Recent research has shown that two entropy-based segregation indices possess an appealing mixture of basic and subsidiary but useful properties. It would appear that the only fundamental difference between the mutual information or M index, and the entropy information or H index, is that the second is a normalized version of the first. This paper introduces another normalized index in that family, the H* index, which captures segregation as the tendency of racial groups to have different distributions across schools. More importantly, the paper shows that applied researchers may do better using the M index than using either H or H* in two circumstances: (1) if they are interested in the decomposability of the measurement of segregation, and (2) if they are interested in a margin-free measurement of segregation changes. The shortcomings of the H and H* indices are illustrated below by means of numerical examples, as well as with school segregation data by ethnic group in the U.S. public school system between 1989 and 2005.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BourguignonFrancois. 1979. “Decomposable Income Inequality Measures.”Econometrica47:901–20.
2.
ChakravartySatya R.SilberJacques. 1992. “Employment Segregation Indices: An Axiomatic Characterization.” Pp. 912–20 in Models and Measurement of Welfare and Inequality, edited by EichhornW.. New York: Springer-Verlag.
3.
ChakravartySatya R.SilberJacques. 2007. “A Generalized Index of Employment Segregation.”Mathematical Social Sciences53:185–95.
4.
ClotfelterCharles T. 1979. “Alternative Measures of School Desegregation: A Methodological Note.”Land Economics54:373–80.
5.
FisherMary J. 2003. “The Relative Importance of Income and Race in Determining Residential Outcomes in U.S. Urban Areas, 1970–2000.”Urban Affairs Review38:669–96.
6.
FisherClaude S.StockmayerGretchenStilesJonHoutMichael. 2004. “Distinguishing the Geographic Levels and Social Dimension of U.S. Metropolitan Segregation, 1960–2000.”Demography41:37–59.
7.
FlückigerYvesSilberJacques. 1999. The Measurement of Segregation in the Labor Force. Heidelberg: Germany: Physica-Verlag.
8.
FosterJames E. 1983. “An Axiomatic Characterization of the Theil Measure of Income Inequality.”Journal of Economic Theory65:105–21.
9.
FrankelDavid M.VolijOscar. (Forthcoming). “Measuring School Segregation.”Journal of Economic Theory.
10.
FuchsVictor R. 1975. “A Note on Sex Segregation in Professional Occupations.”Explorations In Economic Research2:105–11.
11.
GruskyDavid B.CharlesMaria. 1998. “The Past, Present, and Future of Sex Segregation Methodology.”Demography35:497–504.
12.
HerranzNeusMoraRicardoRuiz-CastilloJavier. 2005. “An Algorithm to Reduce the Occupational Space in Gender Segregation Studies.”Journal of Applied Econometrics20:25–37.
13.
HutchensRobert M. 2004. “One Measure of Segregation.”International Economic Review45:555–78.
14.
IcelandJohn. 2002. “Beyond Black and White.” Presented at the American Sociological Association Meetings, August 16–19, Chicago, Illinois.
15.
JamesDavid R.TaeuberKarl E.. 1985. “Measures of Segregation.” Pp. 1–32 in Sociological Methodology, vol. 15, edited by TumaN. B.. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16.
MasseyDouglasDentonNancy. 1988. “The Dimensions of Residential Segregation.”Social Forces67:281–315.
17.
MillerVincent P.QuigleyJohn M.. 1990. “Segregation by Racial and Demographic Group: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area.”Urban Studies27:3–21.
18.
MoraRicardoRuiz-CastilloJavier. 2003. “Additively Decomposable Segregation Indexes. The Case of Gender Segregation by Occupations in Spain.”Journal of Economic Inequality1:147–79.
19.
MoraRicardoRuiz-CastilloJavier. 2004. “Gender Segregation by Occupations in the Public and the Private Sectors. The Case of Spain In 1977 and 1992.”Investigaciones Económicas28:399–428.
20.
MoraRicardoRuiz-CastilloJavier. 2009. “The Invariance Properties of the Mutual Information Index of Multigroup Segregation.” Pp. 3–53 in Research on Economic Inequality, Vol. 17, Occupational and Residential Segregation, edited by FlückigerY.SilberJ.ReardonS. Bingley, UK: Emerald Books.
21.
MoraRicardoRuiz-CastilloJavier. 2010. “A Kullback-Leibler Measure of Conditional Segregation.” Working Paper 10–15, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
22.
ReardonSeanFirebaughGlenn. 2002. “Measures of Multigroup Segregation.” Pp. 33–67 in Sociological Methodology, vol. 32, edited by StolzenbergRoss M.. Boston, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
23.
ReardonSeanYunJohn T.McNultyTamela. 2000. “The Changing Structure of School Segregation: Measurement and Evidence of Multiracial Metropolitan Area School Segregation, 1989–1999.”Demography37:351–64.
24.
ShorrocksA. F.. 1980. “The Class of Additively Decomposable Inequality Measures.”Econometrica48:613–25.
25.
ShorrocksA. F.. 1984. “Inequality Decomposition by Population Subgroups.”Econometrica52:1369–85.
26.
ShorrocksA. F.. 1988. “Aggregation Issues in Inequality Measurement.” Pp. 429–51 in Measurement in Economics: Theory and Applications of Economic Indices, edited by EichhornW.. Heidelberg, Germay: Physica.
27.
TheilHenry. 1967. Economics and Information Theory. Amsterdam: Netherland: North Holland.
28.
TheilHenry. 1971. Principles of Econometrics. New York: Wiley.
29.
TheilHenry. 1972. Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.
30.
TheilHenryFinizzaAnthony J.. 1971. “A Note on the Measurement of Racial Integration of Schools by Means of Information Concepts.”Journal of Mathematical Sociology1:187–94.
