IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v32y2012i2p192-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Income Inequality Indexes Do Not Apply to Health Risks

Author

Listed:
  • Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox

Abstract

Several recent papers have sought to apply inequality measures from economics, such as the Atkinson Index (AI) for inequality of income distributions, to compare the risk inequality of different mortality risk distributions in an effort to help promote efficiency and environmental justice in pollution‐reducing interventions. Closer analysis suggests that such applications are neither logically coherent nor necessarily ethically desirable. Risk inequality comparisons should be based on axioms that apply to probabilistic risks, and should consider the multidimensional and time‐varying nature of individual and community risks in order to increase efficiency and justice over time and generations. In light of the limitations of the AI applied to mortality risk distributions, it has not been demonstrated to have ethical or practical value in helping policymakers to identify air pollution management interventions that reduce (or minimize) risk and risk inequity.

Suggested Citation

  • Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, 2012. "Why Income Inequality Indexes Do Not Apply to Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(2), pages 192-196, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:2:p:192-196
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01756.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01756.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01756.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Neal Fann & Henry A. Roman & Charles M. Fulcher & Mikael A. Gentile & Bryan J. Hubbell & Karen Wesson & Jonathan I. Levy, 2011. "Maximizing Health Benefits and Minimizing Inequality: Incorporating Local‐Scale Data in the Design and Evaluation of Air Quality Policies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 908-922, June.
    2. Jayavel Sounderpandian, 1989. "Ex Ante Equity in Public Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 37(4), pages 528-530, August.
    3. Peter C. Fishburn & Philip D. Straffin, 1989. "Equity Considerations in Public Risks Evaluation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 37(2), pages 229-239, April.
    4. Thibault Gajdos & John Weymark & Claudio Zoli, 2010. "Shared destinies and the measurement of social risk equity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 409-424, April.
    5. Thibault Gajdos & John Weymark & Claudio Zoli, 2010. "Shared destinies and the measurement of social risk equity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 409-424, April.
    6. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, 2012. "Reassessing the Human Health Benefits from Cleaner Air," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 816-829, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carole Bernard & Christoph M. Rheinberger & Nicolas Treich, 2018. "Catastrophe Aversion and Risk Equity in an Interdependent World," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4490-4504, October.
    2. Sager, Lutz, 2025. "Global air quality inequality over 2000–2020," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    3. Sam Harper & Eric Ruder & Henry A. Roman & Amelia Geggel & Onyemaechi Nweke & Devon Payne-Sturges & Jonathan I. Levy, 2013. "Using Inequality Measures to Incorporate Environmental Justice into Regulatory Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Glenn Sheriff & Kelly B. Maguire, 2020. "Health Risk, Inequality Indexes, and Environmental Justice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2661-2674, December.

    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. Carole Bernard & Christoph M. Rheinberger & Nicolas Treich, 2018. "Catastrophe Aversion and Risk Equity in an Interdependent World," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4490-4504, October.
    2. Ingrid T. Rohde & Kirsten M. Rohde, 2015. "Managing social risks – tradeoffs between risks and inequalities," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 103-124, October.
    3. Robin Chark & Soo Chew, 2015. "A neuroimaging study of preference for strategic uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 209-227, June.
    4. Qu, Xiangyu, 2022. "On the measurement of opportunity-dependent inequality under uncertainty," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    5. Ingrid M.T. Rohde & Kirsten I.M. Rohde, 2012. "Risk and Inequality in a Social Decision Making Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-045/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Christoph M. Rheinberger & Nicolas Treich, 2017. "Attitudes Toward Catastrophe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 609-636, July.
    7. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr., 2012. "Community Resilience and Decision Theory Challenges for Catastrophic Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(11), pages 1919-1934, November.
    8. Adler, Matthew D. & Hammitt, James K. & Treich, Nicolas, 2014. "The social value of mortality risk reduction: VSL versus the social welfare function approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 82-93.
    9. Chew, Soo Hong & Sagi, Jacob S., 2012. "An inequality measure for stochastic allocations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(4), pages 1517-1544.
    10. Emmanuel Kemel & Corina Paraschiv, 2018. "Deciding about human lives: an experimental measure of risk attitudes under prospect theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 163-192, June.
    11. Ehsan Taheri & Chen Wang, 2018. "Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 223-241, December.
    12. Sam Harper & Eric Ruder & Henry A. Roman & Amelia Geggel & Onyemaechi Nweke & Devon Payne-Sturges & Jonathan I. Levy, 2013. "Using Inequality Measures to Incorporate Environmental Justice into Regulatory Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, August.
    13. Thibault Gajdos & John Weymark & Claudio Zoli, 2010. "Shared destinies and the measurement of social risk equity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 409-424, April.
    14. Hui Yuan & Ji-Cheng Jang & Shicheng Long & Yun Zhu & Shuxiao Wang & Jia Xing & Bin Zhao, 2024. "A Multi-Pollutant Air Quality Analysis with Environmental Justice Considerations: Case Study for Detroit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-16, August.
    15. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell & Louis Anthony Cox, 2014. "Improving Risk Management: From Lame Excuses to Principled Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1228-1239, July.
    16. Xiaojun Shan & Jun Zhuang, 2013. "Cost of Equity in Homeland Security Resource Allocation in the Face of a Strategic Attacker," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1083-1099, June.
    17. Sager, Lutz, 2025. "Global air quality inequality over 2000–2020," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    18. Marc Fleurbaey, 2010. "Assessing Risky Social Situations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 649-680, August.
    19. Art Fraas & Randall Lutter, 2013. "Uncertain Benefits Estimates for Reductions in Fine Particle Concentrations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 434-449, March.
    20. Sabine S. Lange & Sean E. Mulholland & Michael E. Honeycutt, 2018. "What Are the Net Benefits of Reducing the Ozone Standard to 65 ppb? An Alternative Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-31, July.

    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:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:2:p:192-196. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.