Research
Research
PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLE:
Hauser, Ignacio (2023). “Welfare, state, and values: the winding road of the normative approach to inequality measurement (1912–1970).” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 30 (5): 832–859. doi:10.1080/09672567.2023.2248309
BOOK REVIEW:
Hauser, Ignacio (2024). Review of Welfare for Markets: A Global History of Basic Income, by Anton Jäger and Daniel Zamora Vargas. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 31 (2): 362–365. doi:10.1080/09672567.2024.2363144
“How inequality measures shape empirical results: Evidence from U.S. states” (with Thérèse Rebière and Isabelle Lebon)
Abstract: This paper examines differences across several unidimensional inequality measures (Gini, Atkinson, Theil, Palma, P90/P10) computed from household income data for U.S. states over four years (2019, 2021–2023) using ACS-PUMS data. The comparison of z-scores reveals substantial dispersion across certain measures, particularly between the Gini coefficient and the Atkinson index with a high level of inequality aversion, as well as between the Gini coefficient and the P90/P10 ratio, and highlights reversals in the ranking of inequality across states. We then use econometric analysis to show that the variables associated with income inequality vary depending on the measure considered. Among the socioeconomic variables, educational attainment is significant only for the Palma and P90/P10 ratios, and the non-white population share for the Atkinson and P90/P10 measures. Union density is significant only for the P90/P10 ratio, whereas the homeownership rate remains significant across all inequality measures. Among the policy tools, the minimum wage is significant only for the P90/P10 ratio, while the share of SNAP recipients is significant across all measures. These findings highlight the role of methodological choices in inequality analysis and call for caution when interpreting results based on a single measure.
Presented at:
(Forthcoming) 41st meeting of the European Economic Association & 77th European meeting of the Econometric Society (EEA-ESEM Congress 2026), University College Dublin, Dublin, August 17-21, 2026.
Association for the Development of Research in Economics & Statistics (ADRES) Conference, CES, Paris, January 22, 2026.
Inequality & Policy Research Group Meeting, DSPI, Oxford, June 10, 2024.
London Inequality Network (LIN) Workshop, DSPI, Oxford, May 21, 2024.
Annual Symposium for Early Researchers in Social Policy & Intervention, St Hilda’s College, Oxford, May 17, 2024.
“Revisiting rank reversals in inequality measures” (with Antoinette Baujard)
Abstract: Economists evaluate social states and recommend public policies based on quantitative indicators such as inequality measures. Difficulties arise when different indices (e.g., the Gini coefficient, Atkinson indices, or interdecile ratios) generate contradictory rankings of social states for a given dataset, a phenomenon known as rank reversals. We examine the challenges this poses both for public policy recommendations and for the reliability of the tools and results of economic science. We argue that such contradictions are inevitable and predictable due to the construction of each index, yet not harmless if ignored. Rather than the competitive rationale that often dominates the choice of an inequality measure, we propose two alternatives. First, we propose that rank reversals can be explained by the fact that each index can be expressed as the explicit statement of a specific value judgment. We show that existing techniques can justify this interpretation, including Atkinson’s specification of values over the income distribution and the axiomatic method for identifying value judgments implicit in a measure. Second, drawing on Sen’s positional objectivity approach, we demonstrate that each index functions as a distinct prism through which inequality is seen. Each measure offers an individual perspective on the phenomenon and, despite their conflicts, the plurality of measures allows for a more comprehensive view of inequality. The paper argues that we can make use of the plurality of existing indices, provided that the reasons for selecting a particular measure or the interpretation of all measures are explained transparently. Finally, we argue that our analysis can be extended more generally to any index of social well-being, quality of life, or assessment of social conditions more broadly.
Presented at:
Economics & Philosophy Workshop, Lyon, June 2024.
European Philosophy, Politics, & Economics Network Conference, Warwick, UK, April 2024.
Symposium “Justice and Equality: Theoretical Aspects and Empirical Evidence”, Genoa, October 2023.
6th International Economic Philosophy Conference, Lille, June 2023.
16th International Network for Economic Method (INEM) Conference, Venice, May 2023.