IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v39y2023i1p124-151_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which choices merit deference? A comparison of three behavioural proxies of subjective welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Ferreira, João V.

Abstract

Recently several authors have proposed proxies of welfare that equate some (as opposed to all) choices with welfare. In this paper, I first distinguish between two prominent proxies: one based on context-independent choices and the other based on reason-based choices. I then propose an original proxy based on choices that individuals state they would want themselves to repeat at the time of the welfare/policy evaluation (confirmed choices). I articulate three complementary arguments that, I claim, support confirmed choices as a more reliable proxy of welfare than context-independent and reason-based choices. Finally, I discuss the implications of these arguments for nudges and boosts.

Suggested Citation

  • Ferreira, João V., 2023. "Which choices merit deference? A comparison of three behavioural proxies of subjective welfare," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 124-151, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:39:y:2023:i:1:p:124-151_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267121000365/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:39:y:2023:i:1:p:124-151_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.