IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hit/hituec/a250.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Individual Rights and Social Evaluations: A Conceptual Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Prasanta K. Pattanaik
  • Kotaro Suzumura

Abstract

The authors propose a framework for the analysis of social choice and welfare which uses the informational basis of individual preference orderings over the pairs of conventionally defined social alternatives and social decision-making mechanisms. In particular, they consider the case where the decision-making mechanism is a rights-structure modeled as game forms. The authors use this framework to clarify the role for individual preferences in conferring rights, in the realization of the conferred rights, and in describing the formal contents of rights. They also explore its implications for the controversial issue of the consistency of social choice and A. K. Sen's paradox of Paretian libertarianism. Copyright 1996 by Royal Economic Society.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Prasanta K. Pattanaik & Kotaro Suzumura, 1992. "Individual Rights and Social Evaluations: A Conceptual Framework," Discussion Paper Series a250, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    • Handle: RePEc:hit:hituec:a250
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Enrico Guzzini, 2010. "Efficient Nash equilibria, individual rights and Pareto principle: an impossibility result," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(1), pages 103-114.
    2. Susumu Cato, 2014. "Common preference, non-consequential features, and collective decision making," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 265-287, December.
    3. Suzumura, Kotaro & Xu, Yongsheng, 2003. "Consequences, opportunities, and generalized consequentialism and non-consequentialism," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 293-304, August.
    4. Vizard, Polly, 2005. "The contributions of Professor Amartya Sen in the field of human rights," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6273, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Kotaro Suzumura, 2002. "Introduction to social choice and welfare," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 442, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    6. Suzumura, Kotaro & Xu, Yongsheng, 2001. "Characterizations of Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 423-436, December.
    7. Manimay Sengupta, 1996. "Informed Planner, Decentralized Decisions And Incentive Compatibility," Discussion Paper Series 12, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Oct 1996.
    8. Kotaro Suzumura, 2020. "Reflections on Arrow’s research program of social choice theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 219-235, March.
    9. Polly Vizard, 2005. "The Contributions of Professor Amartya Sen in the Field of Human Rights," CASE Papers 091, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    10. Yukinori Iwata, 2016. "The possibility of Arrovian social choice with the process of nomination," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 535-552, November.
    11. Keith Dowding, 2004. "Social Choice and the Grammar of Rights and Freedoms," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 52(1), pages 144-161, March.
    12. Yukinori Iwata, 2022. "Ranking nomination rules on the basis of nominating power distributions," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 18(3), pages 382-401, September.
    13. Sebastiano Bavetta & Marco Del Seta, 2001. "Constraints and the Measurement of Freedom of Choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 213-238, May.
    14. Prasanta K. Pattanaik & Yongsheng Xu, 2020. "Institutions and their ethical evaluation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 293-310, March.
    15. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:30:y:2010:i:1:p:103-114 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:hit:hituec:a250. 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: Hiromichi Miyake (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iehitjp.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.