Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byNikki Whinery Modified over 2 years ago

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

2
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
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
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
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
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
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 α j ’s=1 & ρ = 2), individuals = 1 & 2 with bundles (4,7) & (6,4), respectively, but:

8
8 Notation Set of individuals I ; |I| > 1 Set of attributes J = T U N ; |T| > 0 A bundle x = (x T,x N ), element of B = A distribution X = (x 1,x 2,...), element of D = B |I| A ranking (‘better-than’ relation) on D

9
9 Representation Representation (R) : There exist C 1 maps U i : 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. U i (x T, x N ) > U i (0, y N )

10
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
11 Priority Recall problems 1 & 2 Priority (P): for each X in D, for each ε in B, with ε T > 0 & ε N = 0 for all k,l in I, with we have note: can be defined without assuming R & A …

12
12 Main result A ranking on D satisfies R, A, M, P iff there exist a vector p T >> 0 (for attributes in T) a str. increasing C 1 -map ψ: → R (for attributes in N) a str. increasing and str. concave C 1 -map φ: R → R, a → φ(a) such that, for each X and Y in D, we have

13
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
14 MD Dominance with |N| = 0 X Y for all orderings which satisfy R, A, M, P for all strictly increasing and strictly concave φ for all vectors p >> 0 for all vectors p>>0 (Koshevoy & Mosler’s (1999) inverse GL-criterion)

15
15 MD dominance with |T| = |N| = 1 X Y for all orderings which satisfy R, A, M, P for all strictly increasing and strictly concave φ for all strictly increasing ψ for all a in R L, with a l 1 ≥ a l 2 if l 1 ≤ l 2, with L = L(X,Y) the set of needs values occuring in X or Y F X (.|l) the needs-conditional income distribution in X

Similar presentations

OK

Homework:. Indifference Curves Definition: For any bundle a and a preference relation over bundles, the indifference curve through a is the set.

Homework:. Indifference Curves Definition: For any bundle a and a preference relation over bundles, the indifference curve through a is the set.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on real numbers for class 9th model Ppt on fourth and fifth state of matter summary Ppt on condition based maintenance plus Hrm ppt on recruitment matters Ppt on bank lending rates Ppt on sea level rise The nervous system for kids ppt on batteries Ppt online maker Ppt on national education days Ppt on 8 wonders of the world