Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 140, Issue 3, pp 1279–1300 | Cite as

The Balanced Worth: A Procedure to Evaluate Performance in Terms of Ordered Attributes

  • Carmen Herrero
  • Antonio Villar
Article
  • 150 Downloads

Abstract

There are many problems in the social sciences that refer to the evaluation of the relative performance of some populations when their members’ achievements are described by a distribution of outcomes over a set of ordered categories. A new method for the evaluation of this type of problems is presented here. That method, called balanced worth, offers a cardinal, complete and transitive evaluation that is based on the likelihood of getting better results. The evaluation of each society is based on the probability of obtaining better results with respect to the others. The balanced worth is a refinement of “the worth” (Herrero and Villar in PLoS ONE 8(12):e84784, 2013.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084784) that overcomes its excessive sensitivity to the differences, due to the presence of ties. We also discuss how this method can be applied for the case of heterogeneous populations and show how it can be applied in different contexts. An empirical example, regarding life satisfaction in Spain is used to illustrate the working of this method.

Keywords

Evaluation method Categorical variables Relative group performance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks are also due to Héctor García Peris, for his help in developing the algorithm that computes the evaluation, and to an anonymous referee for very helpful comments and suggestions. Funding was provided by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Grant Nos. ECO2015-65408-R, ECO2015-65820-P).

References

  1. Albarrán, P., Herrero, C., Ruiz-Castillo, J., & Villar, A. (2017). The Herrero-Villar approach to citation impact. Journal of Informetrics, 11(2), 625–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellù, L. G., & Liberati, P. (2005). Social welfare analysis of income distributions ranking income distributions with crossing generalised Lorenz curves. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  3. Border, K. C. (1989). Fixed point theorems with applications to economics and game theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bourguignon, F., Ferreira, F. H. G., & Leite, P. G. (2008). Beyond Oaxaca–Blinder: Accounting for differences in household income distributions. Journal of Economic Inequality, 6(2), 117–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chakravarty, S. R., & Silber, J. (2007). A generalized index of employment segregation. Mathematical Social Sciences, 53(2), 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crespo, J. A., Li, Y., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2013). The measurement of the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices across scientific fields. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e58727.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cuhadaroglu, T. (2013). My group beats your group: Evaluating non-income inequalities. St Andrews: W.P. School of Economics and Finances, University of St Andrews.Google Scholar
  8. Echenique, F., & Fryer, R. G. (2005). On the measurement of segregation (Vol. w11258). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eurostat. (2015). Quality of life. Facts and views. Luxemburg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  10. Frankel, D. M., & Volij, O. (2011). Measuring school segregation. Journal of Economic Theory, 146(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallén, M. L., & Peraita, C. (2015). A comparison of corporate social responsibility engagement in the OECD countries with categorical data. Applied Economics Letters, 22(12), 1005–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gonzalez-Diaz, J., Hendrichx, R., & Lohmann, E. (2014). Paired comparison analysis: An axiomatic approach to ranking methods. Social Choice and Welfare, 42(1), 139–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grannis, R. (2002). Segregation indices and their functional inputs. Sociological Methodology, 32(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herrero, C., Méndez, I., & Villar, A. (2014). Analysis of group performance with categorical data when agents are heterogeneous: The evaluation of scholastic performance in the OECD through PISA. Economics of Education Review, 40, 140–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herrero, C., & Villar, A. (2013). On the comparison of group performance with categorical data. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e84784.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laband, D. N., & Piette, M. J. (1994). The relative impacts of economics journals: 1970–1990. Journal of Economic Literature, 32(2), 640–666.Google Scholar
  17. Laslier, J. (1997). Tournament solutions and majority voting. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li, F., Yi, K., & Jestes, J. (2009). Ranking distributed probabilistic data. SIGMOD’09, June 29–July 2.Google Scholar
  19. Lieberson, S. (1976). Rank-sum comparisons between groups. Sociological Methodology, 7, 276–291.  https://doi.org/10.2307/270713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martínez-Mekler, G., Martínez, R. A., del Río, M. B., Mansilla, R., Miramontes, P., et al. (2009). Universality of rank-ordering distributions in the arts and sciences. PLoS ONE, 4(3), e4791.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Palacios-Huerta, I., & Volij, O. (2004). The measurement of intellectual influence. Econometrica, 72(3), 963–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (1976). Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics. Information Processing and Management, 12(5), 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reardon, S. F., & Firebaugh, G. (2002). Measures of multi-group segregation. Sociological Methodology, 32, 33–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosvall, M., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2007). An information-theoretic framework for resolving community structure in complex networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611034104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sheriff, G., & Maguire, K. (2013). Ranking distributions of environmental outcomes across population groups. National Center for Environmental Economics. August.Google Scholar
  27. Shorrocks, A. F. (1983). Ranking income distributions. Economica, 50(197), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slutzki, G., & Volij, O. (2006). Scoring of web pages and tournaments. Social Choice and Welfare, 26(1), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Torregrosa, R. (2015). Medición y evolución del sentimiento autonómico en España. Investigaciones Regionales- Journal of Regional Research, 33, 53–70.Google Scholar
  30. Veenhoven, R. (1991). Is happiness relative? Social Indicators Research, 24, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Villar, A. (2014). Education and cognitive skills in the Spanish adult population. Intergenerational comparison of mathematical knowledge form PIAAC data. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 1(1), 72–88.Google Scholar
  32. Yalonetzky, G. (2012). A dissimilarity index of multidimensional inequality of opportunity. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 10(3), 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Alicante & IvieAlicanteSpain
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversidad Pablo de Olavide & IvieSevilleSpain

Personalised recommendations