{"title":"Inequality Measurement for Bounded Variables","authors":"Inaki Permanyer, Suman Seth, 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.
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.