Suppr超能文献

使用选择实验对收入和健康不平等的标准衡量指标进行参数化。

Parameterizing standard measures of income and health inequality using choice experiments.

机构信息

Department of Economics, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.

Health Economics Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

出版信息

Health Econ. 2021 Sep;30(10):2531-2546. doi: 10.1002/hec.4395. Epub 2021 Jul 22.

Abstract

When measuring inequality using conventional inequality measures, ethical assumptions about distributional preferences are often implicitly made. In this paper, we ask whether the ethical assumptions underlying the concentration index for income-related health inequality and the Gini index for income inequality are supported in a representative sample of the Swedish population using an internet-based survey. We find that the median subject has preferences regarding income-related health inequality that are in line with the ethical assumptions implied by the concentration index, but put higher weight on the poor than what is implied by the Gini index of income inequality. We find that women and individuals with a poorer health status put higher weight on the poor than men and healthier individuals. Ethically flexible inequality measures, such as the s-Gini index and the extended concentration index, imply that researchers have to choose from a toolbox of infinitely many inequality indices. The results of this paper are indicative of which indices (i.e. which parameter values) reflect the views of the population regarding how inequality should be defined.

摘要

当使用传统的不平等衡量标准来衡量不平等时,往往会隐含地做出关于分配偏好的伦理假设。在本文中,我们使用基于互联网的调查,询问在瑞典代表性人群中,收入相关健康不平等的集中指数和收入不平等的基尼指数所依据的伦理假设是否得到支持。我们发现,中位数受调查者对收入相关健康不平等的偏好与集中指数所隐含的伦理假设一致,但对贫困人口的重视程度高于收入不平等的基尼指数所隐含的程度。我们发现,女性和健康状况较差的人比男性和健康状况较好的人更重视贫困人口。伦理灵活的不平等衡量标准,如 s-基尼指数和扩展集中指数,意味着研究人员必须从一个无穷无尽的不平等指数工具包中进行选择。本文的结果表明,哪些指数(即哪些参数值)反映了人们对不平等应如何定义的看法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验