What Difference Do Polarisation Measures Make? An Application to China
AbstractIn recent years there has been much discussion of the difference between inequality and polarisation. The vast literature on inequality is held to miss out key features of distributional change, which are better described as changes in polarisation. Axioms have been proposed which capture some of these differences, and measures of polarisation, as distinct from inequality, have been suggested. The theoretical distinctions proposed in this literature are indeed interesting. But do the newly proposed measures of polarisation give different results in comparing societies over time? We address these questions for China, where dramatic increases in inequality and polarisation have been much discussed in the literature. We find that, contrary to theoretical expectation, the new measures of polarisation do not generate very different results from the standard measures of inequality. The paper ends by considering a different approach to polarisation which might better conform to the policy concerns expressed in the specific context of China.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Journal of Development Studies.
Volume (Year): 37 (2001)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/FJDS20
Other versions of this item:
- Zhang, Siao-Bo & Kanbur, Ravi, 1999. "What Difference Do Polarization Measures Make? An Application To China," Working Papers 7224, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.