GoodBadStats praises the intuitive nature of the Palma, but has concerns about the rest of the argument in favor of it. Especially the part where the author ar

GoodBadStats praises the intuitive nature of the Palma, but has concerns about the rest of the argument in favor of it. Especially the part where the author argues Palma can safely ignore the middle 50% because it never changes, but then says Gini is over-sensitive to changes (which apparently don't exist?) in the middle 50%. Some comments here: http://goodstatsbadstats.com/?p=1836 http://goodstatsbadstats.com/?p=1836 The Hoover Index / Robin Hood Index is another interesting measure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_index Probably good to have several measures kicking around, or maybe any one of them is just as good as any other. If there's a relationship in some study between one of these indices and some other factor (famers per capita, land area of streams, whatever), it's unlikely to suddenly disappear just because you use another index to approximate the same thing.