Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why ethical measures of inequality need interpersonal comparisons

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An ethical measure of income inequality corresponds to a social ordering of income distributions. Without interpersonal comparisons, the only possible social orderings are dictatorial, so there can be no ethical inequality measure. Interpersonal comparisons allow a very much richer set of possible social orderings, and the construction of ethical measures of inequality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Bibliography

  • K. J. Arrow, ‘Values and Collective Decision-Making’, in P. Laslett and W. G. Runciman (eds.),Philosophy, Politics and Society, Vol. 3, Blackwell (1967) (and reprinted in Phelps (1973)).

  • A. B. Atkinson, ‘On the Measurement of Inequality’,J. Econ. Theory 2 (3), (September 1970) 244–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Dalton, ‘The Measurement of the Inequality of Incomes’,Econ. J. 30 (September 1920).

  • J. de V. Graaff,Theoretical Welfare Economics, Cambridge University Press, 1957.

  • P. J. Hammond, ‘Equity, Arrow's Conditions, and Rawls' Difference Principle’,Econometrica 44 (1976), 793–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. C. Jeffrey, ‘On Interpersonal Utility Theory’,J. Philos. 68 (1971), 647–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. C. Kemp and Y-K. Ng, ‘On the Existence of Social Welfare Functions, Social Orderings, and Social Decision Functions’,Economica 43 (1976), 59–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Y-K. Ng, ‘Bentham or Bergson? Finite Sensibility, Utility Functions, and Social Welfare Functions’,Rev. Econ. Stud. 42 (4). (October 1975), 545–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. P. Parks, ‘An Impossibility Theorem for Fixed Preferences: a Dictatorial Bergson-Samuelson Welfare Function’,Rev. Econ. Stud. (forthcoming).

  • P. K. Pattanaik,Voting and Collective Choice, Cambridge University Press, 1971.

  • E. S. Phelps (ed.),Economic Justice, Penguin, 1973.

  • J. Rawls,A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, 1971.

  • A. K. Sen,Collective Choice and Social Welfare, Holden-Day, 1970.

  • A. K. Sen,On Economic Inequality, Clarendon Press, 1973.

  • A. K. Sen, ‘Rawls versus Bentham: An Axiomatic Examination of the Pure Distribution Problem’,Theory and Decision 4 (1974), 301–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. L. Simon, ‘Interpersonal Welfare Comparisons Can Be Made - and Used for Redistribution Decisions’,Kyklos 27 (1974), 63–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • I. Waldner, ‘Bare Preference and Interpersonal Utility Comparisons’,Theory and Decision 4 (1974), 313–328.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Peter J. Hammond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

I have benefited especially from reading the published and unpublished work of Parks, of Sen, and of d'Aspremont and Gevers, and I claim little originality for the ideas expressed here.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hammond, P.J. Why ethical measures of inequality need interpersonal comparisons. Theor Decis 7, 263–274 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00135081

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00135081

Keywords

Search

Navigation