Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T07:37:30.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A new puzzle in the social evaluation of risk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2022

Marc Fleurbaey Open the ORCID record for Marc Fleurbaey [Opens in a new window]  and
Stéphane Zuber Open the ORCID record for Stéphane Zuber [Opens in a new window]
Marc Fleurbaey
Affiliation:
Paris School of Economics and CNRS, Paris, France
Stéphane Zuber
Affiliation:
Paris School of Economics and CNRS, Paris, France University Paris 1, Paris, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We highlight a new paradox for the social evaluation of risk that bears on the evaluation of individual well-being rather than social welfare, but has serious implications for social evaluation. The paradox consists in a tension between rationality, respect for individual preferences, and a principle of informational parsimony that excludes individual risk attitudes from the assessment of riskless situations. No evaluation criterion can satisfy these three principles. This impossibility result has implications for the evaluation of social welfare under risk, especially when the preferences of some individuals are not known. It generalizes existing impossibility results, while relying on very weak principles of social rationality and respect for individual preferences. We explore the possibilities opened by weakening each of our three principles and discuss the advantages and drawbacks of these different routes.

Keywords

Social welfarerisksocial rationalityParetofairness
Type
Article
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , November 2022 , pp. 450 - 465
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, M.D. 2012. Well-Being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost Benefit Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adler, M.D. 2016. Extended preferences. In The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy, eds Adler, M.D. and Fleurbaey, M., 476–517. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, M.D. 2019. Measuring Social Welfare: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adler, M.D. and Treich, N. 2017. Utilitarianism, prioritarianism, and intergenerational equity: a cake eating model. Mathematical Social Sciences 87, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K.A. 1971. Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing. Chicago, IL: Markham.Google Scholar
Bommier, A. and Zuber, S. 2008. Can preferences for catastrophe avoidance reconcile social discounting with intergenerational equity? Social Choice and Welfare 31, 415–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchak, L. 2013. Risk and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, C.P. and Echenique, F. 2012. When does aggregation reduce risk aversion? Games and Economic Behavior 76, 582–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chateauneuf, A., Cohen, M. and Meilijson, I. 2005. More pessimism than greediness: a characterization of monotone risk aversion in the rank-dependent expected utility model. Economic Theory 25, 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, P.A. 1967. Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy 63, 309–321.Google Scholar
Epstein, L.G. and Zin, S.E. 1989. Substitution, risk aversion, and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: a theoretical framework. Econometrica 57, 937–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 2007. Social choice and the indexing dilemma. Social Choice and Welfare 29, 633–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 2010. Assessing risky social situations. Journal of Political Economy 118, 649–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 2018. Welfare economics, risk and uncertainty. Canadian Journal of Economics 51, 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Blanchet, D. 2013. Beyond GDP. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Tadenuma, K. 2014. Universal social orderings: an integrated theory of policy evaluation, inter-society comparisons, and interpersonal comparisons. Review of Economic Studies 81, 1071–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Zuber, S. 2017. Fair management of social risk. Journal of Economic Theory 169, 666–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Zuber, S. 2021. Fair utilitarianism. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 13, 370–401.Google Scholar
Hansson, B. 1988. Risk aversion as a problem of conjoint measurement. In Decision, Probability and Utility, eds Gärdenfors, P. and Sahlin, N.-E., 136–158. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J.C. 1955. Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy 63, 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J.C. 1977. Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kihlstrom, R.E. and Mirman, L.J. 1974. Risk aversion with many commodities. Journal of Economic Theory 8, 361–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mongin, P. 1995. Consistent Bayesian aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory 66, 313–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mongin, P. 2016. Spurious unanimity and the Pareto principle. Economics and Philosophy 32, 511–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno-Ternero, J. and Roemer, J.E. 2008. The veil of ignorance violates priority. Economics and Philosophy 24, 233–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattanaik, P.K. and Xu, Y. 2007. Minimal relativism, dominance, and standard of living comparisons based on functionings. Oxford Economic Papers 59, 354–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattanaik, P.K. and Xu, Y. 2012. On dominance and context-dependence in decisions involving multiple attributes. Economics and Philosophy 28, 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, J.W. 1964. Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32, 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, L.J. 1972. The Foundations of Statistics (2nd edn). New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. 1992. Inequality Re-examined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, N. 2014. Ethics, equity and the economics of climate change. Paper 2: Economics and politics. Economics and Philosophy 30, 445–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, W. 2011. Fair allocation rules. In Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, Volume 2, eds Arrow, K.J., Sen, A.K. and Suzumura, K., 393–506. Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weymark, J.A. 2017. Conundrums for nonconsequentialists. Social Choice and Welfare 48, 269–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar