Correcting the Concentration Index : A Comment
In a recent article in this journal, Erreygers [Erreygers, G., 2008. Correcting the concentration index. Journal of Health Economics] has proposed a new measure of income-related health inequality to overcome three shortcomings of the concentration index (CI). I think Erreygers is absolutely right to probe on these issues, and I welcome his generalization of my normalization which was specific to the case of a binary health indicator. However, I have misgivings about his paper. His goal of correcting the CI so as to make it usable with interval-scale variables seems misguided. The CI reflects a commitment on the part of the analyst to measuring relative inequality. Armed only with an interval-scale variable, one simply has to accept that one can meaningfully measure only differences and therefore settle for measuring absolute inequality. Erreygers, index inevitably ends up as a measure of absolute inequality. His objection to my approach to getting round the bounds problem is that my normalization of the CI does not produce a measure of absolute inequality. But that was never my intention! In this comment I also show that--somewhat paradoxically at first glance--my index is also not a pure index of relative inequality. This seems to be an inevitable consequence of tackling the bounds issue.
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article biblioteca |
| Language: | EN |
| Published: |
2009
|
| Subjects: | Index Numbers and Aggregation, leading indicators C430, Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement D630, Analysis of Health Care Markets I110, |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10986/5006 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|