Inequality and Welfare in Quality of Life Among OECD Countries: Non-parametric Treatment of Ordinal Data
- 115 Downloads
The last few years have witnessed an increasing emphasis on going beyond GDP per capita when measuring a nation’s quality of life. Countries (e.g. UK, France, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain) and international organizations (e.g. OECD) have been developing methods suitable for non-income indicators. However, this involves serious measurement challenges due to: (a) multidimensionality, and (b) ordinality (i.e. unlike income these indicators do not have a natural scale). This paper is the first summary of the methods developed in the last decade in the field of inequality and welfare measurement to address these challenges. Next, we utilize the presented methodology and provide evidence on the ranking of OECD countries in terms of welfare and inequality in education and happiness. We find that when dimensions are analysed separately, welfare dominance is frequent (42% of all comparisons in education and 31% in life satisfaction). The number drops to only 4.4% for bivariate dominance, which highlights the empirical relevance of multidimensional analysis. Greece, Portugal and Hungary feature the lowest joint welfare. Northern European countries are most often dominating and Southern European countries are most often dominated in both inequality and welfare analyses.
KeywordsOrdinal data Quality of life Inequality and welfare Partial order Majorization Education-happiness gradient
JEL ClassificationI31 D63
The study was funded by Narodowe Centrum Nauki (Grant No. 2016/23/G/HS4/04350) and Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego (Grant No. MNiD).
- Andreoli, F., & Zoli, C. (2014). Measuring dissimilarity (Vol. WP 23)., WP series Verona: Department of Economics, University of Verona.Google Scholar
- Becchetti, L., Castriota, S., & Londono, D. (2006). Income, relational goods and happiness, CEIS WP No. 227.Google Scholar
- Bennett, C., & Hatzimasoura, C. (2011). Poverty measurement with ordinal data. Institute for International Economic Policy, IIEP-WP-2011-14.Google Scholar
- Bond, T., & Lang, K. (2014). The sad truth about happiness scales, NBER Working Papers 19950, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
- Bond, T., & Lang, K. (2018). The sad truth about happiness scales, NBER WP No. 24853.Google Scholar
- Copeland, A. H. (1951). A “reasonable” social welfare function, University of Michigan Seminar on Applications of Mathematics to the Social Sciences.Google Scholar
- Cuhadaroglu, T. (2013). My group beats your group: Evaluating non-income inequalities, University of St Andrews Discussion Paper np. 1308.Google Scholar
- Fattore, M., & Maggino, F. (2014). Partial orders in socio-economics: A practical challenge for poset theorists or a cultural challenge for social scientists? In R. Brüggemann, et al. (Eds.), Multi-indicator systems and modelling in partial order., Chapter 9 New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Fattore, M., Brüggemann, R., & Owsiński, J. (2011). Using poset theory to compare fuzzy multidimensional material deprivation across regions. New perspectives in statistical modelling and data analysis. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
- Fattore, M., Maggino, F., & Greselin, F. (2011). Socio-economic evaluation with ordinal variables: Integrating counting and poset approaches. Statistica & Applicazioni, Special Issue, 31–42.Google Scholar
- Fattore, M., Maggino, F., & Colombo, E. (2012). From composite indicators to partial order: Evaluating socio-economic phenomena through ordinal data. In F. Maggino & G. Nuvolati (Eds.), Quality of life in Italy: Research and reflections (Vol. 48)., Social indicators research series Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gravel, N., Magdalou, B., & Moyes, P. (2015). Ranking distributions of an ordinal attribute. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01082996/document. Accessed 3 Jan 2018.
- Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H. D. (2000). Genes, culture, democracy and happiness. In E. Diener & E. Suh (Eds.), Subjective well-being across cultures (pp. 165–183). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Sarker, S., & Santra, S. (2017). Extending the approaches to inequality ordering of ordinal variables. http://www.ecineq.org/ecineq_nyc17/FILESx2017/CR2/p105.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2018.
- Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A. K., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr. Accessed 3 Jan 2018.
- UNDP. (2014). Human development report 2014—Ustaining human progress: Reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience, United Nations Development Programme. http://hdr.undp.org/en/global-reports. Accessed 3 Jan 2018.
- Yalonetzky, G. (2012). Poverty measurement with ordinal variables: A generalisation of a recent contribution, ECINEQ WP 2012-246.Google Scholar
- Wolfson, M. C. (1994). When inequalities diverge. American Economic Review P&P, 94, 353–358.Google Scholar