Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Economics

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 937–948 | Cite as

Some Logical and Normative Issues Relating to Measurement in the Social Sciences

  • S. SubramanianEmail author
Policy Perspectives
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

This lecture is based on the premise that measurement is very important for the social sciences. However, it also enjoins care on the practitioner’s part in his or her engagement with the project of measurement. It deals, in particular, with four often overlooked issues with which quantification in the social sciences should be concerned: (1) social indicators in relation to the contrast between outcomes and processes; (2) measurement which tends to depend on the derivation of ‘ought’ propositions from ‘is’ propositions; (3) the neglect of the role of normative values in social and economic measurement; and (4) the role of language and logic in social measurement.

Keywords

Outcomes Processes ‘Is’ propositions ‘Ought’ propositions ‘Decomposition’ Logical coherence Normative appeal Language Meaning 

JEL Classification

B41 I32 D39 O15 J11 

Notes

References

  1. Atkinson, A.B., and A. Brandolini. 2010. On Analyzing the World Distribution of Income. World Bank Economic Review 24: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barakat, B. 2014. Revisiting the History of Fertility Concentration and Its Measurement. Vienna Institute of Demography Working Papers 1/2014, Vienna. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/subsites/Institute/VID/PDF/Publications/Working_Papers/WP2014_01.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  3. Basu, K. 2001. On the Goals of Development. In Frontiers of Development Economics: The Future in Perspective, ed. G.M. Meier and J.E. Stiglitz. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Basu, K. 2006. Globalization, Poverty, and Inequality: What is the Relationship? What Can Be Done? World Development 34(8): 1361–1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basu, K. 2013. Shared Prosperity and the Mitigation of Poverty: In Practice and in Precept. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 6700. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2354167. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  6. Basu, K., and S. Subramanian. 2019. Inequality, Growth, Poverty, and Lunar Eclipses: Policy and Arithmetic. Development and Change.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12512
  7. Bosmans, K., K. Decancq, and A. Decoster. 2013. The Relativity of Decreasing Inequality Between Countries. Economica 81(322): 276–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broome, J. 1996. The Welfare Economics of Population. Oxford Economic Papers 48(2): 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Datt, G., and M. Ravallion. 1992. Growth and Redistribution Components of Changes in Poverty Measures. Journal of Development Economics 38(2): 275–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dhongde, S. 2002. Measuring the Impact of Growth and Income Distribution on Poverty in India. Mimeo: Department of Economics, University of California at Riverside. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.198.3867&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  11. Dollar, D., and A. Kraay. 2002. Growth is Good for the Poor. Journal of Economic Growth 7(3): 195–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dollar, D., T. Kleineberg, and A. Kraay. 2013. Growth Still is Good for the Poor. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6568. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/496121468149676299/pdf/WPS6568.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  13. Dollar, D., T. Kleineberg, and A. Kraay. 2014. Growth, Inequality, and Social Welfare: Cross-Country Evidence. In Economic Policy Sixtieth Panel Meeting, Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance, Rome. http://www.economic-policy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Dollar-Kraay-Kleineberg.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  14. Dos Santos, V.F., and W. da Cruz Vieira. 2013. Effects of Growth and Reduction of Income Inequality on Poverty in Northeastern Brazil, 2003–2008. Economia Aplicada.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-80502013000400006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gould, S.J. 1997. The Mismeasure of Man. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  16. Hassoun, N. 2009. Another Mere Addition Paradox? A Problem for Some Common Poverty Indexes in Variable Populations. Carnegie Mellon University Working Paper.Google Scholar
  17. Jain, L.R., and S.D. Tendulkar. 1990. The Role of Growth and Distribution in the Observed Change in Head-Count Ratio Measure of Poverty: A Decomposition Exercise for India. Indian Economic Review 25(2): 165–205.Google Scholar
  18. Jayaraj, D., and S. Subramanian. 2009. The Wellbeing Implications of a Change in the Sex-Ratio of a Population. Social Choice and Welfare 33(1): 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jayaraj, D., and S. Subramanian. 2015. Growth and Inequality in the Distribution of India’s Consumption Expenditure: 1983 to 2009–2010. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(32): 39–47.Google Scholar
  20. Kakwani, N., and K. Subbarao. 1990. Rural Poverty and its Alleviation in India. Economic and Political Weekly 25: A2–A16.Google Scholar
  21. Kanbur, S.R., and D. Mukherjee. 2007. Premature Mortality and Poverty Measurement. Bulletin of Economic Research 19(4): 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolm, SCh. 1976a. Unequal Inequalities I. Journal of Economic Theory 12(3): 416–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kolm, SCh. 1976b. Unequal Inequalities II. Journal of Economic Theory 13(1): 82–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krtscha, M. 1994. A New Compromise Measure of Inequality. In Models and Measurement of Welfare and Inequality, ed. W. Eichhorn. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Nino-Zarazua, M., L. Roope, and F. Tarp. 2017. Global Inequality: Relatively Lower, Absolutely Higher. Review of Income and Wealth 63(4): 661–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Patillo, C., S. Gupta, and K. Carey. 2005. Sustaining Growth Accelerations and Pro-poor Growth in Africa. IMF Working Paper WP/05/195. Washington, D.C.. International Monetary Fund. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.511.2979&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  28. Rosenblatt, D., and T. McGavock. 2013. A Note on the Simple Algebra of the Shared Prosperity Indicator. Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 6645. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/894291468337199450/A-note-on-the-simple-algebra-of-the-shared-prosperity-indicator. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  29. Sen, A. 1967. The Nature and Classes of Prescriptive Judgements. The Philosophical Quarterly 17(66): 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Shorrocks, A.F. 1984. Inequality Decomposition by Population Sub-groups. Econometrica 52(6): 1369–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shorrocks, A.F. 1988. Aggregation Issues in Inequality Measurement. In Measurement in Economics: Theory and Applications in Economic Indices, ed. W. Eichhorn. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Shorrocks, A.F. 2013. Decomposition Procedures for Distributional Analysis: A Unified Framework Based on the Shapley Value. Journal of Economic Inequality 11(1): 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Subramanian, S. 2010. Introduction. In Poverty, Inequality, and Population: Essays in Development and Applied Measurement, ed. D. Jayaraj and S. Subramanian. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Subramanian, S., and M. Lalvani. 2018. Poverty, Growth, Inequality: Some General and India-Specific Considerations. Indian Growth and Development Review 11(2): 136–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zheng, B. 2007. Unit-Consistent Decomposable Inequality Measures. Economica 74(293): 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Indian Econometric Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent ScholarChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations