1 / 15

Robust MD welfare comparisons

Robust MD welfare comparisons. (K. Bosmans, L. Lauwers) & E. Ooghe. Overview. UD setting Axioms & result Intersection = GLD From UD to MD setting: Anonymity Two problems Notation Axioms General result Result1 + Kolm’s budget dominance & K&M’s inverse GLD Result2 + Bourguignon (89).

xerxes
Télécharger la présentation

Robust MD welfare comparisons

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Robust MD welfare comparisons (K. Bosmans, L. Lauwers) & E. Ooghe

  2. Overview • UD setting • Axioms & result • Intersection = GLD • From UD to MD setting: • Anonymity • Two problems • Notation • Axioms • General result • Result1 + Kolm’s budget dominance & K&M’s inverse GLD • Result2 + Bourguignon (89)

  3. UD setting • Axioms to compare distributions: • Representation (R): • Anonymity (A) : names of individuals do not matter • Monotonicity (M): more is better • Priority(P): if you have an (indivisible) amount of the single attribute, then it is better to give it to the ‘poorer’ out of two individuals • Result : with U strictly increasing and strictly concave.

  4. Robustness in the UD setting • X Y for all orderings which satisfy R, A, M, P • for all U strictly increasing & strictly concave • X Y • Ethical background for MD dominance criteria? (or … ‘lost paradise’?)

  5. From UD to MD setting • Anonymity only credible, if all relevant characteristics are included … MD analysis! • Recall Priority in UD setting: “if you have an (indivisible) amount of the single attribute, then it is better to give it to the ‘poorer’ out of 2 individuals” • Two problems for P in MD setting: • Should P apply to all attributes? • How do we define ‘being poorer’?

  6. Should P apply to all attributes? • Is P an acceptable principle for all attributes? • e.g., 2 attributes: income & (an ordinal index of) needs? • (Our) solution: given a cut between ‘transferable’ and ‘non-transferable’ attributes, axiom P only applies to the ‘transferable’ ones • Remark: whether an attribute is ‘transferable’ or not • is not a physical characteristic of the attribute, but • depends on whether the attribute should be included in the definition of the P-axiom, thus, …, a ‘normative’ choice

  7. How do we define ‘being poorer’? • In contrast with UD-setting, ‘poorer’ in terms of income and ‘poorer’ in terms of well-being do not necessarily coincide anymore • (Our) solution: Given R & A, we use U to define ‘being poorer’ • Remark: Problematic for many MD welfare functions; e.g.: • attributes = apples & bananas (with αj’s=1 & ρ = 2), • individuals = 1 & 2 with bundles (4,7) & (6,4), respectively, • but:

  8. Notation • Set of individuals I ; |I| > 1 • Set of attributes J = T UN ; |T| > 0 • A bundle x = (xT,xN), element of B= • A distribution X = (x1,x2,...), element of D = B|I| • A ranking (‘better-than’ relation) on D

  9. Representation • Representation (R):There exist C1maps Ui: B→ R , s.t. for all X, Y in D, we have • note: • has to be complete, transitive, continuous & separable • differentiability can be dropped, as well as continuity over non-transferables (but NESH, in case |N| > 0) • for all i in I, for all • there exists a s.t. Ui(xT , xN ) > Ui(0 , yN )

  10. Anonymity & Monotonicity • Anonymity (A):for all X, Y in D, if X and Y are equal up to a permutation (over individuals), then X ~ Y • Monotonicity (M):for all X, Y in D, if X > Y, then X Y • note: • interpretation of M for non-transferables • M for non-transferables can be dropped

  11. Priority • Recall problems 1 & 2 • Priority (P): • for each X in D, • for each εin B, with εT > 0 & εN = 0 • for all k,l in I, with we have • note: can be defined without assuming R & A …

  12. Main result • A ranking on D satisfies R, A, M, P iff there exist • a vector pT >> 0 (for attributes in T) • a str. increasing C1-map ψ: → R (for attributes in N) • a str. increasing and str. concave C1-map φ: R→ R , a → φ(a) such that, for each X and Y in D, we have

  13. Discussion • Possibility or impossibility result? • Related results: • Sen’s weak equity principle • Ebert & Shorrock’s conflict • Fleurbaey & Trannoy’s impossibility of a Paretian egalitarian … • “fundamental difficulty to work in two separate spaces” • Might be less an objection for dominance-type results • This result can be used as an ethical foundation for two, rather different MD dominance criteria: • Kolm’s (1977) budget dominance criterion • Bourguignon’s (1989) dominance criterion

  14. MD Dominance with |N| = 0 • X Y for all orderings which satisfy R, A, M, P for allstrictly increasing and strictly concave φ for all vectors p>>0 • for all vectors p>>0 (Koshevoy & Mosler’s (1999) inverse GL-criterion)

  15. MD dominance with |T| = |N| = 1 • X Y for all orderings which satisfy R, A, M, P for allstrictly increasing and strictly concave φ for all strictly increasing ψ for all a in RL, with al1≥al2if l1 ≤ l2 , with L = L(X,Y) the set of needs values occuring in X or Y FX(.|l) the needs-conditional income distribution in X

More Related