IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v29y2020i1p85-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing aversions to outcome inequality and social risk in health and income: An empirical analysis using hypothetical scenarios with losses

Author

Listed:
  • Ignacio Abásolo
  • Aki Tsuchiya

Abstract

Evaluation of future social welfare may not only depend on the aggregate of individual prospects, but also on how the prospects are distributed across individuals. The latter in turn would depend on how people perceive inequality and risk at the collective level (or “social risk”). This paper examines distributional preferences regarding inequality in outcomes and social risk for health and income in the context of losses. Specifically, four kinds of aversions are compared, (a) outcome‐inequality aversion in health, (b) outcome‐inequality aversion in income, (c) social‐risk aversion in health, (d) and social‐risk aversion in income. Face‐to‐face interviews of a representative general public sample in Spain are undertaken using hypothetical scenarios involving losses in health or income across otherwise equal groups. Aversion parameters are compared assuming social welfare functions with constant relative or constant absolute aversion. We find that in both domains, outcome‐inequality aversion and social‐risk aversion are not the same; and that neither aversion is the same across the two domains. Outcome‐inequality aversion in income is the strongest, followed by social‐risk aversion in income and social‐risk aversion in health, and outcome‐inequality aversion in health coming last, where most of these are statistically significantly different from each other.

Suggested Citation

  • Ignacio Abásolo & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "Comparing aversions to outcome inequality and social risk in health and income: An empirical analysis using hypothetical scenarios with losses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(1), pages 85-97, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:29:y:2020:i:1:p:85-97
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3974
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3974
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3974?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Arthur E. Attema & Olivier L’Haridon & Gijs Kuilen, 2023. "An experimental investigation of social risk preferences for health," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(3), pages 379-403, October.
    2. Joan Costa-Font & Frank Cowell & Joan Costa-i-Font, 2024. "Specific Egalitarianism? Inequality Aversion across Domains," CESifo Working Paper Series 11261, CESifo.
    3. Attema, Arthur E. & L'Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2023. "Decomposing social risk preferences for health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    4. Miqdad Asaria & Joan Costa-Font & Frank Cowell, 2023. "How does exposure to COVID-19 influence health and income inequality aversion?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(3), pages 625-647, October.
    5. Hjördis Hardardottir & Ulf‐G Gerdtham & Erik Wengström, 2021. "Parameterizing standard measures of income and health inequality using choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(10), pages 2531-2546, September.

    More about this item

    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:wly:hlthec:v:29:y:2020:i:1:p:85-97. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.