1 / 20

ELITISM AND STOCHASTIC DOMINANCE

ELITISM AND STOCHASTIC DOMINANCE. Stephen BAZEN (GREQAM, Université d’Aix-Marseille II) Patrick MOYES (GREThA, Université de Bordeaux IV). Presentation at the Tenth SSCW International Meeting, Moscow, 21-24 July 2010. Comparison of distributions. Risk : distribution of returns.

myrrh
Download Presentation

ELITISM AND STOCHASTIC DOMINANCE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ELITISM AND STOCHASTIC DOMINANCE Stephen BAZEN (GREQAM, Université d’Aix-Marseille II) Patrick MOYES (GREThA, Université de Bordeaux IV) Presentation at the Tenth SSCW International Meeting, Moscow, 21-24 July 2010

  2. Comparison of distributions Risk : distribution of returns Inequality: distribution of income (earnings, wealth,…) In general, emphasis on progressive transfers

  3. Progressive transfer Elitism x is obtained from z by a regressive transfer - Academic performance - Affluence

  4. Stochastic dominance Welfare function for distribution h(.): Comparison of two distributions in terms of social welfare

  5. Stochastic dominance – standard application First order stochastic dominance Second order stochastic dominance

  6. First order stochastic dominance (F dominates G) Second order stochastic dominance (F dominates G)

  7. Elitism and stochastic dominance Performance : density of individuals’ publication scores value function Assumption 1 : An additional publication increases performance

  8. Assumption 2 : A regressive transfer of publication scores increases performance Convexity of the value function rather than concavity in the standard case Criterion for ranking departments by performance :

  9. b

  10. If distribution F stochastically dominates G in terms of the survival function then

  11. Assumption 3 : A regressive transfer of publication scores of given size increases perfomance more at the higher end of the scale than at the lower end Criterion for ranking departments by performance :

  12. Second order stochastic dominance Toulouse dominates all departments except Essex No dominance over : Essex, Cantab, Erasmus Tilburg UCL Louvain dominate: LSE Stockholm U. Nottingham dominates: LSE Stockholm U. Amsterdam

  13. Tilburg and UCL dominate: Nottingham Louvain dominates: Free University of Amsterdam Amsterdam Nottingham dominates: Free University of Amsterdam Amsterdam Amsterdam dominates: Oxon Stockholm School of Economics Stockholm School of Economics dominates: Warwick York Maastricht Autonoma Barcelona Bonn London Business School

  14. Does more affluence mean less poverty ?

  15. Ranked by both criteria - an example (i) Generalised Lorenz dominance : progressive transfer increment (ii) Reverse Generalised Lorenz dominance : increment regressive transfer

More Related