Freedom of Choice in a Social Context: Comparing Games Forms
AbstractIn this paper we introduce the set of outcomes of game forms as the relevant attribute for evaluating freedom of choice. These sets are defined as the cartesian product of every individual’s set of available options. It is argued that doing so is one way of taking into account social interactions when evaluating individual freedom. A set of axioms is introduced that convey some intuitions about how interactions affect freedom of choice. Using these axioms, two criteria are characterized for comparing game forms in terms of the freedom of choice they offer, the Max and the MaxMin. These criteria are based respectively on the comparison of the best and the worse outcome the individual can reach in the game form.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Institut d'economie publique (IDEP), Marseille, France in its series IDEP Working Papers with number 0503.
Length: 19 pages
Date of creation: Jan 2005
Date of revision: Jan 2005
Other versions of this item:
- Sebastian Bervoets, 2007. "Freedom of choice in a social context: comparing game forms," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 295-315, September.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Sen, Amartya, 1991. "Welfare, preference and freedom," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 15-29, October.
- BARBERA, Salvador & BOSSERT, Walter & PATTANAIK, Prasanta K., 2001.
"Ranking Sets of Objects,"
Cahiers de recherche
2001-02, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
- N. Gravel & J.-F. Laslier & A. Trannoy, 1996.
"Individual freedom of choice in a social setting,"
THEMA Working Papers
96-25, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
- James E. Foster, 2010. "Freedom, Opportunity and Wellbeing," Working Papers 2010-15, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
- Sen, Amartya, 1970. "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(1), pages 152-57, Jan.-Feb..
- Wulf Gaerther & Prasanta K. Pattanaik & Kotaro Suzumura, 1991.
"Individual Rights Revisited,"
Discussion Paper Series
a238, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
- Deb, Rajat & Pattanaik, Prasanta K. & Razzolini, Laura, 1997. "Game Forms, Rights, and the Efficiency of Social Outcomes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 74-95, January.
- Rajat Deb, 2004. "Rights as alternative game forms," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 83-111, 02.
- Klaus Nehring & Clemens Puppe & James D. Hamilton, 2003.
"On The Multi-Preference Approach To Evaluating Opportunities,"
977, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
- Klaus Nehring & Clemens Puppe, 1999. "On the multi-preference approach to evaluating opportunities," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 41-63.
- Klaus Nehring & Clemens Puppe, . "On The Multi-Preference Approach To Evaluating Opportunities," Department of Economics 97-07, California Davis - Department of Economics.
- Deb, Rajat, 1994. "Waiver, Effectivity and Rights as Game Forms," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 61(242), pages 167-78, May.
- Nicolas Gravel, 1998.
"Ranking opportunity sets on the basis of their freedom of choice and their ability to satisfy preferences: A difficulty,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 371-382.
- Gravel, Nicolas, 1994. "Ranking Opportunity Sets on the Basis of their Freedom of Choice and their Ability to Satisfy Preferences : A Difficulty," Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales) 1994008, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
- Sen, Amartya, 1988. "Freedom of choice : Concept and content," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2-3), pages 269-294, March.
- Bezalel Peleg, 1997. "Effectivity functions, game forms, games, and rights," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 67-80.
- Bossert Walter & Pattanaik Prasanta K. & Xu Yongsheng, 1994. "Ranking Opportunity Sets: An Axiomatic Approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 326-345, August.
- Kreps, David M, 1979. "A Representation Theorem for "Preference for Flexibility"," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 565-77, May.
- Sen, Amartya Kumar, 1970. "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal," Scholarly Articles 3612779, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Sebastian Bervoets, 2010. "An axiomatic approach to predictability of outcomes in an interactive setting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 311-323, March.
- Ahlert, Marlies, 2010. "A new approach to procedural freedom in game forms," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 392-402, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Yves Doazan).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.