Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 315–344 | Cite as

Welfarist evaluations of decision rules under interstate utility dependencies

Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

We provide welfarist evaluations of decision rules for federations of states and consider models, under which the interests of people from different states are stochastically dependent. We concentrate on two welfarist standards, viz. that the expected average utility for a person in the federation be maximized or that the expected utilities for the different people be equal. We discuss an analytical result that characterizes the decision rule with maximum expected average utility, set up a class of models that display interstate dependencies and run simulations for different dependency scenarios in the European Union. We find that the results that Beisbart and Bovens (Soc Choice Welf 29:581–608, 2007) established for two types of models without interstate dependencies are fairly stable if interstate dependencies are switched on. There are exceptions, though: sometimes the way in which alternative decision rules shape the welfare distribution is significantly affected by such dependencies. These exceptions particularly include cases in which the interests of people from different states are partly anti-correlated.

References

  1. Barberà S, Jackson M (2006) On the weights of nations: assigning voting weights in a heterogeneous union. J Polit Ecom 114: 317–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beisbart C, Bovens L (2007) Welfarist evaluations of decision rules for boards of representatives. Soc Choice and Welf 29: 581–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beisbart C, Hartmann S (2006) Welfarism and the assessment of social decision rules. In: Endriss U, Lang J (eds) Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on computational social choice, pp 35–48Google Scholar
  4. Beisbart C, Bovens L, Hartmann S (2005) A utilitarian assessment of alternative decision rules in the council of ministers. European Union Politics, vol 6, pp 395–418. Appendix online http://www.uni-konstanz.de/eup/iss_64.htm
  5. Bovens L, Hartmann S (2007) welfare, voting and the constitution of a federal assembly. In: Galavotti MC, Scazzieri R, Suppes P (eds) Reasoning, rationality and probability. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Chamberlain G, Rothschild M (1981) A note on the probability of casting a decisive vote. J Econ Theory 25: 152–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chakravarty SR (2001) The variance as a subgroup decomposable measure of inequality. Soc Indic Res 53: 79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coelho D (2005) Maximin choice of voting rules for committees. Econ Govern 6: 159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crain WM, Messenheimer HC, Tollison RD (1993) The probability of being president. Rev Econ Stat 75: 683–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dancy J (2004) Ethics without principles. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fleurbaey M (2009) One stake one vote. working paperGoogle Scholar
  12. Felsenthal DS, Machover M (1998) The measurement of voting power: theory and practice, problems and paradoxes. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  13. Felsenthal DS, Machover M (2000) Enlargement of the EU and weighted voting in its council of ministers. Voting power report 01/00, London School of Economics and Political Science, Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, London. http://www.lse.ac.uk/vp
  14. Gelman A, Katz JN, Bafumi J (2004) Standard voting power indexes don’t work: an empirical analysis. Br J Polit Sci 34: 657–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Good IJ, Mayer LS (1975) Estimating the efficacy of a vote. Behav Sci 20: 25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karagiannis E, Kovacevic’ M (2000) A method to calculate the Jackknife variance estimator for the Gini Coefficient. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 62: 119–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laruelle A, Valenciano F (2005) Assessing success and decisiveness in voting situations. Soc Choice Welf 24: 171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schweizer U (1990) Calculus of consent: a game-theoretic perspective. J Instit Theor Econ 146: 28–54Google Scholar
  19. Sen A (1997) On economic inequality. In: Forster JE, Sen A. (eds) Expanded edition with a substantial annexe. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Philosophy and Political ScienceTU DortmundDortmundGermany
  2. 2.Center for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations