IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nev/wpaper/wp201304.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ranking Distributions of Environmental Outcomes Across Population Groups

Author

Listed:
  • Glenn Sheriff
  • Kelly B. Maguire

Abstract

This paper develops methods for evaluating distributional impacts of alternative environmental policies across demographic groups. The income inequality literature provides a natural methodological toolbox for comparing distributions of environmental outcomes. We show that the most commonly used inequality indexes, such as the Atkinson index, have theoretical properties that make them inappropriate for analyzing bads, like pollution, as opposed to goods, like income. We develop a transformation of the Atkinson index suitable for analyzing bad outcomes. We also show how the rarely used Kolm-Pollak index is particularly convenient for ranking distributions of both good and bad health and environmental outcomes. We demonstrate these methods in the context of emissions standards affecting indoor air quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Glenn Sheriff & Kelly B. Maguire, 2013. "Ranking Distributions of Environmental Outcomes Across Population Groups," NCEE Working Paper Series 201304, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2013.
  • Handle: RePEc:nev:wpaper:wp201304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/working-paper-ranking-distributions-environmental-outcomes-across
    File Function: First version, 2013
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shanti Gamper-Rabindran & Christopher Timmins, 2011. "Hazardous Waste Cleanup, Neighborhood Gentrification, and Environmental Justice: Evidence from Restricted Access Census Block Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 620-624, May.
    2. Moyes, Patrick, 1987. "A new concept of Lorenz domination," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 203-207.
    3. Charles Blackorby & David Donaldson & Maria Auersperg, 1981. "A New Procedure for the Measurement of Inequality within and among Population Subgroups," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 14(4), pages 665-685, November.
    4. Meredith Fowlie & Stephen P. Holland & Erin T. Mansur, 2012. "What Do Emissions Markets Deliver and to Whom? Evidence from Southern California's NOx Trading Program," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 965-993, April.
    5. Louis Kaplow, 2005. "Why measure inequality?," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 3(1), pages 65-79, April.
    6. Blackorby, Charles & Donaldson, David, 1980. "A Theoretical Treatment of Indices of Absolute Inequality," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 21(1), pages 107-136, February.
    7. Robert A. Pollak, 1971. "Additive Utility Functions and Linear Engel Curves," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(4), pages 401-414.
    8. Anthony B. Atkinson & Andrea Brandolini, 2010. "On Analyzing the World Distribution of Income," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 24(1), pages 1-37, January.
    9. Cowell, Frank A., 1989. "Sampling variance and decomposable inequality measures," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 27-41, September.
    10. Jukka Pirttilä & Roope Uusitalo, 2010. "A ‘Leaky Bucket’ in the Real World: Estimating Inequality Aversion using Survey Data," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(305), pages 60-76, January.
    11. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September.
    12. Blackorby, Charles & Donaldson, David, 1978. "Measures of relative equality and their meaning in terms of social welfare," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 59-80, June.
    13. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Randall P. Walsh, 2008. "Do People Vote with Their Feet? An Empirical Test of Tiebout," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 843-863, June.
    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. Maureen Cropper & Alan Krupnick & William Raich, 2016. "Preferences for Equality in Environmental Outcomes," NBER Working Papers 22644, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Herrero, Carmen & Villar, Antonio, 2014. "Ranking distributions of monotone attributes," Economics Working Papers ECO2014/06, European University Institute.
    3. Carmen Herrero & Antonio Villar, 2018. "The Balanced Worth: A Procedure to Evaluate Performance in Terms of Ordered Attributes," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 1279-1300, December.
    4. John Voorheis, 2017. "Longitudinal Environmental Inequality and Environmental Gentrification: Who Gains From Cleaner Air?," CARRA Working Papers 2017-04, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.

    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. 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.
    2. Erin T. Mansur & Glenn Sheriff, 2019. "Do Pollution Markets Harm Low Income and Minority Communities? Ranking Emissions Distributions Generated by California's RECLAIM Program," NBER Working Papers 25666, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Satya Chakravarty, 2001. "The Variance as a subgroup decomposable measure of inequality," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 79-95, January.
    4. Foster, James E. & Shneyerov, Artyom A., 2000. "Path Independent Inequality Measures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 199-222, April.
    5. Bart Capéau, 2013. "Size and distribution trade-offs for the leximin ordering," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 11(2), pages 237-248, June.
    6. Kelly Maguire & Glenn Sheriff, 2011. "Comparing Distributions of Environmental Outcomes for Regulatory Environmental Justice Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-20, May.
    7. P. Jenkins, Stephen & A. Cowell, Frank, 2000. "Estimating welfare indices: household weights and sample design," ISER Working Paper Series 2000-23, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    8. Chakravarty, Satya R. & Sarkar, Palash, 2022. "A synthesis of local and effective tax progressivity measurement," MPRA Paper 115180, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Satya R. Chakravarty & Pietro Muliere, 2003. "Welfare indicators: A review and new perspectives. 1. Measurement of inequality," Metron - International Journal of Statistics, Dipartimento di Statistica, Probabilità e Statistiche Applicate - University of Rome, vol. 0(3), pages 457-497.
    10. Satya Chakravarty & Swami Tyagarupananda, 2009. "The subgroup decomposable intermediate indices of inequality," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 83-97, June.
    11. Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 1995. "Income distribution and social welfare: a review essay," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(1), pages 3-34, January.
    12. Ebert U., 1996. "Income inequality and differences in household size," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 57-58, February.
    13. Silvia Bortot & Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira, 2013. "The binomial Gini inequality indices and the binomial decomposition of welfare functions," Working Papers 305, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    14. Satya R. Chakravarty, 2009. "Equity and efficiency as components of a social welfare function," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 5(2), pages 181-199, June.
    15. Silvia Bortot & Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira & Thuy H. Nguyen, 2015. "Welfare functions and inequality indices in the binomial decomposition of OWA functions," DEM Discussion Papers 2015/08, Department of Economics and Management.
    16. Silvia Bortot & Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira & Thuy Nguyen, 2015. "On the binomial decomposition of OWA functions, the 3-additive case in n dimensions," Working Papers 360, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    17. Thibault Gajdos & John Weymark, 2005. "Multidimensional generalized Gini indices," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 26(3), pages 471-496, October.
    18. Maureen Cropper & Alan Krupnick & William Raich, 2016. "Preferences for Equality in Environmental Outcomes," NBER Working Papers 22644, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Miguel Niño‐Zarazúa & Laurence Roope & Finn Tarp, 2017. "Global Inequality: Relatively Lower, Absolutely Higher," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 63(4), pages 661-684, December.
    20. Sorger, Gerhard & Stark, Oded, 2013. "Income redistribution going awry: The reversal power of the concern for relative deprivation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-9.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    environmental justice; distributional analysis; inequality indexes; Lorenz curves; benefit-cost analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nev:wpaper:wp201304. 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: Cynthia Morgan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nepgvus.html .

    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.