IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v8y1988i1p135-146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Equity in Social Risk: Some Empirical Observations

Author

Listed:
  • L. Robin Keller
  • Rakesh K. Sarin

Abstract

In societal risk analysis the equity of the distribution of risks is often an important consideration owing to the special nature of health risks. We empirically validate some assumptions about equity that have been discussed in the decision analytic literature. Our results show that the way fatalities are distributed throughout a society is considered along with the number of fatalities in evaluating alternative policies involving mortality risks. The concepts of ex ante equity and ex post equity are both shown to be important in judgments of fairness. We next present a decision model based on multiattribute preference theory incorporating the number of fatalities, as well as ex ante equity and ex post equity. When ex ante equity and ex post equity are positively weighted in this fair‐risk model, options with more equal risk distributions are ranked higher. Next we empirically show that the distribution of benefits has an impact on judgments of fairness. The fair‐risk model does not include information on the benefits distribution, so it would apply when benefits are distributed equally or when the decision maker wishes to not include benefits in the model. We briefly discuss how the notion of proportional equity can incorporate benefits into judgments of the fairness of risk distributions. We then include benefits in a more general model in which fair risk‐benefit combinations are those that are exchange equitable. A key implication of this envy‐free risk–benefit model is that an unequal distribution of risks may be preferred if it is accompanied by a compensatory differential in benefits consistent with peoples' preference tradeoffs between received benefits and assumed risks. Finally, we discuss how perceived deservedness may influence judgments about equity. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of research on alternative notions of equity for policy makers dealing with social risks.

Suggested Citation

  • L. Robin Keller & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1988. "Equity in Social Risk: Some Empirical Observations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 135-146, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:8:y:1988:i:1:p:135-146
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01160.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01160.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01160.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter A. Diamond, 1967. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparison of Utility: Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 75, pages 765-765.
    2. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1986. "Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 285-300, October.
    3. Ulph, Alistair, 1982. "The role of ex ante and ex post decisions in the valuation of life," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 265-276, July.
    4. Ralph L. Keeney & Robert L. Winkler, 1985. "Evaluating Decision Strategies for Equity of Public Risks," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 955-970, October.
    5. Samuel E. Bodily, 1980. "Analysis of Risks to Life and Limb," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 156-175, February.
    6. John Broome, 1982. "Technical Note—Equity in Risk Bearing," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 412-414, April.
    7. Charles M. Harvey, 1985. "Decision Analysis Models for Social Attitudes Toward Inequity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(10), pages 1199-1212, October.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard, 1986. "Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 728-741, September.
    10. Blackorby, Charles & Donaldson, David, 1986. "Can Risk-Benefit Analysis Provide Consistent Policy Evaluations of Projects Involving Loss of Life?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 96(383), pages 758-773, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arthur E. Attema & Olivier L’Haridon & Gijs Kuilen, 2023. "An experimental investigation of social risk preferences for health," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(3), pages 379-403, October.
    2. Thibault Gajdos & John Weymark & Claudio Zoli, 2010. "Shared destinies and the measurement of social risk equity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 409-424, April.
    3. Robin Gregory & Robert Mendelsohn, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Dread, and Benefits," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 259-264, June.
    4. Dale Hattis & Elizabeth L. Anderson, 1999. "What Should Be the Implications of Uncertainty, Variability, and Inherent “Biases”/“Conservatism” for Risk Management Decision‐Making?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 95-107, February.
    5. Fisher, Ann & King, Robert & Hewitt, William & Epp, Donald J. & Finley, Kelly & Brown, J. Lynne & Maretzki, Audrey N., 1992. "Understanding Food Safety Policy Issues - Report on Model Materials," AE & RS Research Reports 257728, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
    6. Ingrid M.T. Rohde & Kirsten I.M. Rohde, 2012. "Risk and Inequality in a Social Decision Making Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-045/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Robin Gregory & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1994. "A Hint of Risk: Tradeoffs Between Quantitative and Qualitative Risk Factors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 199-206, April.
    8. Attema, Arthur E. & L'Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2023. "Decomposing social risk preferences for health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    9. Zvi Safra & Sinong Ma & Tigran Melkonyan, 2019. "Is Allocation Affected by the Perception of Others' Irresponsible Behavior and by Ambiguity?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2182-2196, October.
    10. Ehsan Taheri & Chen Wang, 2018. "Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 223-241, December.
    11. Yanyan Wang & Vicki M. Bier & Baiqing Sun, 2019. "Measuring and Achieving Equity in Multiperiod Emergency Material Allocation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2408-2426, November.
    12. L. Robin Keller & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1995. "Fair Processes for Societal Decisions Involving Distributional Inequalities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 49-59, February.
    13. Wen‐Qiang Bian & L. Robin Keller, 1999. "Chinese and Americans Agree on What Is Fair, but Disagree on What Is Best in Societal Decisions Affecting Health and Safety Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 439-452, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wen‐Qiang Bian & L. Robin Keller, 1999. "Chinese and Americans Agree on What Is Fair, but Disagree on What Is Best in Societal Decisions Affecting Health and Safety Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 439-452, June.
    2. Antonides, Gerrit & Kroft, Maaike, 2005. "Fairness judgments in household decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 902-913, December.
    3. Thomas Wagner, 1998. "Reciprocity And Efficiency," Rationality and Society, , vol. 10(3), pages 347-375, August.
    4. Bruno S. Frey & David A. Savage & Benno Torgler, 2011. "Behavior under Extreme Conditions: The Titanic Disaster," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(1), pages 209-222, Winter.
    5. Konow, James, 1996. "A positive theory of economic fairness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 13-35, October.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:3:p:214-226 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Ertl, Antal, 2022. "Méltányos és méltánytalan különbségek az egyéni döntéshozatalban [Fair and unfair differences in individual decision making]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(10), pages 1170-1194.
    8. John List, 2020. "Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem," Natural Field Experiments 00687, The Field Experiments Website.
    9. Luini, Luigi & Sabbatini, Pierluigi, 2012. "Demand cross elasticity without substitutability: An experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 255-265.
    10. Richards, Timothy J. & Liaukonyte, Jura & Streletskaya, Nadia A., 2016. "Personalized pricing and price fairness," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 138-153.
    11. feng dai & Jianqiang Liu, 2004. "Development Power and Derivative Process: A Mode and Theory for Macroeconomy Analysis," Macroeconomics 0403015, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Mehmet Karacuka & Asad Zaman, 2012. "The empirical evidence against neoclassical utility theory: a review of the literature," International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(4), pages 366-414.
    13. Friesen, Mark, 2020. "A dynamic perspective on consumers’ price fairness perception: Empirical evidence from the airline industry," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 74(4), pages 403-425.
    14. Yue Gao, 2009. "A study of fairness judgments in China, Switzerland and Canada: Do culture, being a student, and gender matter?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(3), pages 214-226, April.
    15. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    16. Kanupriya Katyal & Vinay Kanetkar & Sanjay Patro, 2019. "What is a fair fare? Exploring the differences between perceived price fairness and perceived price unfairness," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(2), pages 133-146, April.
    17. Krauth, Christian & Liersch, Sebastian & Jensen, Sören & Amelung, Volker Eric, 2016. "Would German physicians opt for pay-for-performance programs? A willingness-to-accept experiment in a large general practitioners’ sample," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 148-158.
    18. Christine Jolls, 2007. "Behavioral Law and Economics," NBER Working Papers 12879, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Sahut, Jean-Michel & Hikkerova, Lubica & Pupion, Pierre-Charles, 2016. "Perceived unfairness of prices resulting from yield management practices in hotels," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 4901-4906.
    20. Elliott, Catherine S. & Hayward, Donald M., 1998. "The expanding definition of framing and its particular impact on economic experimentation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 229-243.
    21. Feng Dai & Songtao Wu & Yajun Zuang, 2004. "The PD-Utility Function for Prospect Behavior and Related Researches," Others 0403003, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:wly:riskan:v:8:y:1988:i:1:p:135-146. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.