Many measures of inequality are used today to show how income/resources are unevenly distributed. The problem arises, however, because each measure of inequality is structured in such a way that does not give equal consideration to all parties being measured or contains other biases. One example would be the Gini coefficient, and how its measure is weighted heavily regarding the middle income distribution class1. Other measures of inequality also have unequal weighting favoring different members of the income hierarchy. By using a certain measure of inequality, our focus is biased by the measure's underlying weightings. Thus, it can be argued that we are making value judgements regarding who is considered more significant when measuring inequality.
             Aware of these "hidden" value judgements, Atkinson devised a measure that tried to be more value-free. This paper takes a look at Atkinson's measure of inequality and whether or not it is truly value-free, or perhaps even more value laden than other measures.
             Atkinson noted that the problem with current measures of inequality was that they each had a weighting scheme that favored different distributions of the income ladder. When someone uses a certain measure, they are-knowingly or unknowingly-giving more consideration to a certain income distribution. By doing so, they are, perhaps, stating that they think a certain income distribution is more important. Atkinson criticized this, and his solution was to make value judgements explicitly, rather than implicitly. But before a closer look at the Atkinson index, let's discuss the value judgement components of a few other inequality measurements.
             If inequality means there is a gap between the income of the richest person and the poorest person, then the range of the two extreme incomes would suffice to measure inequality. If the richest person had 10 dollars and the poorest person had 1 dollar, then the range w...