When More Does Not Necessarily Mean Better: Health-Related Illfare Comparisons with Non-Monotone Well-Being Relationships
Date
2015
Type:
Artículo
item.page.extent
item.page.accessRights
item.contributor.advisor
ORCID:
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
item.page.isbn
item.page.issn
item.page.issne
item.page.doiurl
item.page.other
item.page.references
Abstract
Most welfare studies assume that wellbeing is monotonically related to the variables used for the analysis. While this assumption is reasonable for many dimensions of well-being like income, education, or empowerment, there are some cases where it is definitively not relevant, in particular with respect to health. For instance, health status is often proxied using the Body Mass Index (BMI). Low BMI values can capture under-nutrition or the incidence of severe illness, yet a high BMI is neither desirable as it indicates obesity. Usual illfare indices derived from poverty measurement are then not appropriate. This paper proposes illfare indices that are consistent with some situations of non-monotonic wellbeing relationships and examines the partial orderings of different distributions derived from various classes of illfare indices. An illustration is provided for child health is proxied by a weight-for-age indicator using DHS data for Bangladesh, Colombia and Egypt during the last few decades.
Description
item.page.coverage.spatial
item.page.sponsorship
Citation
Apablaza, M, Bresson, F and Yalonetzky, G (2016) When more does not necessarily meanbetter: Health-related illfare comparisons with non-monotone wellbeing relationships. Review of Income and Wealth, 62 (S1). S145-S178.
Keywords
D63, monotonicity, nutrition transition, poverty measurement, stochastic dominance, I3, illfare comparisons