Distributive Dominance

Part of the Economic Studies in Inequality, Social Exclusion and Well-Being book series (EIAP, volume 2)


We have, up to now, focussed mostly on measuring and comparing cardinal indices of poverty and equity. As discussed in Chapter 4, this has several expositional advantages. The greatest of these advantages is probably that of focussing on only one (or a few) numerical assessments of poverty and equity. It is then relatively straightforward to compare poverty and equity across distributions just by comparing the values of these cardinal indices. The conclusions arc then (seemingly) “clear-cut”.


Poverty Line Ethical Judgement Social Welfare Function Distributive Index Poverty Index 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

9.5 References

  1. Amiel, Y. and F. Cowell (1992): “Measurement of Income Inequality: Experimental Test by Questionnaire,” Journal of Public Economics, 47, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amiel, Y., F. Cowell, and A. Polovin (2001): “Risk Perceptions, Income Transformations and Inequality,” European Economic Review, 45, 964–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amiel, Y., J. Creedy, and S. Hurn (1999): “Measuring Attitudes towards inequality” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 101, 83–96.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, J. (1994): “An Experimental Test of Preferences for the Distribution of Income and Individual Risk Aversion,” Eastern Economic Journal, 20, 131–45.Google Scholar
  5. Blackorby, C. and D. Donaldson (1978): “Measures of Relative Equality and Their Meaning in Terms of Social Welfare,” Journal of Economic Theory, 18, 59–80.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackorby, C., W. Bossert, and D. Donaldson (1999): “Income Inequality Measurement: The Normative Approach,” in Handbook of income inequality measurement. With a foreword by Amartya Sen, ed. by J. Silber, Boston; Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic, Recent Economic Thought Series, 133–57.Google Scholar
  7. Chakravarty, S. (1999): “Measuring Inequality: The Axiomatic Approach,” in Handbook of income inequality measurement. With a foreword by Amartya Sen, ed. by J. Silber, Boston; Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic, Recent Economic Thought, 163–84.Google Scholar
  8. Christiansen, V. and E. Jansen (1978); “Implicit social preferences in the Norwegian system of indirect taxation,” Journal of Public Economics, 10, 217–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corneo, G. and H. Gruner (2002): “Individual Preferences for Political Redistribution,” Journal of Public Economics, 83, 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowell, F. and E. Schokkaert (2001): “Risk Perceptions and Distributional Judgments,” European Economic Review, 45, 941–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies, J. and M. Hoy (1994): “The Normative Significance of Using Third-Degree Stochastic Dominance in Comparing Income Distributions,” Journal of Economic Theory, 64, 520–30.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dolan, P. and A. Robinson (2001): “The Measurement of Preferences over the Distribution of Benefits: The Importance of the Reference Point,” European Economic Review, 45, 1697–1709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fong, C. (2001); “Social Preferences, Self-Interest, and the Demand for Redistribution,” Journal of Public Economics, 82, 225–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kakwani, N. (1980): “On a Class of Poverty Measures,” Econometrica, 48, 437–446.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Kolm, S.-C. (1976a): “Unequal Inequalities, I,” Journal of Economic Theory, 12, 416–42.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. — (1976b): “Unequal Inequalities, II,” Journal of Economic Theory, 13, 82–111.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Kroll, Y. and L. Davidovitz (2003): “Inequality Aversion versus Risk Aversion,” Economica, 70, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mosler, K. and P. Muliere (1996): “Inequality Indices and the Starshaped Principle of Transfers,” Statistical Papers, 37, 343–64.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nozick, R. (1974): Anarchy, State and Utopia, Oxford: Basil Black well.Google Scholar
  20. Ok, E. (1995): “Fuzzy Measurement of Income Inequality: A Class of Fuzzy Inequality Measures,” Social Choice and Welfare, 12, 111–36.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. — (1997): “On Opportunity Inequality Measurement,” Journal of Economic Theory, 77, 300–329.Google Scholar
  22. Okun, A. (1975): “Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff,” Tech. rep., Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  23. Ravaixion, M. and M. Lokshin (2002): “Self-Rated Economic Welfare in Russia,” European Economic Review, 46, 1453–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rawls, J. (1971): A Theory of Justice, Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Salas, R. (1998): “Welfare-Consistent Inequality Indices in Changing Populations: The Marginal Population Replication Axiom: A Note,” Journal of Public Economics, 67, 145–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sen, A. (1982): “Equality of What?” in Choice, Welfare and Measurement, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, vol. Chapter 16.Google Scholar
  27. Shorrocks, A. (1987): “Transfer Sensitive Inequality Measures,” Review of Economic Studies, LIV, 485–497.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Stodder, J. (1991): “Equity-Efficiency Preferences in Poland and the Soviet Union: Order-Reversals under the Atkinson Index,” Review of Income and Wealth, 37, 287–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tam, M. Y. and R. Zhang (1996): “Ranking Income Distributions: The Tradeoff between Efficiency and Equality,” Economica, 63, 239–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fishburn, P. and R. Willig (1984): “Transfer Principles in Income Redistribution,” Journal of Public Economics, 25, 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zheng, B. (1997): “Aggregate Poverty Measures,” Journal of Economic Surveys, 11, 123–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zoli, C. (1999): “Intersecting Generalized Lorenz Curves and the Gini Index,” Social Choice and Welfare, 16, 183–96.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Personalised recommendations