4
$\begingroup$

I am an economist currently working with this book: Frank Cowell - Measuring Inequality

On page 25 a formulation of the relative mean deviation is given as follows: $$ M = 2 \left[ F\left(\bar{y}\right) - \Phi(\bar{y}) \right] $$

$F$ is the CDF, $\Phi$ is the proportion of total income received by persons who have an income less than or equal to $y$ ( per the book's definition: $\Phi=\frac{1}{\bar{y}} \int_0^y zdF(z)$), and $\bar{y}$ is the mean. All this is also defined on page 152 in the appendix. The appendix also gives a definition of $M$:

$$ M = \int \left| \frac{y}{\bar{y}} -1\right|dF $$

The book says that the former formulation can be derived from the latter, but I have no idea how to begin with this. How do I perform the integration here and get to the first formulation?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Some more information would be appreciated if it's available; how is F distributed, or do you have an expression for it? Or is F the CDF of M? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2014 at 10:27
  • $\begingroup$ It's supposed to be a general result. F is some CDF. The book lists examples with the Pareto and log-normal distribution. But that is not the point. However there is supposed to be a PDF f available for F. So it is supposed to be differentiable $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2014 at 10:31
  • $\begingroup$ Generally as the book deals with income, y is supposed to be taken as income and F(y) is the proportion of people who have received this income. But otherwise the problem is supposed to be abstract and that information is not really relevant to the calculation. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2014 at 10:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I have to ask the OP why he has cross-posted this to math.SE, here, math.stackexchange.com/questions/630201/…, (where he has also received a correct answer) and also, why he thought that any answer in math.SE is worthy of a bounty, while in CV is not. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 9, 2014 at 19:21
  • $\begingroup$ Is he seriously using $\bar{y}$ for the population mean?? $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Commented Aug 15, 2015 at 4:26

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

The relationship is universal and does not depend on the income distribution. The only assumption to be made is that F is a CDF and $F(-\infty)=0$ (or $F(0)=0$ in this special case) and $F(\infty)=1$. Then: \begin{aligned} M &= \int_0^\infty \left|\frac{y}{\bar y}-1 \right|dF(y) \\ &= \int_0^{\bar y} \left(1 - \frac{y}{\bar y}\right)dF(y) + \int_{\bar y}^\infty \left(\frac{y}{\bar y}-1 \right)dF(y)\\ &= \left(F(\bar y)-0-\Phi(\bar y)\right) + \left( 1 - \Phi(\bar y) -1 +F(\bar y)\right) \\ &= 2 \left( F(\bar y) - \Phi(\bar y) \right) \end{aligned}

Step 1 is possible because of the monotone dependency of F on y. Step 2 uses the properties of a CDF and the definition of $\Phi$. More explicitely for the first summand: $$ \int_0^{\bar y} dF(y) = F(\bar y) - F(0) = F(\bar y) $$ since $F(0)=0$ and with definition of $\Phi$ $$ \int_0^{\bar y} \frac{y}{\bar y}dF(y) = \Phi(\bar y). $$ And for the second summand: $$ \int_{\bar y}^\infty dF(y) = F(\infty)-F(\bar y)=1-F(\bar y) $$ since $F(\infty)=1$ and \begin{aligned} \int_{\bar y}^\infty \frac{y}{\bar y} dF(y) &= \int_0^\infty \frac{y}{\bar y} dF(y) - \int_0^{\bar y} \frac{y}{\bar y} dF(y) \\ &= 1 - \Phi({\bar y}) \end{aligned} because $\int_0^{\infty} y dF(y)$ is the expectation value $\bar y$ and $\int_0^{\bar y} \frac{y}{\bar y} dF(y)$ is again the definition of $\Phi$. Note that I assumed that the income $y$ has to be positive (as in the definition of $\Phi$). Otherwise the lower integration limit $0$ has to be replaced by $-\infty$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you very much, but i would really appreciate if you could spell out the answer a little bit more. How can one break up the integral because of monotone dependency of F on y? Also how can one actually perform the integration in step 2? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2014 at 12:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ok, I don't see how this works: Take the second integral after you broke it up. If I integrate this by simply multiplying the fraction with $F(\infty)$, then there would still be a loose term of $\frac{y}{\bar{y}}$. Or can I use the definition of $\Phi$ to say that if $y=\infty$ then it must be one $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2014 at 12:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I added some explanations for step 2. I hope these answer your questions. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 9, 2014 at 14:08
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, they do. Very well done. I thank you very much. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 9, 2014 at 14:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.