Funny how the subject keeps popping up. First the IMF, then this lovely history lesson from Prof Frances Wooley (excerpt):
Stephen Gordon recently posted an excellent analysis of trends in income inequality in Canada and elsewhere. Stephen, like almost all of the other authors cited in his post and the subsequent discussion, measured inequality using the Gini coefficient.
The very next day, I saw a paper by Francesca Greselin arguing that the Gini is inferior to the new Zenga inequality index and should be replaced.
Talk about deja vu all over again. Various limitations of the Gini inequality index have been known for years. Tony Atkinson described some and proposed an alternative to back in 1970; other indices for measuring inequality are the Theil index, and the Hoover index. Greselin and co-authors set out new arguments, and make a convincing case for replacing the Gini. But I don't expect to see the Zenga index in wide use any time soon.
We keep on using the Gini because that's the way people have always done it. But why did people even start using the Gini in the first place?...