IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00288891.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A robust normative evaluation of India's performance in allocating risks of death

Author

Listed:
  • Benoît Tarroux

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Nicolas Gravel
  • Abhiroop Mukhoppaddhay

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide a robust normative evaluation of the recent evolution of Indians' exposures to health‐related risks. Design/methodology/approach - The paper compares empirically the distributions of individuals' risks of death in India on the basis of new ethically robust criteria in 1995 and 2002. Probabilities of death are assigned individuals as an estimated probit function of several explanatory variables, including the individual's district of residence. The criteria used ranks distributions of individual risks in the same way as would all Von Neumann–Morgenstern (VNM) social planners who respect, in the usual Pareto sense – individuals VNM preferences over individual risks of death. Two criteria are considered in turn. The first criterion assumes that individuals' VNM utilities are increasing in money and value more a unit of money received in the bad state than one received in the good one. The second criterion makes the extra assumption that individuals are risk averse and have VNM utility functions that are more concave in the bad state than in the good one. Findings - It is found that there is unanimity among all VNM social planners who respect individual VNM preference for considering that the distribution of risks of death in India was better in 2002 than in 1995. This is at least so if individuals can be assumed to prefer more money to less, to be risk averse, and to be more risk averse in the bad state than in the good one. Research limitations/implications - A limitation of the empirical research of the paper is that it concerns only one kind of risk. Future research would apply the tools of this paper to other kinds of risks like risks of crime or risks of unemployment. Practical implications - A practical implication of the paper is to illustrate the usefulness of robust dominance methodology to evaluate the outcome of various policies. Originality/value - The novelty of the paper is to be one of the first to apply
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Benoît Tarroux & Nicolas Gravel & Abhiroop Mukhoppaddhay, 2008. "A robust normative evaluation of India's performance in allocating risks of death," Post-Print halshs-00288891, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00288891
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nicolas Gravel & Benoît Tarroux, 2015. "Robust normative comparisons of socially risky situations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(2), pages 257-282, February.
    2. Fatiha Bennia & Nicolas Gravel, 2016. "Is the Distribution of Cardiovascular Risks Really Improving ? A Robust Analysis for France," Working Papers halshs-01321838, HAL.

    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:hal:journl:halshs-00288891. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.