1. ELITISM AND STOCHASTIC DOMINANCE Stephen BAZEN (GREQAM, Université d’Aix-Marseille II) Patrick MOYES (GREThA, Université de Bordeaux IV) Presentation at the Tenth SSCW International Meeting, Moscow, 21-24 July 2010

2. Comparison of distributions Risk : distribution of returns Inequality: distribution of income (earnings, wealth,…) In general, emphasis on progressive transfers

3. Elitism x is obtained from z by a regressive transfer Progressive transfer - Academic performance - Affluence

4. Welfare function for distribution h(.) : Comparison of two distributions in terms of social welfare Stochastic dominance

5. Stochastic dominance – standard application First order stochastic dominance Second order stochastic dominance

6. First order stochastic dominance (F dominates G) Second order stochastic dominance (F dominates G)

7. Elitism and stochastic dominance Performance : density of individuals’ publication scores value function Assumption 1 : An additional publication increases performance

9. Assumption 2 : A regressive transfer of publication scores increases performance Convexity of the value function rather than concavity in the standard case Criterion for ranking departments by performance :

10. b

11. If distribution F stochastically dominates G in terms of the survival function then

12. Assumption 3 : A regressive transfer of publication scores of given size increases perfomance more at the higher end of the scale than at the lower end Criterion for ranking departments by performance :

16. Tilburg EssexToulouse dominates all departments except Louvain dominate: LSE Stockholm U. Nottingham Second order stochastic dominance UCL No dominance over : Essex, Cantab, Erasmus dominates: LSE Stockholm U. Amsterdam

17. Stockholm School of Economics dominates: Warwick York Maastricht Autonoma Barcelona Bonn London Business School Amsterdam dominates: Oxon Stockholm School of Economics dominates: Free University of Amsterdam Amsterdam Nottingham Tilburg and UCL dominate: Nottingham Louvain dominates: Free University of Amsterdam Amsterdam

18. Does more affluence mean less poverty ?

20. Ranked by both criteria - an example (i) Generalised Lorenz dominance : progressive transferincrement (ii) Reverse Generalised Lorenz dominance : regressive transferincrement