51, 2006) noticed this tendency and developed a ‘heuristic rule’ to explain it. In this paper, we explore the issue analytically, providing a criterion from stochastic ordering theory under which one of two demographic groups can be considered disadvantaged and the other advantaged, and showing that Scanlan’s heuristic obtains as a rigorous finding in such cases. Normative implications and appropriate social policy are discussed.

JEL Classification

D63 I13 I31 I32 

References

  1. Cowell FA (1988) Poverty measures, inequality and decomposability. In: Bös D, Rose M, Seidl C (eds) Welfare and efficiency in public economics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 149–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Duncan OD, Duncan B (1955) A methodological analysis of segregation indices. Am Sociol Rev 20:210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dworkin R (1977) Reverse discrimination. Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 223–237Google Scholar
  4. Gastwirth JL (1975) Statistical measures of earning differentials. Am Stat 29:32–35Google Scholar
  5. Handcock MS, Morris M (1999) Relative distribution methods in the social sciences. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Jewitt I (1991) Applications of likelihood ratio orderings in economics. In: Stochastic Orders and Decision Under Risk, Institute of Mathematical Statistics Lecture Notes—Monograph Series 19. Beachwood, OH pp 174–189.Google Scholar
  7. Le Breton M, Michelangeli A, Peluso E (2012) A stochastic dominance approach to the measurement of discrimination. J Econ Theory 147:1342–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Milgrom PR (1981) Good news and bad news: representation theorems and applications. Bell J Econ 12:380–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Parfit D (1997) Equality and priority. Ratio 10:202–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pratt JW (1964) Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32:122–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Roemer JE (1988) Equality of opportunity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Scanlan JP (2006) Can we actually measure health disparities? Chance 19(2):47–51Google Scholar
  13. Sen AK (1973) On economic inequality. Clarendon, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shaked M, Shanthikumar JG (2007) Stochastic orders. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wolff EN (1976) Occupational earnings behavior and the inequality of earnings by sex and race in the United States. Rev Income Wealth 22(2):151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA
  2. 2.Madras Institute of Development StudiesChennai India

Personalised recommendations