This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Weighting with individuals, equivalent individuals, or not weighting at all. Does it matter empirically?

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
André Decoster ()
Erwin Ooghe ()

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

To 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 Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://www.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/ew/academic/econover/Papers/DPS0215.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën, Working Group Public Economics in its series Public Economics Working Paper Series with number ces0215.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 16 pp.
Date of creation: 2002
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wpe:papers:ces0215

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Naamsestraat 69, 3000 Leuven
Phone: +32-(0)16-32 67 25
Fax: +32-(0)16-32 67 96
Email:
Web page: http://www.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/ew/academic/econover/default.htm
More information through EDIRC

Order Information:
Email:

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Kristof Bosmans).

Related research
Keywords:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
  1. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Banks, James & Johnson, Paul, 1994. "Equivalence Scale Relativities Revisited," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(425), pages 883-90, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Ebert, Udo, 1995. "Income inequality and differences in household size," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 37-55, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Udo Ebert, 1999. "Using equivalent income of equivalent adults to rank income distributions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 233-258. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. 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, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(4), pages 381-400, December.
    Other versions:
  8. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Shorrocks, Anthony F, 1983. "Ranking Income Distributions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 50(197), pages 3-17, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

  1. 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. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Peter J. Lambert & Thor O. Thoresen, 2005. "Base independence in the analysis of tax policy effects: with an application to Norway 1992–2004," University of Oregon Economics Department Working Papers 2005-13, University of Oregon Economics Department, revised 27 Oct 2005. [Downloadable!]
  3. John Creedy & Catherine Sleeman, 2005. "Adult Equivalence Scales, Inequality and Poverty," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 938, The University of Melbourne. [Downloadable!]
  4. Peter J. Lambert & Andre Decoster, 2004. "The Gini Coefficient Reveals More," University of Oregon Economics Department Working Papers 2004-18, University of Oregon Economics Department, revised 05 Dec 2004. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  5. John Creedy & Catherine Sleeman, 2004. "Adult Equivalence Scales, Inequality and Poverty in New Zealand," Treasury Working Paper Series 04/21, New Zealand Treasury. [Downloadable!]
  6. Kinam Kim & Peter J. Lambert, 2007. "Redistributive Effect of U.S. Taxes and Public Transfers, 1994-2004," University of Oregon Economics Department Working Papers 2007-3, University of Oregon Economics Department, revised 06 Feb 2007. [Downloadable!]
  7. Peter J. Lambert and 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. [Downloadable!]
  8. 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. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Citation analysis on IDEAS includes online papers that are freely accessible and whose text could be automatically analyzed, currently about 210000 papers.

This page was last updated on 2009-10-31.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.