Essays on the measurement of multidimensional inequality (original) (raw)
Related papers
2012
To my mother, Maria Szydoski, and my husband, Marcelo Bego, for all their love and support. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to thank Marcelo Bego, my husband, for all of his support, companionship and love during this journey. Also, I am deeply grateful to my mother, Maria Szydoski, who overcame huge obstacles, for being with me and supporting me all the way through my studies and research. I am also indebted to my father, Georgios Joannis Alexopoulos, who always believed in me. My special thanks to my uncle, Dimitrios Georgios Alexopoulos, who shared the same belief. I would also like to thank my father and mother in law, Percival and Eliane Bego, for all their unconditional love. Finally, I want to thank my sister Olga, my brother in law, Silas and my brother Gregorio for their support and love. My sincere admiration and gratitude to Professor Anne Villamil for all the mentoring, guidance, and confidence in my research, and for teaching me how to be a better researcher and, more importantly, a better person. I also want to express my gratitude and admiration for Professor Werner Baer who supported not just me but many Latin American students.
Michael WALZER, Astrid v. BUSEKIST - Justice is Steady Work, Polity Press 2020 (Proofs)
This book is the result of a unique experience. During our conversations, Michael Walzer kindly agreed to respond to all my questions, which were sometimes difficult, and at times critical. He agreed to reflect on the meaning of his work, to comment on the questions his books and articles continue to raise, and on the reception of his ideas, theoretical and political. He also shared some personal joys and political disappointments. Thank you Michael. I owe special thanks to Amélie Ferey who has transcribed parts of our conversation. Eyal Chovers, Raphael Zagury Orly, Ronit Peleg, and Joseph Cohen were the co-organizers of the Conference on May 68, Legacies of Resistance at the University of Tel Aviv in June 2018, where we talked about Michael's political activism during the Civil Rights movement, and the campaign against the Vietnam War (Chapter 2). I am grateful to Tila Rudel and Yael Baruch from the French Institute at Tel Aviv. At Sciences Po, I am grateful to the co-organizers of our Political Theory Seminar. We welcomed Michael in Paris as guest speaker in March 2018. Gaëlle Durif and Jerôme Guilbert helped us to organize and to screen his talk "Freedom and Equality." Ariel Colonomos, Azar Gat, and Yoel Mitrani suggested questions, and Tom Theuns translated the Introduction. Ian Shapiro was the messenger between Paris and Princeton. Thanks to a fellowship from the Israel Institute (israelinstitute. org) I was able to spend a month in Israel. Many thanks to Itamar Rabinovitch, Daniel Skek, and the staff at the Institute. Judith B. Walzer generously lent me her husband for a while in
Syed Saddam Ali Final Mphill dissertation
The phrase ‘inequality in the distribution of income’ (or wealth or such valued things) is very commonly used in economics and other social sciences. The term ‘inequality’ in the phrase ‘inequality in the distribution of income’ means the absence of equality or deviation from equality in the distribution of income among the persons/households of a community or of a geographical region or so. The term ‘distribution’ in the phrase ‘inequality in the distribution of income’ has normally a meaning opposite to ‘addition’ so that when a total income nµ is distributed among n persons in the form (y1, y2, …, yn), we have∑_(i=1)^n▒〖y_i=nµ〗, where µ is the mean (arithmetic mean) income.It is not necessary that the term ‘distribution’ should have a meaning opposite to ‘addition’, it may also have a meaning opposite to‘ multiplication’ or so. But to us the first meaning is most convincing and we are used to assume it. Throughout our discussion below we shall take this assumption. Another assumption we normally make in the measurement of inequality in the distribution of income is that the inequality measure is additive. It implies that the income of any person has an inequality implication or has a contribution to inequality and all these contributions are added to arrive at the final measure of inequality. It is not necessary that it must be additive, it may be multiplicative or so. But to us, the additive form of inequality function is most convincing. Actually, it is based on an additively separable social welfare function. Throughout our discussion below we shall take this additivity assumption also. Even in the class of additive measures, we may have a large number of measures depending on the underlying welfare function. Inequality measures are mainly of three types: absolute, relative, and index and have three different types of welfare implications. There may be other types in between these three types. Thus, it is very difficult to have a precise definition of inequality. On the other hand, Inequality decomposition is one of the arrogant notions in inequality literature, which is considered an important axiom to justify a decent measure of inequality. It helps to understand the source and structure of inequality; especially for the policy prescriber to take an appropriate policy. In general, the decomposition of inequality is that by which one can break down the overall inequality into within-group and between-group inequality and the group is determined by the subgroup population as well as by the source of income. For the subgroup population, the group is considered by the population of a region (e.g. rural and urban) or social class, etc. Moreover, the population subgroups inequality decomposition has been taken as an important tool in the field of inequality measurement; this is also known as additive decomposition. For non-additive decomposition overall inequality is decomposed by the source of income. Shorrock (1980), Cowell (1980), and Bourguignon (1979) have developed the class of general entropy (GE) measure as a decomposable measure that is dependent upon population size, mean income, and inequality value of each population subgroup. The main objective of this study is to decompose inequality of household consumer expenditure in India and its major states in order to classify the within-sector and the between-sector contribution of inequality for the period 1983 to 2011-12 and the subgroup division is done by the rural and urban population for each state and all India separately. We have taken one absolute measure variance and one relative measure Coefficient of variance.
This is the PDF document used during my PhD defense at the Université de Bourgogne. I defended my PhD dissertation in English. My PhD committee: Irène Bellier (EHESS, France), Yves Boquet (Univ. de Bourgogne, France), Christian Montès (Univ. Lyon 2, France), Gundars Rudzitis (Univ. of Idaho, USA)