Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Income Inequality Indices Interpreted as Measures of Relative Deprivation/Satisfaction

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers different ways of making comparisons between individuals in terms of deprivation and/or satisfaction. This allows the Gini index, the Bonferroni index and the De Vergottini index to be interpreted as social deprivation measures as well as social satisfaction measures. The inequality measures that belong to the β family, or linear combinations of them, are obtained when using different weighting schemes to average the deprivation and satisfaction associated with each income level. Particularly, the generalised Gini indices (Yitzhaki, Int Econ Rev 24:617–628 in 1983), the indices proposed by Aaberge (J Econ Inequal 5(3):305–322, 2007) or those proposed by Imedio-Olmedo et al. (J Public Econ Theory 13(1):97–124, 2011) can be used to evaluate social deprivation or social satisfaction in an income distribution.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This concept initially appeared in studies in the field of sociology to justify certain aspects of collective behaviour: Stouffer et al. (1949), Davis (1959), Runciman (1966), Gurr (1968) and Crosby (1976, 1979). From an economic standpoint, Runciman’s (1966) approach has had the greatest impact. He defines relative deprivation as follows: a person is relatively deprived of Z when (1) he does not have Ζ, (2) he sees some other person or persons, which may include himself at some previous or expected time, as having Z, (3) he wants Ζ, and (4) he sees it as feasible that he should have Z.

  2. Other references related to deprivation in terms of income are: Yitzhaki (1982), Chakravarty and Chakraborty (1984), Berrebi and Silber (1985), Paul (1991), Chakravarty et al. (1995), Podder (1996), Chakravarty (1997, 2007), Chakravarty and Mukherjee (1998), Imedio-Olmedo et al. (1999), Ebert and Moyes (2000), Bárcena (2003), Imedio-Olmedo and Bárcena-Martín (2003), and Magdalou and Moyes (2009).

  3. This definition is motivated by Runciman (1996): “…relative deprivation is the extent of the difference between the desired situation and that of the person desiring it”.

  4. Some proposals, such as that of Berrebi and Silber (1985), avoid the first step. We think that it is essential to explicitly state how to make inter-comparisons in such formulations.

  5. Bárcena and Imedio (2008) make some considerations about these indices in this regard.

  6. The De Vergottini index is the only one that does not belong to β.

  7. To avoid being repetitive, on occasion we only use the term deprivation when referring to both deprivation and satisfaction.

  8. As pointed by Easterlin (1995), Alesina et al. (2004) and Berg and Veenhoven (2010) in the individual’s deprivation the absolute level of income is not as important as the relative income position of the individuals, i.e. the comparison with the income position of the relevant others.

  9. Proof of all the results of this paper are available upon request from the authors.

  10. F is sometimes assumed to be continuous in order to obtain theoretical results in a simpler manner. In such a case, \( {\text{f}}({\text{x}}) = {\text{F}}^{\prime } ({\text{x}}) \) is the density function of the distribution.

  11. In the following equality, if the minimum income is x0 > 0, then \( {\text{B}}(0) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{{{\text{x}} \to 0^{ + } }} {{({\text{L}}({\text{p}})} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{({\text{L}}({\text{p}})} {\text{p}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\text{p}}}) = {\text{L}}^{\prime } (0^{ + } ) = {{{\text{x}}_{ 0} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\text{x}}_{ 0} } {{\upmu}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{\upmu}}} \).

  12. Their distribution functions are: \( {\text{F}}_{{[0,{\text{x}}]}} ({\text{z}}) = {{{\text{F}}({\text{z}})} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\text{F}}({\text{z}})} {{\text{F}}({\text{x}})}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{\text{F}}({\text{x}})}}, \) \( 0 < {\text{z}} \le {\text{x,}} \) \( {\text{F}}_{{\left[ {{\text{x}},{\text{x}}_{\text{M}} } \right]}} ({\text{z}}) = {{\left( {{\text{F}}({\text{z}}) - {\text{F}}({\text{x}})} \right)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left( {{\text{F}}({\text{z}}) - {\text{F}}({\text{x}})} \right)} {\left( {1 - {\text{F}}({\text{x}})} \right)}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left( {1 - {\text{F}}({\text{x}})} \right)}}, \) \( {\text{z}} \ge {\text{x}} . \)

  13. There is no valid upper bound for any distribution. For a given distribution with maximum income xM, \( {\text{V}} \in [0,({{{\text{x}}_{\text{M}} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\text{x}}_{\text{M}} } {{\upmu}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{\upmu}}}) - 1]. \)

  14. A relative inequality index (does not change when the variable is multiplied by a constant), I, is a compromise index if μI is an absolute index (does not change when a constant is added to the variable). Analogously, an absolute index, J, is a compromise index if J/μ is a relative index (Blackorby and Donaldson 1978).

  15. An index shows inequality aversion if the Pigou–Dalton Principle of Transfers is satisfied. This principle states that an income transfer from a richer to a poorer individual that leaves their ranks in the income distribution unchanged (progressive transfer) reduces income inequality. The B index shows greater inequality aversion than the G index. The use of B is appropriate if the focus is placed on the left-hand side of the distribution (Nygard and Sandström 1981). In contrast, V attaches more weight to the incomes on the right-hand side of the distribution and its aversion to inequality is smaller than that of G.

  16. The Rawlsian leximin focuses on the poorest individual of the population. Between two distributions, the distribution with the greater minimum income is preferred or, in the event of equality, the distribution in which the minimum income is less frequent. This approach is derived from the theory of social justice defined by Rawls (1971).

  17. Imedio-Olmedo and Bárcena-Martín (2007) describe this aspect in great detail, comparing the behaviours of α and γ families in this context.

  18. If individuals focus on status instead of income, the rank in the income distribution is the relevant issue. Imedio and Bárcena (2003) discuss this point of view.

  19. In Definition 1 the individual identifies his situation with his income. Now, an individual with income x (x not being the minimum income) feels a kind of altruism in the sense that the individual identifies (through the mean income) his situation with that of those who are worse off. This stance increases his deprivation with respect to the one in Definition 1.

  20. For example, if we work with a uniform distribution defined over \( [0,{\text{x}}_{\text{M}} ] \), \( {\text{M}}({\text{x}}) - {{{\text{x}} = ({\text{x}}_{\text{M}} - {\text{x}})} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\text{x}} = ({\text{x}}_{\text{M}} - {\text{x}})} 2}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2} \) is strictly decreasing, while \( {\text{x}} - {\text{m}}({\text{x}}) = {{\text{x}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\text{x}} 2}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2} \) is strictly increasing. Nonetheless, for the distribution \( {\text{F}}({\text{x}}) = \left( {{{\text{x}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\text{x}} {{\text{x}}_{\text{M}} }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{\text{x}}_{\text{M}} }}} \right)^{1/2} , \) \( {\text{M}}({\text{x}}) - {\text{x}} \) shows a relative maximum in p = 1/4, p = F = (x) and it is decreasing for \( {\text{p}} > 1/4. \) The function \( {\text{x}} - {\text{m}}({\text{x}}) \) is increasing.

  21. A SWF, W, is consistent with the inequality index I if \( {\text{I}}({\text{F}}) \le {\text{I}}({\text{G}}) \Leftrightarrow {\text{W}}({\text{F}}) \ge {\text{W}}({\text{G}}) \) is verified for any two distributions F and G with the same mean income.

  22. Bárcena-Martín et al. (2003) use another approach to achieve the same result.

  23. Specifically, for \( {\text{t}} \ge 1, \) the index I(1,t) shows greater aversion to inequality than I(2,t).

  24. Both indices show less inequality aversion than the Gini index. The direct comparison between them would be in terms of the degree of concavity of their respective social preference distribution.

References

  • Aaberge, R. (2007). Gini’s nuclear family. Journal of Economic Inequality, 5(3), 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., Di Tella, R., & Mac Culloch, R. (2004). Inequality and happiness: Are Europeans and Americans different? Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2009–2042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bárcena, E. (2003). Privación, bienestar e imposición sobre la renta, Investigaciones 1/03, Instituto de Estudios Fiscales.

  • Bárcena, E., & Imedio, L. J. (2008). The Bonferroni, Gini and De Vergottini indices. Inequality, welfare and deprivation in the European Union in 2000. In J. Bishop & B. Zheng (Eds.), Research on Economic Inequality, Inequality and Opportunity: Papers from the Second ECINEQ Society Meeting (Vol 16, pp. 231–257). JAI Press.

  • Bárcena-Martín, E., Imedio-Olmedo, L. J., & Martín-Reyes, G. (2003). Privación relativa, imposición sobre la renta e índice de Gini generalizado. Instituto de Estudios Fiscales. Papeles de Trabajo, No. 6/03.

  • Berg, M., & Veenhoven, R. (2010). Income inequality and happiness in 119 nations. In B. Greve (Ed.), Happiness and social policy in Europe (pp. 174–194). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrebi, Z. M., & Silber, J. (1985). Income inequality indices and deprivation: A generalisation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 100, 807–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., & Donaldson, D. (1978). Measures of relative equality and their meaning in terms of social welfare. Journal of Economic Theory, 18, 59–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonferroni, C. E. (1930). Elementi di statistica generale. Firenze: Libreria Seber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarty, S. R. (1997). Relative deprivation and satisfaction orderings. Calcutta, India: Indian Statistical Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarty, S. R. (2007). A deprivation-based axiomatic characterization of the absolute Bonferroni index of inequality. Journal of Economic Inequality, 3, 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarty, S. R., & Chakraborty, A. B. (1984). On indices of relative deprivation. Economic Letters, 14, 283–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarty, S. R., Chattopadhyay, N., & Majumder, A. (1995). Income inequality, and relative deprivation. Keio Economics Studies, 32, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarty, S. R., & Mukherjee, D. (1998). Lorenz domination, utilitarian deprivation rule and equal sacrifice principle. The Manchester School Journal, 66, 521–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowell, F. A., & Ebert, U. (2004). Complaints and inequality. Social Choice and Welfare, 61, 61–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83, 85–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, F. (1979). Relative deprivation revisited: A reponse to Miller, Bolce and Halligan. American Political Science Review, 73, 103–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. (1959). A formal interpretation of the theory of the relative deprivation. Sociometry, 20, 280–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vergottini, M. (1940). Sul signifacoto di alcuni indici di concentrazione. Giornale degli economisti e annali di economia, 11, 317–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R. A. (1995). Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organizaiton, 27, 35–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebert, U., & Moyes, P. (2000). An axiomatic characterization of Yitzhaki′s index of individual deprivation. Economics Letters, 68, 263–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat. (2010). Cross-sectional EUSILC UDB 2008 microdata, Release 01-03-10, European Commission, Eurostat.

  • Gini, C. (1914). Sulla misura della concentrazione e della variabilità dei caratteri. Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 73, 1203–1248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurr, T. R. (1968). A causal model of the civil strife: A comparative analysis using new indices. American Political Science Review, 62, 1104–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey, J. D., & Lambert, P. J. (1980). Relative deprivation and the Gini coefficient: Comment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95, 567–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imedio-Olmedo, L. J., & Bárcena-Martín, E. (2003). Privación relativa, status e imposición sobre la renta. Estudios de Economía Aplicada, 21(1), 123–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imedio-Olmedo, L. J., & Bárcena-Martín, E. (2007). Dos familias numerables de medidas de desigualdad. Investigaciones Económicas, 31(1), 191–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imedio-Olmedo, L. J., Bárcena-Martín, E. & Parrado-Gallardo, E. M. (2009a). La clase beta de medidas de desigualdad, Papeles de trabajo, IEF, 11/2009.

  • Imedio-Olmedo, L. J., Bárcena-Martín, E., & Parrado-Gallardo, E. M. (2009b). A wide class of inequality measures based on the Bonferroni curve, at the Cornell University/London School of Economics Inequality: New Directions conference held in Ithaca, New York, September, 2009.

  • Imedio-Olmedo, L. J., Bárcena-Martín, E., & Parrado-Gallardo, E. M. (2009c). Tres medidas complementarias de desigualdad. Estadística Española, 51(171), 363–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imedio-Olmedo, L. J., Bárcena-Martín, E., & Parrado-Gallardo, E. M. (2011). A class of Bonferroni inequality indices. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 13(1), 97–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imedio-Olmedo, L. J., Parrado-Gallardo, E. M., & Sarrión, M. D. (1999). Privación relativa e imposición sobre la renta. Hacienda Pública Española, 149, 137–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakwani, N. C. (1980). On a class of poverty measures. Econometrica, 48, 437–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magdalou, B., & Moyes, P. (2009). Deprivation, welfare and inequality. Social Choice and Welfare, 32(2), 253–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nygard, F., & Sandström, A. (1981). Measuring income inequality. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wicksell International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, S. (1991). An index of relative deprivation. Economics Letters, 36, 337–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podder, N. (1996). Relative deprivation, envy and economic inequality. Kiklos, 49, 353–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., De Vinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, R. M. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustment during army life (Vol. 1). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temkin, L. S. (1986). Inequality. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 15, 99–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temkin, L. S. (1993). Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yitzhaki, S. (1979). Relative deprivation and the Gini coefficient. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95, 321–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yitzhaki, S. (1982). Relative deprivation and economic welfare. European Economic Review, 17, 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yitzhaki, S. (1983). On an extension of the Gini index. International Economic Review, 24, 617–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Spanish Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dpto. de Economía Aplicada (Estadística y Econometría, 68), Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Málaga, Campus El Ejido s/n, 29013, Málaga, Spain

    Luis José Imedio-Olmedo, Encarnación M. Parrado-Gallardo & Elena Bárcena-Martín

Authors
  1. Luis José Imedio-Olmedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Encarnación M. Parrado-Gallardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elena Bárcena-Martín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Bárcena-Martín.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Imedio-Olmedo, L.J., Parrado-Gallardo, E.M. & Bárcena-Martín, E. Income Inequality Indices Interpreted as Measures of Relative Deprivation/Satisfaction. Soc Indic Res 109, 471–491 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9912-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9912-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation