Does a universal non-contributory social pension make sense for rural China?

China’s pension reform during the past three decades has allowed a majority of China’s population to be covered by a pension scheme. Of particular note has been the New Rural Pension Scheme (NRPS), a voluntary programme introduced starting in 2009. One goal of our analysis is to assess that pension scheme, using a variety of sources of information including data drawn from recent (2013 and 2015) nationwide China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Surveys (CHARLS). Our analysis involves an exploration of differences between the generosity and structure of the NRPS and other pension schemes currently in place. We also explore the feasibility of reforming the current “quasi-social pension” component of the NRPS by substituting a universal non-contributory social pension pillar. In connection with our assessment of the NRPS, we note the unusually low benefit levels for rural China.     

A Simulation Study of Some Biasing Parameters for the Ridge Type Estimation of Poisson Regression

This article proposes several estimators for estimating the ridge parameter k based on Poisson ridge regression (RR) model. These estimators have been evaluated by means of Monte Carlo simulations. As performance criteria, we have calculated the mean squared error (MSE), the mean value, and the standard deviation of k. The first criterion is commonly used, while the other two have never been used when analyzing Poisson RR. However, these performance criteria are very informative because, if several estimators have an equal estimated MSE, then those with low average value and standard deviation of k should be preferred. Based on the simulated results, we may recommend some biasing parameters that may be useful for the practitioners in the field of health, social, and physical sciences.     

Price bias and common practice in option pricing

Generally, the semiclosed-form option pricing formula for complex financial models depends on unobservable factors such as stochastic volatility and jump intensity. A popular practice is to use an estimate of these latent factors to compute the option price. However, in many situations this plug-and-play approximation does not yield the appropriate price. This article examines this bias and quantifies its impacts. We decompose the bias into terms that are related to the bias on the unobservable factors and to the precision of their point estimators. The approximated price is found to be highly biased when only the history of the stock price is used to recover the latent states. This bias is corrected when option prices are added to the sample used to recover the states' best estimate. We also show numerically that such a bias is propagated on calibrated parameters, leading to erroneous values. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 48: 8–35; 2020 © 2019 Statistical Society of Canada     

A majorization comparison of apportionment methods in proportional representation

From the inception of the proportional representation movement it has been an issue whether larger parties are favored at the expense of smaller parties in one apportionment of seats as compared to another apportionment. A number of methods have been proposed and are used in countries with a proportional representation system. These apportionment methods exhibit a regularity of order, as discussed in the present paper, that captures the preferential treatment of larger versus smaller parties. This order, namely majorization, permits the comparison of seat allocations in two apportionments. For divisor methods, we show that one method is majorized by another method if and only if their signpost ratios are increasing. This criterion is satisfied for the divisor methods with power-mean rounding, and for the divisor methods with stationary rounding. Majorization places the five traditional apportionment methods in the order as they are known to favor larger parties over smaller parties: Adams, Dean, Hill, Webster, and Jefferson. Received: 5 August 2000/Accepted: 24 October 2001     

Editor's Note: What,Exactly, Is the Purpose of a Book Review?

Qualitative Sociology -     

Worlds come apart: Systems theory versus critical theory. Drama in the history of sociology in the twentieth century

This article places an episode in the history of sociological theory into intellectual history in the twentieth century. The perspective is chronological as well as contextual. The themes are two theoretical approaches, both embedded in both American and German history, Parsonian Systems Theory and “Frankfurt School” Critical Theory. The chronology shown spanned mainly from the 1940s to the 1960s. The context of the two theories is a period that is crucial in twentieth century history. The protagonists of the two approaches were, in the 1940s, Americans and Germans exiled in the United States. In the 1950s, both approaches were affected by McCarthyism in different ways. The 1960s, however, were the culmination. The dynamics of the two approaches led into a schism which came into the open on the occasion of the 1964 German Sociology Conference in Heidelberg celebrating Max Weber. The article shows the stages in the evolution of the schism, emulating three acts in a drama. The final split was over whether Weber or Marx should be the classic whose oeuvre was to influence sociological thinking today. My aim is to exemplify how these two authoritative approaches in sociological theory, far from escaping the vagaries and vicissitudes of their times, were embedded in twentieth-century history.