Abstract
If we assume that individuals have meta-rankings that can integrate multi-layered individual preferences and that those meta-rankings are ordinal and interpersonally non-comparable, then we might well remain in Arrow's framework, at least formally. What was original about Sen in social choice theory after all? Chapter 9 gives a rough sketch of similarities and differences between Arrow and Sen. Arrow accepted Leibniz's “principle of observability” such that value judgements cannot differentiate empirically indistinguishable states, which led him to adopt the concept of ordinal and interpersonally non-comparable preferences. We can conclude that Arrow was waiting for a persuasive critic to convince or convert him but he did not start the process by himself. The main reason for his silence might have been his integrity as a scientist who disliked logical leaps.
This chapter is an English translation of a paper originally published in Japanese as “Arrow to Sen, Shakaitekisentakuriron no seiritsu to sono hihantekitenkai” Reiko Gotoh, in Waseda Journal of Political Science and Economics, Vol. 394, 2019.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Actually, this is the title of Joan Robinson’s famous book (Robinson 1962). Sen himself does not use this term. He rather uses the words “economics and ethics.” We use this term based on the tradition of Japanese economists, as mentioned in Chap. 10.
- 2.
Agassi (1975) provides the term “institutional individualism” as a replacement, which implies that institutional structures do affect individual choices, while only individuals have aims and responsibilities in choosing.
- 3.
This is also Rawls’s term used in explaining the philosophical background of the difference principle (see Chap. 8). If talents are considered as “undeserved contingencies,” the fruits of talent can be pooled in society for redistribution. This term invites a strong critique in negating “individuality.”.
- 4.
Sen stresses that our incentives to work cannot be reduced to economic rewards or self-interest motivations. (See Sen, 1973/1997 Chap. 8).
- 5.
Hare (1951/1963).
- 6.
See also Putnam and Walsh (2012).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 IER Hitotsubashi University
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gotoh, R. (2021). The Birth and Growth of Modern Social Choice Theory: From Arrow to Sen. In: The Ethics and Economics of the Capability Approach. Hitotsubashi University IER Economic Research Series, vol 46. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5140-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5140-6_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-5139-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-5140-6
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)