Weighting with individuals, equivalent individuals, or not weighting at all. Does it matter empirically?
AbstractTo take into account heterogeneity in a social welfare function, Ebert (1997) and Shorrocks (1995) show that the only consistent way of welfare measurement consists of either constructing an artificial distribution in which each household is weighted by the number of equivalent individuals, or weighting by the number of individuals in the household. Both approaches are not only mutually exclusive on axiomatic grounds, they are also in sharp contrast with many empirical applications where there is no weighting at all. Since ultimately, the choice is a normative one between axioms, and hence not easily envisaged, an empirical test of the sensitivity of welfare evaluations for the choice of the different weighting schemes might prove useful. In this paper we apply the different methods to administrative microdata of the 2000 PIT reform in Belgium, obtained from the microsimulation model SIRe of the Belgian Ministery of Finance. We find indeed sensitivity of our results with respect to the different weighting methods. In addition, using the number of equivalent individuals as weights to perform dominance analysis leads to fanciful results with respect to the choice of equivalence scales.
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 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën, Working Group Public Economics in its series Public Economics Working Paper Series with number ces0215.
Length: 16 pp.
Date of creation: 2002
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Naamsestraat 69, 3000 Leuven
Phone: +32-(0)16-32 67 25
Fax: +32-(0)16-32 67 96
Web page: http://www.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/ew/academic/econover/default.htm
More information through EDIRC
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2003-02-24 (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.:
- Donaldson, David & Weymark, John A., 1983.
"Ethically flexible gini indices for income distributions in the continuum,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 353-358, April.
- DONALDSON, David & WEYMARK, John A., . "Ethically flexible Gini indices for income distributions in the continuum," CORE Discussion Papers RP -520, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Richard V. Burkhauser & Timothy M. Smeeding & Joachim Merz, 1994.
"Relative Inequality and Poverty in Germany and the United States Using Alternative Equivalence Scales,"
12, Research Institute on Professions (Forschungsinstitut Freie Berufe (FFB)), LEUPHANA University Lüneburg.
- Burkhauser, Richard V & Smeeding, Timothy M & Merz, Joachim, 1996. "Relative Inequality and Poverty in Germany and the United States Using Alternative Equivalence Scales," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 42(4), pages 381-400, December.
- Burkhauser, Richard V. & Smeeding, Timothy M. & Merz, Joachim, 1994. "Relative Inequality and Poverty in Germany and the United States Using Alternative Equivalence Scales," MPRA Paper 7229, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Burkhauser, Richard V. & Smeeding, Timothy M. & Merz, Joachim, 1994. "Relative Inequality and Poverty in Germany and the United States Using Alternative Equivalence Scales," MPRA Paper 16295, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Ebert, Udo, 1995.
"Income inequality and differences in household size,"
Mathematical Social Sciences,
Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 37-55, August.
- Ebert U., 1996. "Income inequality and differences in household size," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 57-58, February.
- Shorrocks, Anthony F, 1983. "Ranking Income Distributions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 50(197), pages 3-17, February.
- Jenkins, Stephen P & Cowell, Frank A, 1994. "Parametric Equivalence Scales and Scale Relativities," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(425), pages 891-900, July.
- Ebert, Udo, 1997. "Social Welfare When Needs Differ: An Axiomatic Approach," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 64(254), pages 233-44, May.
- Howes, Stephen, 1996. "The Influence of Aggregation on the Ordering of Distributions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 63(250), pages 253-72, May.
- John Bishop & K. Chow & John Formby & Chih-Chin Ho, 1997. "Did Tax Reform Reduce Actual US Progressivity? Evidence from the Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 177-197, May.
- Banks, James & Johnson, Paul, 1994. "Equivalence Scale Relativities Revisited," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(425), pages 883-90, July.
- Udo Ebert, 1999. "Using equivalent income of equivalent adults to rank income distributions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 233-258.
- Glewwe, Paul, 1991. "Household equivalence scales and the measurement of inequality : Transfers from the poor to the rich could decrease inequality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 211-216, March.
- John Creedy, 2013.
"Alternative Distributions for Inequality and Poverty Comparisons,"
Treasury Working Paper Series
13/11, New Zealand Treasury.
- Creedy, John, 2013. "Alternative Distributions for Inequality and Poverty Comparisons," Working Paper Series 2851, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
- Peter J. Lambert & Thor O. Thoresen, 2005. "Base independence in the analysis of tax policy effects: with an application to Norway 1992–2004," Discussion Papers 434, Research Department of Statistics Norway.
- John Creedy & Catherine Sleeman, 2004. "Adult Equivalence Scales, Inequality and Poverty in New Zealand," Treasury Working Paper Series 04/21, New Zealand Treasury.
- John Creedy & Ross Guest, 2006.
"Population Ageing And Intertemporal Consumption: Representative Agent Versus Social Planner,"
Department of Economics - Working Papers Series
972, The University of Melbourne.
- Creedy, John & Guest, Ross, 2008. "Population ageing and intertemporal consumption: Representative agent versus social planner," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 485-498, May.
- John Creedy & Cath Sleeman, 2005.
"Adult equivalence scales, inequality and poverty,"
New Zealand Economic Papers,
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 51-81.
- John Creedy & Rosanna Scutella, 2003. "The Role of the Unit of Analysis in Tax Policy Reform Evaluations," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2003n28, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
- Peter Lambert & Thor Thoresen, 2009. "Base independence in the analysis of tax policy effects: with an application to Norway 1992–2004," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 219-252, April.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Kristof Bosmans).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.