I measure the rate of aversion to inequality in consumption as expressed in the development aid given by rich countries to poor ones between 1965 and 2005. Over time, OECD countries have become less concerned about international inequity. Even for a fairly leaky bucket, the consumption rate of inequity aversion is less than the rate of risk aversion, which implies that the pure rate of inequity aversion is negative. That is, rich countries would prefer to see greater inequality between rich and poor countries.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) in its series Papers with number
WP254.
Length: 16 pages Date of creation: Sep 2008 Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:esr:wpaper:wp254
Contact details of provider: Postal: Whitaker Square, Sir John Rogerson's Quay, Dublin 2 Phone: (353-1) 863 2000 Fax: (353-1) 863 2100 Email: Web page: http://www.esri.ie More information through EDIRC
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Sarah Burns).
Find related papers by JEL classification: D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Fredrik Carlsson & Dinky Daruvala & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2005.
"Are People Inequality-Averse, or Just Risk-Averse?,"
Economica,
London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 72(3), pages 375-396, 08.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions: