Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 65–79 | Cite as

Freedom of choice and expected compromise

  • Johan E. Gustafsson
Original Article


This article develops a new measure of freedom of choice based on the proposal that a set offers more freedom of choice than another if, and only if, the expected degree of dissimilarity between a random alternative from the set of possible alternatives and the most similar offered alternative in the set is smaller. Furthermore, a version of this measure is developed, which is able to take into account the values of the possible options.


Attribute Weight Cardinality Measure Localize Independence Strict Monotonicity Dissimilarity Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow KJ (1995) A note on freedom and flexibility. In: Basu K, Pattanaik PK, Suzumura K (eds) Choice, welfare and development: a festschrift in honour of Amartya K. Sen. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 7–15Google Scholar
  2. Bervoets S, Gravel N (2007) Appraising diversity with an ordinal notion of similarity: an axiomatic approach. Math Soc Sci 53(3): 259–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carter I (1999) A measure of freedom. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Jones P, Sugden R (1982) Evaluating choice. Int Rev Law Econ 2: 47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Koopmans TC (1964) On flexibility of future preference. In: Shelly MW, Bryan GL (eds) Human judgments & optimality. Wiley, New York, pp 243–254Google Scholar
  6. Kreps DM (1979) A representation theorem for “preference for flexibility”. Econometrica 47(3): 565–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nehring K, Puppe C (2002) A theory of diversity. Econometrica 70(3): 1155–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pattanaik PK, Xu Y (1990) On ranking opportunity sets in terms of freedom of choice. Rech Econ Louvain 56(3–4): 383–390Google Scholar
  9. Pattanaik PK, Xu Y (1998) On preference and freedom. Theory Decis 44(2): 173–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pattanaik PK, Xu Y (2000) On diversity and freedom of choice. Math Soc Sci 40(2): 123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Puppe C (1996) An axiomatic approach to “preference for freedom of choice”. J Econ Theory 68(1): 174–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rosenbaum EF (2000) On measuring freedom. J Theor Polit 12(2): 205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sen A (1990) Welfare, freedom and social choice: a reply. Rech Econ Louvain 56(3–4): 451–485Google Scholar
  14. Sen A (1991) Welfare, preference and freedom. J Econom 50(1–2): 15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sen A (1993) Markets and freedoms: achievements and limitations of the market mechanism in promoting individual freedoms. Oxford Econ Papers 45(4): 519–541Google Scholar
  16. Sugden R (1998) The metric of opportunity. Econ Phil 14: 307–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sugden R (2003) Opportunity as a space for individuality: its value and the impossibility of measuring it. Ethics 113(4): 783–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Hees M (1998) On the analysis of negative freedom. Theory Decis 45(2): 175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Hees M (2004) Freedom of choice and diversity of options: some difficulties. Soc Choice Welf 22(1): 253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of PhilosophyRoyal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations