Our theories, regarded as tools of analysis, are blinkers in this sense. Or it may be politer to say that they are rays of light, which illuminate a part of the target, leaving the rest in darkness. As we use them, we avert our eyes from things which may be relevant, in order that we should see more clearly what we do see. It is entirely proper that we should do this, since otherwise we should see very little. But it is obvious that a theory that is to perform this function satisfactorily must be well chosen; otherwise it will illumine the wrong things. Further, since it is a changing world that we are studying, the theory which illumines the right things at one time may illumine the wrong things at another. This may happen because of changes in the world (the things neglected may have gained in importance relatively to the things considered) or because of changes in ourselves (the things in which we are interested may have changed). There is, there can be, no economic theory which will do for us everything we want all the time.
SIR JOHN HICKS
Wealth and Welfare (1981:233)
A number of methodological issues have been raised at various points in this book and this seems to be the place to draw some of them together. Some readers may be disquieted that there has been no attempt in this book to calculate a single index of "true" economic inequality and no attempt to outline a single true theory of economic inequality. Rather, I have focused on alternative measures of economic inequality and on the differing perspectives of economic theory because different measures, and different theories, are appropriate for different problems.
Chapters 2 and 3 emphasized the complexity of the measurement of economic inequality. They considered the distribution of annual money