Lower Bounds and the Linearity Assumption in Parametric Estimations of Inequality of Opportunity

P. Hufe, A. Peichl
{"title":"Lower Bounds and the Linearity Assumption in Parametric Estimations of Inequality of Opportunity","authors":"P. Hufe, A. Peichl","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2713026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The consistent underestimation of inequality of opportunity has led some scholars to call into question the usefulness of such estimates. In this paper we argue that neglecting heterogeneity in the influence of circumstances across types as well as neglecting heterogeneity in type-specific effort distributions are two important sources of the downward bias in inequality of opportunity measures. Compared to the standard parametric approach of ex ante measurement of inequality of opportunity, we calculate a 50% upwards correction when accounting for both sources of heterogeneity. Therefore, taking heterogeneity across types seriously is an important step towards strengthening the policy relevance of this concept.","PeriodicalId":331900,"journal":{"name":"IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Paper Series","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2713026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

The consistent underestimation of inequality of opportunity has led some scholars to call into question the usefulness of such estimates. In this paper we argue that neglecting heterogeneity in the influence of circumstances across types as well as neglecting heterogeneity in type-specific effort distributions are two important sources of the downward bias in inequality of opportunity measures. Compared to the standard parametric approach of ex ante measurement of inequality of opportunity, we calculate a 50% upwards correction when accounting for both sources of heterogeneity. Therefore, taking heterogeneity across types seriously is an important step towards strengthening the policy relevance of this concept.
机会不等式参数估计的下界和线性假设
对机会不平等的持续低估导致一些学者对这种估计的有效性提出质疑。在本文中,我们认为忽视环境对不同类型的影响的异质性以及忽视特定类型的努力分配的异质性是机会衡量不平等的向下偏差的两个重要来源。与事先测量机会不平等的标准参数方法相比,在考虑异质性的两个来源时,我们计算了50%的向上修正。因此,认真对待跨类型的异质性是加强这一概念的政策相关性的重要一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信