Inequality Measurement for Bounded Variables

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Health economics Pub Date : 2025-04-19 DOI:10.1002/hec.4969
Inaki Permanyer, Suman Seth, Gaston Yalonetzky
{"title":"Inequality Measurement for Bounded Variables","authors":"Inaki Permanyer,&nbsp;Suman Seth,&nbsp;Gaston Yalonetzky","doi":"10.1002/hec.4969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many health indicators are bounded, that is, their values lie between a lower and an upper bound. Inequality measurement with bounded variables faces two normative challenges well-known in the health inequality literature. One is that inequality rankings may or may not be consistent across admissible attainment and shortfall representations of the variable. The other is that the set of maximum-inequality distributions for bounded variables is different from the respective set for variables with no upper bound. Therefore, the ethical criteria for ranking maximum-inequality distributions with unbounded variables may not be appropriate for bounded variables. In a novel proposal, we justify an axiom requiring maximum-inequality distributions of bounded variables to be ranked equally, irrespective of their means. Then, our axiomatic characterization naturally leads to indices that measure inequality as an increasing function of the observed proportion of maximum attainable inequality for a given mean. Additionally, our inequality indices rank distributions consistently when switching between attainment and shortfall representations. In our empirical illustration with three health indicators, a starkly different picture of cross-country inter-temporal inequality emerges when traditional inequality indices give way to our proposed normalized inequality indices.</p>","PeriodicalId":12847,"journal":{"name":"Health economics","volume":"34 8","pages":"1443-1460"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hec.4969","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.4969","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many health indicators are bounded, that is, their values lie between a lower and an upper bound. Inequality measurement with bounded variables faces two normative challenges well-known in the health inequality literature. One is that inequality rankings may or may not be consistent across admissible attainment and shortfall representations of the variable. The other is that the set of maximum-inequality distributions for bounded variables is different from the respective set for variables with no upper bound. Therefore, the ethical criteria for ranking maximum-inequality distributions with unbounded variables may not be appropriate for bounded variables. In a novel proposal, we justify an axiom requiring maximum-inequality distributions of bounded variables to be ranked equally, irrespective of their means. Then, our axiomatic characterization naturally leads to indices that measure inequality as an increasing function of the observed proportion of maximum attainable inequality for a given mean. Additionally, our inequality indices rank distributions consistently when switching between attainment and shortfall representations. In our empirical illustration with three health indicators, a starkly different picture of cross-country inter-temporal inequality emerges when traditional inequality indices give way to our proposed normalized inequality indices.

Abstract Image

有界变量不等式的度量。
许多健康指标是有界的,也就是说,它们的值介于下界和上界之间。有界变量的不平等测量面临着健康不平等文献中众所周知的两个规范性挑战。一是不平等排名可能是一致的,也可能不是一致的,在可接受的成就和不足的变量表示。二是有界变量的最大不等式分布集不同于无上界变量的最大不等式分布集。因此,对具有无界变量的最大不等式分布进行排序的伦理准则可能不适用于有界变量。在一个新颖的提议中,我们证明了一个公理,要求有界变量的最大不等式分布是平等的,而不管它们的均值如何。然后,我们的公理化特征自然会导致衡量不平等的指数,作为给定平均值的最大可达到的不平等的观察比例的增加函数。此外,我们的不平等指数在成绩和不足表示之间切换时的排名分布一致。在我们的三个健康指标的实证说明中,当传统的不平等指数让位于我们提出的标准化不平等指数时,出现了一幅截然不同的跨国跨期不平等图景。
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
Health economics
Health economics 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: This Journal publishes articles on all aspects of health economics: theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy from the economic perspective. Its scope includes the determinants of health and its definition and valuation, as well as the demand for and supply of health care; planning and market mechanisms; micro-economic evaluation of individual procedures and treatments; and evaluation of the performance of health care systems. Contributions should typically be original and innovative. As a rule, the Journal does not include routine applications of cost-effectiveness analysis, discrete choice experiments and costing analyses. Editorials are regular features, these should be concise and topical. Occasionally commissioned reviews are published and special issues bring together contributions on a single topic. Health Economics Letters facilitate rapid exchange of views on topical issues. Contributions related to problems in both developed and developing countries are welcome.
×
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