Back to top anchor
Working paper

The Role of Value Judgements in Measuring Inequality (WP 14/13)

Issue date: 
Tuesday, 18 November 2014
Status: 
Current
View point: 
Publication category: 
JEL classification: 
D63 - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
H23 - Taxation and Subsidies: Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
I31 - General Welfare; Well-Being
Fiscal year: 
2014/15
ISBN: 
978-0-478-42161-3

Formats and related files

This paper illustrates the effects of using different distributions and summary measures, using New Zealand data for the period 2007 to 2011. Using an annual accounting period, alternative welfare metrics and units of analysis are investigated.

Abstract

When measuring inequality, value judgements are imposed, often implicitly, at several stages. In particular, the choice of 'welfare metric', adult equivalence scale, unit of analysis and the inequality measure itself cannot avoid value judgements. This paper illustrates the effects of using different distributions and summary measures, using New Zealand data for the period 2007 to 2011. Using an annual accounting period, alternative welfare metrics and units of analysis are investigated. In addition, the sensitivity to assumptions about economies of scale within households is examined, and changes in inequality are decomposed into those arising from population and tax structure changes. When considering the period 2007 to 2010 all measures agree that inequality fell, although the extent of the reduction varies. For the period 2007 to 2011 (after the tax reforms of 2010) the answer to the question of whether inequality in New Zealand has risen or fallen depends crucially on the combination of welfare metric, income unit, adult equivalent scale and inequality measure used. In empirical studies it is therefore important to explore a wide range of alternative approaches, providing information for readers to make their own judgements.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Chris Ball, Peter Lambert, Angela Mellish and Robert Stephens for comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this Working Paper are strictly those of the author(s). They do not necessarily reflect the views of the New Zealand Treasury or the New Zealand Government. The New Zealand Treasury and the New Zealand Government take no responsibility for any errors or omissions in, or for the correctness of, the information contained in these working papers. The paper is presented not as policy, but with a view to inform and stimulate wider debate.

Last updated: 
Thursday, 20 November 2014