Skip to main content
Log in

Fairness and competence in democratic decisions

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The price system is generally thought to be the epitome of efficiency. In some cases, however, lotteries are preferred to the market as a social decision-making system for reasons of fairness. As recent research has shown, neither procedure is always well accepted among the general population. We analyze the social acceptability of both mechanisms and apply our framework to the allocation of social burdens, namely the siting of nuclear waste facilities. Lotteries are only acceptable if they are applied to a set of efficient options. The market is accepted if the production of fairness precedes the use of prices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alföldy, G. (1984). Römische Sozialgeschichte. Wiesbaden: Steiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. (1984) The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohnet, I. and Frey, B.S. (1995). Ist Reden Silber und Schweigen Gold? Eine ökonomische Analyse. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Sozialwissenschaften 115: 169-209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyce, J.R. (1994). Allocation of goods by lottery. Economic Inquiry 32: 457-476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, D. and Munger, M.C. (1995). Strategizing in small group decision-making: Host state identification for radioactive waste disposal among eight Southern States. Public Choice 82: 1-15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R.E. and Baxten, R.K. (1988). Public reaction to siting a high-level nuclear waste repository at Hanford: A survey of local area residents. Pullman: Washington State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterling, D. (1990). Fair rules for siting a high-level nuclear waste repository. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11: 442-475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (1989). Solomonic judgements: Studies in the limitations of rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (1992). Local justice: How institutions allocate scarce goods and necessary burdens. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B.S. (1992). Economics as a science of human behaviour: Towards a new social science paradigm. Boston, Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B.S. and Pommerehne, W.W. (1993). On the fairness of pricing: An empirical survey among the general population. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 20: 295- 307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetze, D. (1982). A decentralized mechanism for siting hazardous waste disposal facilities. Public Choice 39: 361-370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, B. (1994). Justice by lottery. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology 83: 1420-1443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inhaber, H. (1992). Of lulus, nimbys and nimtoos. Public Interest 107: 52-64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. and Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review 76: 728-741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R. (1992). The politics of radioactive waste disposal. Manchester: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H. and Easterling, D. (1992). Gaining acceptance for noxious facilities with economic incentives. In D.W. Bromley and K. Segerson, The social response to environmental risk: Policy formulation in an age of uncertainty, 151-196. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H. and Kleindorfer, P.R. (1986). Asealed-bid auctionmechanism for siting noxious facilities. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 76: 295-299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H. and Portney, P. (1991). Wheel of fortune: A lottery/auction mechanism for siting of noxious facilities. Journal of Energy Engineering 117: 125-132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Davy, B., Faast, A. and Fitzgerald, K. (1994). Hazardous waste cleanup and facility siting in Central Europe: The Austrian case. Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

  • Macy, M.W. (1991). Chains of cooperation: Threshold effects in collective action. American Sociological Review 56: 730-747.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, G. (1989). Closure and rejection of waste facilities: What effect has public pressure? Hazardous Material Control 2: 54-58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, E. (1975). Römischer Staat und Staatsgedanke. Zürich: Artemis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, D.C. (1989). Public choice II. Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberholzer-Gee, F., Frey, B.S., Pommerehne, W.W. and Hart, A. (1995). Panik, Protest und Paralyse: Eine empirischeUntersuchung über nukleare Endlager in der Schweiz. Zeitschrift f ür Volkswirtschaft und Statistik 131: 147-177.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'sullivan, A. (1993). Voluntary auctions for noxious facilities: Incentives to participate and the efficiency of siting decisions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25: 12-26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. and Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, K.A. and Weingast, B.R. (1994). The democratic advantage: The institutional sources of state power in international competition. Mimeo. Stanford University.

  • Seiler, H. (1986). Das Recht der nuklearen Entsorgung in der Schweiz. Bern: Stämpfli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vari, A., Reagan-Cirincione, P. and Mumpower, J.L. (1993). LLRW disposal facility siting processes in the United States, Western Europe, and Canada. Report for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. State University of New York at Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, H.P. (1994). Equity - in theory and practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oberholzer-Gee, F., Bohnet, I. & Frey, B.S. Fairness and competence in democratic decisions. Public Choice 91, 89–105 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004933219501

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004933219501

Keywords

Navigation