IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/121526.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

When and why might choice in public services have intrinsic (dis)value?

Author

Listed:
  • Bhattacharya, Aveek

Abstract

Governments in several countries have sought to increase choice in public services. Proponents claim the value of such choice is both instrumental (it improves outcomes) and intrinsic (choice is valuable in itself). Yet while the instrumental benefits of such measures are strongly contested, the supposed intrinsic value of public service choice is both normatively and empirically underexplored. This paper draws on the philosophical and psychological literature on the costs and benefits of choice to identify why and under what circumstances choice in public services might have intrinsic value (or indeed, disvalue). Through this process, it develop a framework of empirical questions that can be used to analyse the intrinsic (dis)value of particular choice reforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Bhattacharya, Aveek, 2020. "When and why might choice in public services have intrinsic (dis)value?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121526, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:121526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/121526/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pauline Musset, 2012. "School Choice and Equity: Current Policies in OECD Countries and a Literature Review," OECD Education Working Papers 66, OECD Publishing.
    2. Sebastiano Bavetta & Francesco Guala, 2003. "Autonomy-Freedom and Deliberation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(4), pages 423-443, October.
    3. Prasanta K. PATTANAIK & Yongsheng XU, 1990. "On Ranking Opportunity Sets in Terms of Freedom of Choice," Discussion Papers (REL - Recherches Economiques de Louvain) 1990036, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    4. Conly, Sarah, 2017. "Paternalism, coercion and the unimportance of (some) liberties," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 207-218, November.
    5. Ian Carter, 2004. "Choice, freedom, and freedom of choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(1), pages 61-81, February.
    6. Dowding, Keith, 1992. "Choice: Its Increase and its Value," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 301-314, July.
    7. Sen, Amartya, 1991. "Welfare, preference and freedom," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 15-29, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Aveek Bhattacharya, 2020. "When and why might choice in public services have intrinsic (dis)value?," CASE Papers /220, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    2. Antoinette Baujard, 2006. "Conceptions of freedom and ranking opportunity sets. A typology," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes 1 & University of Caen) 200611, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes 1, University of Caen and CNRS.
    3. Ronen Shnayderman, 2016. "Ian Carter’s non-evaluative theory of freedom and diversity: a critique," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 39-55, January.
    4. Ballester, Miguel A. & de Miguel, Juan R. & Nieto, Jorge, 2004. "Set comparisons in a general domain: the Indirect Utility Criterion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 139-150, September.
    5. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    6. Vito Peragine & Ernesto Savaglio & Stefano Vannucci, 2008. "Poverty Rankings of Opportunity Profiles," Department of Economics University of Siena 548, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    7. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero, 2008. "Opportunity analysis of newborn screening programs," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 12(4), pages 259-277, December.
    8. Amartya K. Sen, 1997. "From Income Inequality to Economic Inequality," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 384-401, October.
    9. Martin van Hees, 1998. "On the Analysis of Negative Freedom," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 175-197, October.
    10. Martin Van Hees, 2003. "Acting Autonomously Versus not Acting Heteronomously," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 337-355, June.
    11. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Miguel Ballester & Jorge Nieto, 2012. "Freedom of choice: John Stuart Mill and the tree of life," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 209-226, March.
    12. Walter Bossert & Prasanta K. Pattanaik & Yongsheng Xu, 2003. "Similarity of Options and the Measurement of Diversity," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(4), pages 405-421, October.
    13. Martin Hees, 2010. "The specific value of freedom," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(4), pages 687-703, October.
    14. Antonio Romero-Medina, 2001. "More on preference and freedom," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(1), pages 179-191.
    15. Hanna van Loo, 2010. "More freedom of choice but less preference satisfaction in parametric situations," Rationality and Society, , vol. 22(2), pages 237-252, May.
    16. Eckehard F. Rosenbaum, 2000. "On Measuring Freedom," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 205-227, April.
    17. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Miguel Ballester, 2012. "Ranking opportunity profiles through dependent evaluation of policies," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 10(4), pages 471-487, December.
    18. Stefano Vannucci, 2013. "A characterization of height-based extensions of principal filtral opportunity rankings," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, December.
    19. Barberà, Salvador & Grodal, Birgit, 2011. "Preference for flexibility and the opportunities of choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 272-278.
    20. Pattanaik, Prasanta K. & Xu, Yongsheng, 2000. "On Ranking Opportunity Sets in Economic Environments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 48-71, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    choice; intrinsic value; quasi-markets; studentship;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I0 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - General
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    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:ehl:lserod:121526. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.