IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/stcchp/978-3-540-79832-3_14.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Ordinal Distance, Dominance, and the Measurement of Diversity

In: Rational Choice and Social Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Prasanta K. Pattanaik

    (University of California)

  • Yongsheng Xu

    (Georgia State University)

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to consider a class of rules for comparing sets of objects1 in terms of the degrees of diversity that they offer. Such comparisons of sets are important for many purposes. For example, in discussing biodiversity of different ecosystems, one is interested in knowing whether or not one ecosystem is more diverse than another. Similarly, when discussing issues relating to cultural diversities of various communities, one may be interested in knowing how these communities compare with each other in terms of cultural diversity. In the economics literature, there have been several contributions to the measurement of diversity. Weitzman (1992, 1993, 1998) develops a measure of diversity based on cardinal distances between objects. Among other things, Nehring and Puppe (2002) provide a conceptual foundation for cardinal distances in Weitzman’s framework. Weikard (2002) discusses an alternative measure of diversity; Weikard’s measure is based on the sum of cardinal distances between all objects contained in a set.

Suggested Citation

  • Prasanta K. Pattanaik & Yongsheng Xu, 2008. "Ordinal Distance, Dominance, and the Measurement of Diversity," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Prasanta K. Pattanaik & Koichi Tadenuma & Yongsheng Xu & Naoki Yoshihara (ed.), Rational Choice and Social Welfare, pages 259-269, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:stcchp:978-3-540-79832-3_14
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-79832-3_14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Clemens Puppe & Yongsheng Xu, 2010. "Essential alternatives and freedom rankings," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(4), pages 669-685, October.

    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:spr:stcchp:978-3-540-79832-3_14. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.