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 t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Wagstaff, Adam
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	EN
Published:	2012
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

id	okr-10986-5006
recordtype	oai_dc
spelling	okr-10986-50062021-04-23T14:02:20Z Correcting the Concentration Index : A Comment Wagstaff, Adam Index Numbers and Aggregation leading indicators C430 Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement D630 Analysis of Health Care Markets I110 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. 2012-03-30T07:30:48Z 2012-03-30T07:30:48Z 2009 Journal Article Journal of Health Economics 01676296 http://hdl.handle.net/10986/5006 EN http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/igo World Bank Journal Article
repository_type	Digital Repository
institution_category	Foreign Institution
institution	Digital Repositories
building	World Bank Open Knowledge Repository
collection	World Bank
language	EN
topic	Index Numbers and Aggregation leading indicators C430 Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement D630 Analysis of Health Care Markets I110
spellingShingle	Index Numbers and Aggregation leading indicators C430 Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement D630 Analysis of Health Care Markets I110 Wagstaff, Adam Correcting the Concentration Index : A Comment
relation	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/igo
description	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.
format	Journal Article
author	Wagstaff, Adam
author_facet	Wagstaff, Adam
author_sort	Wagstaff, Adam
title	Correcting the Concentration Index : A Comment
title_short	Correcting the Concentration Index : A Comment
title_full	Correcting the Concentration Index : A Comment
title_fullStr	Correcting the Concentration Index : A Comment
title_full_unstemmed	Correcting the Concentration Index : A Comment
title_sort	correcting the concentration index : a comment
publishDate	2012
url	http://hdl.handle.net/10986/5006
_version_	1764393567474679808

Correcting the Concentration Index : A Comment

Similar Items