Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

We described our [Formula presented] polarization measure in equation (1) as the Foster and Wolfson (2010) measure given by [Formula presented]. However, we actually estimated this measure scaled up by a factor of 2. That is, we estimated [Formula presented], which would more accurately be described as the Wolfson (1994) measure. Similarly, the ‘absolute’ counterpart of the measure described in (2) was also estimated scaled up by a factor of 2, i.e. as [Formula presented]. Inclusion or absence of the scaling factor makes no difference to how these measures rank distributions. Thus, it makes no substantive difference to our results or conclusions. Nevertheless, we wish to highlight that equations (1) and (2) should have contained the scaling factor of 2, and that the version of (1) with this scaling factor included is more precisely described as Wolfson (1994)’s measure. We are grateful to Fraser Partridge for drawing this issue to our attention. We would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Original publication





Economics Letters

Publication Date