Abstract
There is no consensus on how to measure interpersonally comparable, cardinal utility. Despite of this, people repeatedly make welfare evaluations in their everyday lives. However, people do not always agree on such evaluations, and this is one important reason for political disagreements. Thus, to keep in control of the normative premises, decision makers may prefer information which can be used as input to an arbitrary social welfare function to information which is the output from a social welfare function specified by the analyst. In this paper we try to identify and simplify sufficient welfare indicators; information which enables decision makers to arrive at welfare evaluations of social states or projects, according to their own ethical beliefs. Our conclusion is that providing factual information about different population groups, their social state, size, and characteristics, may be better for this purpose than the more traditional approach of focusing on ordinal utility information.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow, K. J. (1951):Social Choice and Individual Values (Cowles Commission Monograph no. 12). New York: Wiley.
— (1977): “Extended Sympathy and the Possibility of Social Choice.”American Economic Review 67: 219–225.
Atkinson, A. B. (1970): “On the Measurement of Inequality.”Journal of Economic Theory 2: 244–263.
Barten, A. P., and Böhm, V. (1982): “Consumer Theory.” InHandbook of Mathematical Economics, vol. II, edited by K. J. Arrow and M. D. Intrilligator. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Broome, J. (1993): “A Cause of Preference Is Not an Object of Preference.”Social Choice and Welfare 10: 57–68.
Debreu, G. (1964): “Continuity Properties of Paretian Utility.”International Economic Review 5: 285–293.
Dréze, J., and Stern, N. (1987): “The Thery of Cost-Benefit Analysis.” InHandbook of Public Economics, vol. II, edited by A. J. Auerbach and M. Feldstein. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Epstein, L. G., and Segal, U. (1992): “Quadratic Social Welfare Functions.”Journal of Political Economy 100: 691–712.
Harsanyi, J. C. (1955): “Cardinal Welfare, Individual Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility.”Journal of Political Economy 63: 309–321.
— (1987): “Interpersonal Utility Comparisons.” InThe New Palgrave: a Dictionary of Economics, vol. 2, edited by J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. Newman. London: Macmillan Press.
Hylland, A. (1991): Subjective Interpersonal Comparison.” InInterpersonal Comparisons of Well-being: Studies in Rationality and Social Change, edited by J. Elster and J. E. Roemer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jorgenson, D. W. (1990): “Aggregate Consumer Behavior and the Measurement of Social Welfare.”Econometrica 58: 1007–1040.
Mäler, K.-G. (1991): “National Accounts and Environmental Resources.”Environmental and Resource Economics 1: 1–15.
Nordhaus, W., and Tobin, J. (1972): “Is Growth Obsolete?” NBER General series 96, National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, MA.
Nyborg, K. (1995): “Project Evaluations and Decision Processes.” Discussion Paper 137, Statistics Norway, Oslo.
Rawls, J. (1971):A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scanlon, T. M. (1991): “The Moral Basis of Interpersonal Comparisons.” InInterpersonal Comparisons of Well-being: Studies in Rationality and Social Change, edited by J. Elster and J. E. Roemer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sen, A. K. (1979): “Personal Utilities and Public Judgements or What's Wrong with Welfare Economics.”Economic Journal 89: 537–558.
— (1985a): “Well-being, Agency and Freedom. The Dewey Lectures 1984.”Journal of Philosophy 82: 169–221.
Sen, A. K. (1985b):Commodities and Capabilities (Professor Dr. P. Hennipman Lectures in Economics, vol. 7). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
— (1986): “Social Choice Theory.” InHandbook of Mathematical Economics, vol. III, edited by K. J. Arrow and M. D. Intrilligator. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
— (1987):On Ethics and Economics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Starret, D. (1988):Foundation of Public Economics (Cambridge Economic Handbooks). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brekke, K.A., Lurå, H. & Nyborg, K. Allowing disagreement in evaluations of social welfare. Zeitschr. f. Nationalökonomie 63, 303–324 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01227438
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01227438