TY - JOUR
T1 - On opportunity inequality measurement
AU - Ok, Efe A.
N1 - Funding Information:
* A earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1996 Econometric Society European Meeting, the 3rd International Meeting of the Society for Social Choice and Welfare, and the 65th Annual Conference of the Southern Economic Association. In addition to the seminar participants, I thank Kaushik Basu, Rajat Deb, James Foster, Larry Kranich, Prasanta Pattanaik, Clemens Puppe, Bezalel Peleg and Yongsheng Xu for their very helpful comments and suggestions. This usual disclaimer, however, applies. The financial support of the C. V. Starr Center for Applied Economics at New York University is also gratefully acknowledged.
PY - 1997/12
Y1 - 1997/12
N2 - I study the problem of ranking distributions of opportunity sets on the basis of equality. The analysis begins by developing alternative ways of formulating the notion ofequalizing transfersin the context of opportunity distributions. It is readily observed that any such formulation must rely on agents' preferences over individual opportunity sets, and therefore, a theory of opportunity inequality measurement must be conditional upon the "social" opportunity set ranking one postulates. Unfortunately, the results make it clear that such a theory can be constructed only when one uses the cardinality ordering of Pattanaik and Xu (1990). More precisely put, I show that it is essentially impossible to extend Dalton's transfer principle to the context of opportunity distributions unless one is content with ranking the opportunity setsonlyon the basis of their cardinalities.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: D31, D63, D71.
AB - I study the problem of ranking distributions of opportunity sets on the basis of equality. The analysis begins by developing alternative ways of formulating the notion ofequalizing transfersin the context of opportunity distributions. It is readily observed that any such formulation must rely on agents' preferences over individual opportunity sets, and therefore, a theory of opportunity inequality measurement must be conditional upon the "social" opportunity set ranking one postulates. Unfortunately, the results make it clear that such a theory can be constructed only when one uses the cardinality ordering of Pattanaik and Xu (1990). More precisely put, I show that it is essentially impossible to extend Dalton's transfer principle to the context of opportunity distributions unless one is content with ranking the opportunity setsonlyon the basis of their cardinalities.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: D31, D63, D71.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031542402&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031542402&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1006/jeth.1997.2336
DO - 10.1006/jeth.1997.2336
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0031542402
SN - 0022-0531
VL - 77
SP - 300
EP - 329
JO - Journal of Economic Theory
JF - Journal of Economic Theory
IS - 2
ER -