Preserving Dominance Relations Through Disaggregation: The Evil and the Saint
AbstractDisaggregation arises when broad categories like households budget units are divided into elementary units as individual income recipients. We study the preservation of stochastic dominance for every order beyond two after disaggregation: If we observe a dominance relation among household income distributions, it is also true at the individual level. We find necessary and sufficient conditions satisfied by the common sharing rule adopted by households to divide the cake among individuals. The sharing function, which maps the household income into the outcome of the disadvantaged individual, must have derivatives of the same sign as the utility function characterizing the stochastic order of interest. In addition, the household has to follow a compensating rule, meaning that at the margin the distribution should be in favor of the disadvantaged individual.
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Verona, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 60/2009.
Date of creation: Oct 2009
Date of revision:
Sharing rule; Stochastic dominance; Disaggregation;
Other versions of this item:
- Eugenio Peluso & Alain Trannoy, 2012. "Preserving dominance relations through disaggregation: the evil and the saint," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 633-647, July.
- D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
- D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2009-10-10 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Zheng, Buhong, 2000. " Poverty Orderings," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(4), pages 427-66, September.
- Foster, James E. & Shorrocks, Anthony F., 1988. "Inequality and poverty orderings," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2-3), pages 654-661, March.
- Shorrocks, Anthony F & Foster, James E, 1987. "Transfer Sensitive Inequality Measures," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(3), pages 485-97, July.
- Fishburn, Peter C. & Willig, Robert D., 1984. "Transfer principles in income redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 323-328, December.
- Michel Le Breton & Eugenio Peluso, 2009. "Third-degree stochastic dominance and inequality measurement," Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 249-268, September.
- Markus Haas, 2007. "Do investors dislike kurtosis?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 7(2), pages 1-9.
- Muliere, Pietro & Scarsini, Marco, 1989. "A note on stochastic dominance and inequality measures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 314-323, December.
- Foster, James E & Shorrocks, Anthony F, 1988. "Poverty Orderings," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 173-77, January.
- Shorrocks, Anthony F, 1983. "Ranking Income Distributions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 50(197), pages 3-17, February.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael Reiter).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.