IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ptl/wpaper/31.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Subsidies for whom? The rule of (G+1)/2

Author

Listed:
  • Alejandro Corvalan

    (Facultad de Economía y Empresa, Universidad Diego Portales)

Abstract

This paper shows that for a society with inequality described by a Gini coe¢ cient G, a pivotal individual is located in the (G + 1)=2 percentile: any dollar given to an individual poorer (richer) than himself decreases (increases) G. As a consequence, an optimal lump sum subsidy, in terms of the Gini index, is the one given to all individuals ranked below this percentile. We show that in 2/3 of the countries such an individual is within the eighth decile. Hence, from a comparative perspective, the (G + 1)=2 percentile is the rule of the eighth decile. All subsidies targeted below this decile contribute to egalitarian redistribution. This result is robust to the use of other inequality measures, such as Theil indices.

Suggested Citation

  • Alejandro Corvalan, 2011. "Subsidies for whom? The rule of (G+1)/2," Working Papers 31, Facultad de Economía y Empresa, Universidad Diego Portales.
    • Handle: RePEc:ptl:wpaper:31
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.udp.cl/descargas/facultades_carreras/economia/pdf/documentos_investigacion/wp31_subsides_corvalan.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dasgupta, Partha & Sen, Amartya & Starrett, David, 1973. "Notes on the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 180-187, April.
    2. Sen, Amartya, 1973. "On Economic Inequality," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198281931.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Allanson, Paul & Hubbard, Lionel, 1999. "On the Comparative Evaluation of Agricultural Income Distributions in the European Union," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 26(1), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Belhadj, Besma & Limam, Mohamed, 2012. "Unidimensional and multidimensional fuzzy poverty measures: New approach," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 995-1002.
    3. Karsu, Özlem & Morton, Alec, 2015. "Inequity averse optimization in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(2), pages 343-359.
    4. Chakravarty, Satya R. & Sarkar, Palash, 2022. "A synthesis of local and effective tax progressivity measurement," MPRA Paper 115180, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Satya R. Chakravarty & Pietro Muliere, 2003. "Welfare indicators: A review and new perspectives. 1. Measurement of inequality," Metron - International Journal of Statistics, Dipartimento di Statistica, Probabilità e Statistiche Applicate - University of Rome, vol. 0(3), pages 457-497.
    6. Nanak Kakwani & Marcelo Neri & Hyun H. Son, 2006. "Linkages between Pro-Poor Growth, Social Programmes and Labour Market: The Recent Brazilian Experience," Working Papers 26, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
    7. Joseph E. Stiglitz & Andrew Charlton, 2005. "Un cycle de négociations commerciales pour le développement ?," Revue d’économie du développement, De Boeck Université, vol. 13(4), pages 17-54.
    8. Alain Chateauneuf & Patrick Moyes, 2002. "Measuring inequality without the Pigou-Dalton condition," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00156475, HAL.
    9. R. Bénabou & E. Ok, 2000. "Mobility as Progressivity: Ranking Income Processes According to Equality of Opportunity," Princeton Economic Theory Papers 00f1, Economics Department, Princeton University.
    10. Carbonell-Nicolau, Oriol & Llavador, Humberto, 2018. "Inequality reducing properties of progressive income tax schedules: the case of endogenous income," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(1), January.
    11. Jean-Yves Duclos & Paul Makdissi & Quentin Wodon, 2008. "Socially Improving Tax Reforms," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(4), pages 1505-1537, November.
    12. Fatiha Bennia & Nicolas Gravel & Brice Magdalou & Patrick Moyes, 2022. "Is body weight better distributed among men than among women? A robust normative analysis for France, the UK, and the US," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(1), pages 69-103, January.
    13. Juan Antonio Duro Moreno, 2001. "Cross-country inequalities in aggregate welfare: some evidence," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(6), pages 403-406.
    14. Stiglitz, Joseph E., 2002. "New perspectives on public finance: recent achievements and future challenges," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 341-360, December.
    15. Benoît Tarroux, 2012. "Are equalization payments making Canadians better off? A two-dimensional dominance answer," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 10(1), pages 19-44, March.
    16. E. Savaglio, 2002. "Inequality Criteria, Transfers and their Representations," THEMA Working Papers 2002-04, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    17. Gustavo Bergantiños & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2022. "On the axiomatic approach to sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(2), pages 321-347, February.
    18. Imedio Olmedo, L. J. & Bárcena Martín, E., 2003. "Privación, status e imposición sobre la renta," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 21, pages 123-147, Abril.
    19. Oscar Bajo & Rafael Salas, 2002. "Inequality foundations of concentration measures: An application to the Hannah-Kay indices," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 311-316.
    20. Anwesha Banerjee & Nicolas Gravel, 2020. "Contribution to a public good under subjective uncertainty," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(3), pages 473-500, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ptl:wpaper:31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Enrique Calfucura (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feudpcl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.