Advertisement

Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 299–316 | Cite as

To be or not to be involved: a questionnaire-experimental view on Harsanyi’s utilitarian ethics

  • Yoram Amiel
  • Frank A. Cowell
  • Wulf GaertnerEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

According to standard theory founded on Harsanyi (J Polit Econ 61:434–435, 1953; 63:309–321, 1955) a social welfare function can be appropriately based on the individual’s approach to choice under uncertainty. We investigate how people really do rank distributions in terms of welfare. According to Harsanyi, the evaluation can be done from the standpoint of an uninvolved external judge, a public official, for example, or by a person who knows that she holds one of the positions in society, with an equal chance for any of the available positions. Are these two structures to be viewed differently? We use a questionnaire experiment to focus on the two different interpretations of the Harsanyi approach. There are important, systematic differences that transcend the cultural background of respondents.

Keywords

Utility Function Social Welfare Function Questionnaire Experiment Good Situation Interpersonal Comparison 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amiel Y, Cowell FA (1998) Distributional orderings and the transfer principle: a re-examination. Res Econ Inequal 8: 195–215Google Scholar
  2. Amiel Y, Cowell FA (1999) Thinking about inequality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Amiel Y, Cowell FA (2002) Attitudes towards risk and inequality: a questionnaire-experimental approach. In: Andersson F, Holm HJ (eds) Experimental economics: financial markets, auctions, and decision making, Chap. 9. Kluwer, Deventer, pp 85–115Google Scholar
  4. Amiel Y, Cowell FA (2007) Social welfare and individual preferences under uncertainty: a questionnaire-experimental approach. Res Econ Inequal 14: 345–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amiel Y, Cowell FA, Gaertner W (2006) To be or not to be involved: a questionnaire-experimental view on Harsanyi’s utilitarian ethics. Distributional analaysis research paper 85, STICERD, LSE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Amiel Y, Cowell FA, Gaertner W (2007) Distributional orderings: an approach with seven flavours. Distributional analaysis research paper 93, STICERD, LSE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernasconi M (2002) How should income be divided? Questionnaire evidence from the theory of ‘impartial preferences’. In: Moyes P, Seidl C, Shorrocks A (eds) Inequalities: theory, experiments and applications. J Econ (Suppl 9):163–195Google Scholar
  8. Bosmans K, Schokkaert E (2004) Social welfare, the veil of ignorance and purely individual risk: an empirical examination. Res Econ Inequal 11: 85–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dalton H (1920) Measurement of the inequality of incomes. Econ J 30: 348–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaertner W, Schwettmann L (2007) Equity, responsibility and the cultural dimension. Economica 74: 627–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harsanyi JC (1953) Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk-taking. J Polit Econ 61: 434–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harsanyi JC (1955) Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. J Polit Econ 63: 309–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harsanyi JC (1977) Rational behavior and bargaining equilibrium in games and social situations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Harsanyi JC (1978) Bayesian decision theory and utilitarian ethics. Am Econ Rev 68: 223–228Google Scholar
  15. Henrich J, Boyd R, Bowles S, Camerer C, Fehr E, Gintis H, McElreath R (2001) In search of homo oeconomicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Am Econ Rev 91: 73–78Google Scholar
  16. Herne K, Suojanen M (2004) The role of information in choices over income distributions. J Conflict Resolut 48: 173–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mongin P (1994) Harsanyi’s aggregation theorem: multi-profile version and unsettled questions. Soc Choice Welf 11: 331–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mongin P (2001) The impartial observer theorem of social ethics. Econ Philos 71: 147–179Google Scholar
  19. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith A (1759, [1976]) The theory of moral sentiments. Millar A, in the Strand, London. Republished and edited by Raphael DD and Macfie AL. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Traub S, Seidl C, Schmidt U, Levati MV (2005) Friedman, Harsanyi, Rawls, Boulding—or somebody else? An experimental investigation of distributive justice. Soc Choice Welf 24: 283–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vickrey W (1945) Measuring marginal utility by reaction to risk. Econometrica 13: 319–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vogeley K, May M, Rizl A, Falkai P, Zilles K, Fink GR (2004) Neural correlates of first-person perspective as one constituent of human self-consciousness. J Cogn Neurosci 16: 817–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weymark J (1991) A reconsideration of the Harsanyi–Sen debate on utilitarianism. In: Elster J, Roemer JE (eds) Interpersonal comparisons of well-being. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ruppin Academic CenterEmek HeferIsrael
  2. 2.London School of EconomicsLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations