IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/isp/journl/v9y2015i1p118-126.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Disproportion Of Allocation Under The Given Boundary Conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Piotr Dniestrzański
  • Janusz Łyko

Abstract

There are several well known measures of the inequality of distribution of goods and burdens. One of them is for example the Gini coefficient. Applicability of such measures is limited when the use of disproportionate allocation was intended. This is the case in the allocation of seats in the European Parliament. The Treaty of Lisbon provides that the distribution is done according to degressive proportionality with the specified minimum and maximum number of seats allocated to the smallest and largest Member State. These two conditions called boundary conditions at the outset determine the deviation from the proportional division. Therefore, there arises a problem of determining the measure of the disproportion of allocation under the given boundary conditions. This article comprises the proposals for such measures and their application for the analysis of the distribution of seats in the European Parliament.

Suggested Citation

  • Piotr Dniestrzański & Janusz Łyko, 2015. "The Disproportion Of Allocation Under The Given Boundary Conditions," Economy & Business Journal, International Scientific Publications, Bulgaria, vol. 9(1), pages 118-126.
    • Handle: RePEc:isp:journl:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:118-126
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.scientific-publications.net/get/1000012/1440158588197068.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lidia Ceriani & Paolo Verme, 2015. "Individual Diversity and the Gini Decomposition," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 637-646, April.
    2. Moshe Koppel & Abraham Diskin, 2009. "Measuring disproportionality, volatility and malapportionment: axiomatization and solutions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(2), pages 281-286, August.
    3. Rose, Richard & Bernhagen, Patrick & Borz, Gabriela, 2012. "Evaluating competing criteria for allocating parliamentary seats," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 85-89.
    4. Blanca L Delgado-Márquez & Michael Kaeding & Antonio Palomares, 2013. "A more balanced composition of the European Parliament with degressive proportionality," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(3), pages 458-471, September.
    5. Geoffrey Grimmett & Jean-François Laslier & Friedrich Pukelsheim & Victoriano Ramirez Gonzalez & Richard J. Rose & Wojciech Slomczynski & Martin Zachariasen & Karol Życzkowski, 2011. "The allocation between the EU member states of the seats in the European Parliament Cambridge Compromise," Working Papers hal-00609946, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sergey Shashnov & Maxim Kotsemir, 2018. "Research landscape of the BRICS countries: current trends in research output, thematic structures of publications, and the relative influence of partners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1115-1155, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laslier, Jean-François, 2012. "Why not proportional?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 90-93.
    2. Konstantinos Matakos & Riikka Savolainen & Orestis Troumpounis & Janne Tukiainen & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2024. "Electoral Institutions and Intraparty Cohesion," Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(4), pages 883-916.
    3. Colignatus, Thomas, 2017. "Comparing votes and seats with a diagonal (dis-) proportionality measure, using the slope-diagonal deviation (SDD) with cosine, sine and sign," MPRA Paper 80833, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 17 Aug 2017.
    4. Markus Brill & Jean-François Laslier & Piotr Skowron, 2018. "Multiwinner approval rules as apportionment methods," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(3), pages 358-382, July.
    5. Anson Au, 2023. "Reassessing the econometric measurement of inequality and poverty: toward a cost-of-living approach," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Colignatus, Thomas, 2017. "Comparing votes and seats with a diagonal (dis-) proportionality measure, using the slope-diagonal deviation (SDD) with cosine, sine and sign," MPRA Paper 80965, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 24 Aug 2017.
    7. Grimmett, G.R. & Oelbermann, K.-F. & Pukelsheim, F., 2012. "A power-weighted variant of the EU27 Cambridge Compromise," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 136-140.
    8. Kellermann, Thomas, 2012. "The minimum-based procedure: A principled way to allocate seats in the European Parliament," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 102-106.
    9. Miguel Martínez-Panero & Verónica Arredondo & Teresa Peña & Victoriano Ramírez, 2019. "A New Quota Approach to Electoral Disproportionality," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, March.
    10. Sarkar, Sandip & Dash, Bharatee Bhusana, 2023. "On the measurement of electoral volatility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 119-128.
    11. D. Bouyssou & T. Marchant & M. Pirlot, 2020. "A characterization of two disproportionality and malapportionment indices: the Duncan and Duncan index and the Lijphart index," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 284(1), pages 147-163, January.
    12. Biró, Péter & Kóczy, László Á. & Sziklai, Balázs, 2015. "Fair apportionment in the view of the Venice Commission’s recommendation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 32-41.
    13. Grimmett, Geoffrey R., 2012. "European apportionment via the Cambridge Compromise," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 68-73.
    14. José Manuel Gavilan-Ruiz & África Ruiz-Gándara & Francisco Javier Ortega-Irizo & Luis Gonzalez-Abril, 2024. "Some Notes on the Gini Index and New Inequality Measures: The nth Gini Index," Stats, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-12, November.
    15. Katarzyna Cegielka & Piotr Dniestrzanski & Arkadiusz Maciuk & Maciej Szczecinski, 2022. "The Implications of Possible Enlargements of the European Union for the Configuration of Power in the European Parliament," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 145-159.
    16. Iñaki Permanyer & Nicolai Suppa, 2022. "Racing ahead or lagging behind? Territorial cohesion in human development around the globe," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(12), pages 2086-2101, December.
    17. Colignatus, Thomas, 2018. "An overview of the elementary statistics of correlation, R-squared, cosine, sine, and regression through the origin, with application to votes and seats for Parliament," MPRA Paper 84722, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Feb 2018.
    18. Aaron Brick & Cameron Brick, 2021. "Districting that minimizes partisan bias," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-6, December.
    19. Neves Costa, Rita & Pérez-Duarte, Sébastien, 2019. "Not all inequality measures were created equal - The measurement of wealth inequality, its decompositions, and an application to European household wealth," Statistics Paper Series 31, European Central Bank.
    20. Silvia De Nicol`o & Maria Rosaria Ferrante & Silvia Pacei, 2021. "Mind the Income Gap: Bias Correction of Inequality Estimators in Small-Sized Samples," Papers 2107.08950, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    degressive proportionality; measure of degression; the boundary conditions; gini coefficient;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A - General Economics and Teaching

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:isp:journl:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:118-126. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Svetoslav Ivanov (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.scientific-publications.net/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.