Talk:Atkinson index

Technical tag removed, comments on merging removed after article merged. Reviewed article. No copy editing needed. Bsherr 01:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Atkinson's relationship to other indices
I removed the formula which transforms the Theil-Index int an Atkinson-Index. Arkinson also developped indices based on Entropy, but they are not described in the article. The described inex is not the one which is yielded by the removed transformation formula. That formula was not "wrong", but it would need much more explanation. --84.150.120.105 (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:DL5MDA)

I think we should put a section on conversion from the GE indexes back in, becuase it is something that is useful to know, given GE indexes of order 0 and 1 are commonly published. There is an additional set of useful identities that can be derived under the assumption of log-normality of the distribution. These would also be helpful given that actual income distributions are usually approximately log-normal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.121.104 (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the following formula relating the Atkinson to the mean log deviation: With $$\varepsilon=1$$, we have $$A=1-\exp(M)$$ where M is the mean log deviation.

This can't be right because it can produce negative values for A. What was intended?

$$A=1-\exp(-M)$$ is correct.

Interpretation
If you're not an econometrician, you don't have a clue of how to interpret this index. Isn't any interpetation available? examples of link with real world would be welcomed too. Place of Atkinsn index in theory also... I know I'm asking too much but.. thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.75.2 (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to think about the interpretation. There is no easy one; Atkinson indices are social welfare functions, that is, the utility of society defined over a set of incomes. But that's still a graduate level concept in economics. Stas K (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. ANY explanation as to how this differs from Gini et al, in a practical sense, would be very helpful for lay people. vroman (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

= Wrong definition of sub-group decomposability =

Guys, the formula that defines a decomposable index is wrong (not generic enough). Because it is a formula for additively decomposable index, which Atkinson is not. Could anybody fix it? Itman —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC).