Mind & Society

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 105–116 | Cite as

Cycles of maximin and utilitarian policies under the veil of ignorance

  • Darya V. Filatova
  • Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde
  • Jean Baratgin
  • Frank Jamet
  • Jing Shao
Article
  • 148 Downloads

Abstract

A conceptual and mathematical model of a social community behavior in a choice situation under a veil of ignorance, where two alternative policies—Rawlsian maximin and Harsanyian utilitarianism—can be implemented through the aggregation of individual preferences over these two policies, is constructed and investigated. We first incorporate in our conceptual model psychological features such as risk-aversion and prosocial preferences that likely underlie choices of welfare policies. We secondly develop and select the mathematical model presented it by means of an autonomous system of ordinary differential equations. A qualitative analysis of this system global phase-plane behavior shows possible tendencies of community development under social choices over Rawlsian or utilitarian societies depending on psychological parameters such as risk aversion and prosocial preferences.

Keywords

Dynamic system Maximin Ordinary differential equation Prosocial preferences Risk-aversion Utilitarianism Veil of ignorance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank two anonymous reviewers for their very useful and relevant comments. Financial support for this work was provided by a grant from the ANR Chorus 2011 (Project BTAFDOC), a Grant from NCN 613516 Poland, and the ANR-10-0RAR-O1122 (PI Bourgeois-Gironde) NESSHI: the Neural turn in European social sciences.

References

  1. Baratgin J, Politzer G (2006) Is the mind Bayesian? The case for agnosticism. Mind Soc 21:653–680Google Scholar
  2. Bond D, Park JC (1991) An empirical test of Rawls’s theory of justice: a second approach, in Korea and in the United States. Simul Gaming 22:443–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourgeois-Gironde S (2010) Regret and the rationality of choice. Philos Trans R Soc B 365:249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowles S (1998) Endogenous preferences: the cultural consequences of markets and other economic institutions. J Econ Lit 36:75–111Google Scholar
  5. Bowles S (2004) Microeconomics: behavior, institutions and evolution. Princeton University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlsson F, Gupta G, Johansson-Stenman O (2003) Choosing from behind a veil of ignorance in India. Appl Econ Lett 10:825–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. QJE 117:817–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cruz-Doña R, dela Martina A (2000) Diverse groups agreeing on a system of justice in distribution: evidence from the Philippines. J Interdiscip Econ 11:35–76Google Scholar
  9. Edelstein-Keshet L (1988) Mathematical models in biology. SIAM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferrey S (2011) Paternalisme libéral et pluralité du moi. Rev Econ 62:37–750Google Scholar
  11. Frohlich N, Oppenheimer JA, Eavey CL (1987a) Choices of principles of distributive justice in experimental groups. Am J Polit Sci 31:606–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frohlich N, Oppenheimer JA, Eavey CL (1987b) Laboratory results on Rawls’ distributive justice. Br J Polit Sci 17:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaertner W, Schokkaert E (2012) Empirical social choice: questionnaire-experimental studies on distributive justice. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaertner W, Schokkaert E (2013) Empirical social choice. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Harsanyi JC (1953) Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk-taking. JPE 61:434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harsanyi JC (1976) Can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality? A critique of John Rawls’s theory. In: Harsanyi JC (ed) Essays on ethics, social behavior, and scientific explanation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 37–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johansson-Stenman O, Carlsson F, Daruvala D (2002) Measuring future grandparents’ preferences for equality and relative standing. Econ J 112:362–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krawczyk M (2010) A glimpse through the veil of ignorance: equality of opportunity and support for redistribution. J Public Econ 94:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kriss PH, Loewenstein G, Wang X et al (2001) Behind the veil of ignorance: self-serving bias in climate change negotiations. Judgm Decis Mak 6:602–615Google Scholar
  22. Lissowski G, Tyszka T, Okrasa W (1991) Principles of distributive justice. Experiments in Poland and America. J Confl Resolut 35:98–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manktelow KI (2012) Thinking and reasoning: psychological perspectives on reason, judgment and decision making. Psychology Press, HoveGoogle Scholar
  24. Michaelson Z (2015) Biases in choices about fairness: psychology and economic inequality. Judgm Decis Mak 10:198–203Google Scholar
  25. Rabin M (1993) Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Am Econ Rev 83:1281–1302Google Scholar
  26. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  27. Schildberg-Hoerisch H (2010) Is the veil of ignorance only a concept about risk? An experiment. J Public Econ 94(11-12):1062–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model. Q J Econ 106:1039–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darya V. Filatova
    • 1
  • Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde
    • 2
  • Jean Baratgin
    • 2
    • 3
  • Frank Jamet
    • 3
    • 4
  • Jing Shao
    • 3
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of Pedagogy and PsychologyUniversity of Jan KochanowskiKielcePoland
  2. 2.Lemma and Institut Jean-NicodUniversité Paris 2ParisFrance
  3. 3.CHArt (Paris) Université Paris 8 et EPHEParisFrance
  4. 4.Université de Cergy PontoiseCergy PontoiseFrance
  5. 5.Université de Haute AlsaceColmarFrance

Personalised recommendations