Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 52, Issue 4, pp 635–661 | Cite as

Upward and downward bias when measuring inequality of opportunity

  • Paolo BrunoriEmail author
  • Vito Peragine
  • Laura Serlenga
Original Paper


Estimates of the level of inequality of opportunity have traditionally been proposed as lower bounds due to the downward bias resulting from the partial observability of circumstances that affect individual outcome. We show that such estimates may also suffer from upward bias as a consequence of sampling variance. The magnitude of the latter distortion depends on both the empirical strategy used and the observed sample. We suggest that, although neglected in empirical contributions, the upward bias may be significant and challenge the interpretation of inequality of opportunity estimates as lower bounds. We propose a simple criterion to select the best specification that balances the two sources of bias. Our method is based on cross-validation and can easily be implemented with survey data. To show how this method can improve the reliability of inequality of opportunity measurement, we provide an empirical illustration based on income data from 31 European countries. Our evidence shows that estimates of inequality of opportunity are sensitive to model selection. Alternative specifications lead to significant differences in the absolute level of inequality of opportunity and to the re-ranking of a number of countries, which confirms the need for an objective criterion to select the best econometric model when measuring inequality of opportunity.

Supplementary material


  1. Arlot S, Celisse A (2010) A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection. Stat Surv 4:40–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Athey S (2018) The impact of machine learning on economics. In: Agrawal AK, Gans J, Goldfarb A (eds) Chapter 21 in the economics of artificial intelligence: an agenda. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Balcazar C (2015) Lower bounds on inequality of opportunity and measurement error. Econ Lett 137:102–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Björklund A, Jäntti A, Roemer J (2012) Equality of opportunity and the distribution of long-run income in Sweden. Soc Choice Welf 39:675–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourguignon F, Ferreira F, Ménendez M (2007) Inequality of opportunity in Brazil. Rev Income Wealth 53:585–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourguignon F, Ferreira F, Ménendez M (2013) Inequality of opportunity in Brazil: a corrigendum. Rev Income Wealth 59:551–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brunori P, Ferreira F, Peragine V (2013) Inequality ofopportunity, income inequality and mobility: some internationalcomparisons. In: Paus E (ed) Getting development right: structural transformation, inclusion and sustainability in the post-crisis era. Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunori P, Hufe P, Mahler GD (2018) The roots of inequality: estimating inequality of opportunity from regression trees. In: World bank policy research working papers 8349Google Scholar
  9. Brunori P, Palmisano F, Peragine V (2016) Inequality of opportunity in Sub Saharan Africa. In: World bank policy research working papers 7782Google Scholar
  10. Brzenziński M (2015) Inequality of opportunity in Europe before and after the Great Recession. In: Working Paper n. 2/2015 (150). Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of WarsawGoogle Scholar
  11. Chakravarty SR, Eichhorn W (1994) Measurement of income inequality: observed versus true data. In: Eichhorn W (ed) Models and measurement of welfare and inequality. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Checchi D, Peragine V (2010) Inequality of opportunity in Italy. J Econ Inequal 8:429–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Checchi D, Peragine V, Serlenga L (2016) Inequality of opportunity in Europe: is there a role for institutions? In: Cappellari L, Polachek S, Tatsiramos K (eds) Inequality: causes and consequences, research in labor economics, vol 43. Emerald, BingleyGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniels B (2012) “CROSSFOLD: stata module to perform k-fold cross-validation,” Statistical Software Components S457426. Boston College Department of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferreira F, Gignoux J (2011) The measurement of inequality of opportunity: theory and an application to Latin America. Rev Income Wealth 57:622–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferreira F, Peragine V (2016) Equality of opportunity: theory and evidence. In: Adler M, Fleurbaey M (eds) Oxford handbook of well-being and public policy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleurbaey M, Schokkaert E (2009) Unfair inequalities in health and health care. J Health Econ 28:73–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gareth J, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2013) An introduction to statistical learning with applications in R. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The elements of statistical learning data mining, inference, and prediction, 2nd edn. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  20. Hothorn T, Hornik K, Zeileis A (2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. J Comput Graph Stat 15(3):651–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hufe P, Peichl A, Roemer J, Ungerer M (2017) Inequality of income acquisition: the role of childhood circumstances. Soc Choice Welf 49:499–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hufe P, Peichl A (2015) Lower bounds and the linearity assumption in parametric estimations of inequality of opportunity. In: IZA working papers, DP No. 9605Google Scholar
  23. Ibarra L, Martinez C, Adan L (2015) Exploring the sources of downward bias in measuring inequality of opportunity. In: World bank policy research working paper no. WPS 7458. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  24. Kanbur R, Wagstaff A (2016) How useful is inequality of opportunity as a policy construct? In: Basu K, Stiglitz JE (eds) Inequality and growth: patterns and policy. International economic association series. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Kohavi R (1995) A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In: Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, vol 2, pp 1137–1143Google Scholar
  26. Larson SC (1931) The shrinkage of the coefficient of multiple correlation. J Educ Psychol 22(1):45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lefranc A, Pistolesi N, Trannoy A (2009) Equality of opportunity and luck: definitions and testable conditions, with an application to income in France. J Public Econ 93(11–12):1189–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li Donni P, Rodriguez JG, Rosa Dias P (2015) Empirical definition of social types in the analysis of inequality of opportunity: a latent classes approach. Soc Choice Welf 44:673–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luongo P (2011) The implication of partial observability of circumstances on the measurement of inequality of opportunity. In: Rodriguez J (ed) Research on economic inequality, vol 19, pp 23-49Google Scholar
  30. Marrero G, Rodrguez J (2012) Inequality of opportunity in Europe. Rev Income Wealth 58:597–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mullainathan S, Spiess J (2017) Machine learning: an applied econometric approach. J Econ Perspect 31(2):87–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Niehues J, Peichl A (2014) Upper bounds of inequality of opportunity: theory and evidence for Germany and the US. Soc Choice Welf 43:63–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rodríguez JD, Pérez A, Lozano JA (2010) Sensitivity analysis of kappa-fold cross validation in prediction error estimation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 32(3):569–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roemer J (1998) Equality of opportunity. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Roemer J, Trannoy A (2015) Equality of Opportunity. In: Atkinson AB, Bourguignon F (eds) Handbook of income distribution, vol 2. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Shao J (1997) An asymptotic theory for linear model selection. Stat Sin 7(1997):221–264Google Scholar
  37. Stone M (1977) An asymptotic equivalence of choice of model by cross-validation and akaike’s criterion. J R Stat Soc Ser B 39(1):44–47Google Scholar
  38. Suárez AA, Menéndez AJL (2017) Income inequality and inequality of opportunity in Europe. Are they on the rise? ECINEQ WP 2017-436Google Scholar
  39. Van de Gaer D, Ramos X (2016) Empirical approaches to inequality of opportunity: principles, measures, and evidence. J Econ Surv 30(5):855–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Varian HR (2014) Big data: new tricks for econometrics. J Econ Perspect 28(2):3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wendelspiess FCJ (2015) Measuring inequality of opportunity with latent variables. J Hum Dev Capab 16(1):106–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze per l’Economia e l’ImpresaUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.University of BariBariItaly
  3. 3.University of Bari and IZABariItaly

Personalised recommendations