Procedural Fairness in Economic and Social Choice: Evidence from a Survey of Voters
AbstractThe paper argues for the relevance of procedural justice to social choice and presents supporting evidence from primary data on voter attitudes. A preliminary section proposes and discusses five propositions that indicate the potential value and significance of processes for social choice. Section 3 considers evidence for what psychologists have called 'voice' and the extent to which control over, or representation in, a decision is compatible with other economic notions of fair process, like random choosing. Section 4 examines empirical evidence that sensitivity to process fairness may be a means of dealing with power inequalities between interacting agents. Section 5 goes on to examine evidence concerning treatment which in some way is threatening to a person's position as an agent. A brief concluding section summarizes and indicates avenues for future research.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by The Open University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics in its series Open Discussion Papers in Economics with number 27.
Length: 28 pages
Date of creation: Dec 2000
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 247-270, April
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA
Web page: http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/about-the-faculty/departments/economics/research/discussion-papers.php
More information through EDIRC
procedural fairness; empirical social choice; random choosing; regard; cheap talk;
Other versions of this item:
- Anand, Paul, 2001. "Procedural fairness in economic and social choice: Evidence from a survey of voters," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 247-270, April.
- A13 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Social Values
- D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
- D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
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.:
- Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
- Belk, Russell W & Coon, Gregory S, 1993. " Gift Giving as Agapic Love: An Alternative to the Exchange Paradigm Based on Dating Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(3), pages 393-417, December.
- W. Guth & R. Schmittberger & B. Schwartz, 2010. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Levine's Working Paper Archive 291, David K. Levine.
- Anand, Paul, 1991. "The Nature of Rational Choice and The Foundations of Statistics," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 199-216, April.
- Fehr, Ernst & Kirchsteiger, George & Riedl, Arno, 1993.
"Does Fairness Prevent Market Clearing? An Experimental Investigation,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 108(2), pages 437-59, May.
- Georg Kirchsteiger & Ernst Fehr & Arno Riedl, 1993. "Does Fairness Prevent Market Clearing? An Experimental Investigation," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/5927, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Eichberger, Jurgen & Kelsey, David, 1996.
"Uncertainty Aversion and Preference for Randomisation,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 31-43, October.
- Eichberger, J. & Kelsey, D., 1995. "Uncertainty Aversion and Preferences for Randomisation," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 476, The University of Melbourne.
- Rabin, Matthew, 1993.
"Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
- Matthew Rabin., 1992. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," Economics Working Papers 92-199, University of California at Berkeley.
- M. Rabin, 2001. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," Levine's Working Paper Archive 511, David K. Levine.
- Frank, Robert H, 1987. "If Homo Economicus Could Choose His Own Utility Function, Would He Want One with a Conscience?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 593-604, September.
- Varian, Hal R., 1976. "On the history of concepts of fairness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 486-487, December.
- James Konow, 2001.
"A Positive Theory of Economic Fairness,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
563824000000000138, David K. Levine.
- Atkinson, Anthony B, 1999. " The Contributions of Amartya Sen to Welfare Economics," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 101(2), pages 173-90, June.
- Pillutla, Madan M. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 1996. "Unfairness, Anger, and Spite: Emotional Rejections of Ultimatum Offers," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 208-224, December.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (IT team member).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.