IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/apandp/v108y2018p22-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Algorithmic Fairness

Author

Listed:
  • Jon Kleinberg
  • Jens Ludwig
  • Sendhil Mullainathan
  • Ashesh Rambachan

Abstract

Concerns that algorithms may discriminate against certain groups have led to numerous efforts to 'blind' the algorithm to race. We argue that this intuitive perspective is misleading and may do harm. Our primary result is exceedingly simple, yet often overlooked. A preference for fairness should not change the choice of estimator. Equity preferences can change how the estimated prediction function is used (e.g., different threshold for different groups) but the function itself should not change. We show in an empirical example for college admissions that the inclusion of variables such as race can increase both equity and efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Jon Kleinberg & Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan & Ashesh Rambachan, 2018. "Algorithmic Fairness," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 108, pages 22-27, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:apandp:v:108:y:2018:p:22-27
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/pandp.20181018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/pandp.20181018
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/content/file?id=6971
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles/attachments?retrieve=FlyxKwqug2JN8bArO3x6nTtp9mEcpGP2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ghysels, Eric & Babii, Andrii & Chen, Xi & Kumar, Rohit, 2020. "Binary Choice with Asymmetric Loss in a Data-Rich Environment: Theory and an Application to Racial Justice," CEPR Discussion Papers 15418, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Nils Kobis & Luca Mossink, 2020. "Artificial Intelligence versus Maya Angelou: Experimental evidence that people cannot differentiate AI-generated from human-written poetry," Papers 2005.09980, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2020.
    3. Andini, Monica & Boldrini, Michela & Ciani, Emanuele & de Blasio, Guido & D'Ignazio, Alessio & Paladini, Andrea, 2022. "Machine learning in the service of policy targeting: The case of public credit guarantees," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 434-475.
    4. Phyllis Asorh Oteng & Victor Curtis Lartey & Amos Kwasi Amofa, 2023. "Modeling the Macroeconomic and Demographic Determinants of Life Insurance Demand in Ghana Using the Elastic Net Algorithm," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, September.
    5. Christophe Hurlin & Christophe Perignon & Sébastien Saurin, 2021. "The Fairness of Credit Scoring Models," Working Papers hal-03501452, HAL.
    6. Ashesh Rambachan & Jon Kleinberg & Sendhil Mullainathan & Jens Ludwig, 2020. "An Economic Approach to Regulating Algorithms," NBER Working Papers 27111, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Bauer, Kevin & Pfeuffer, Nicolas & Abdel-Karim, Benjamin M. & Hinz, Oliver & Kosfeld, Michael, 2020. "The terminator of social welfare? The economic consequences of algorithmic discrimination," SAFE Working Paper Series 287, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    8. Annie Liang & Jay Lu & Xiaosheng Mu, 2021. "Algorithm Design: A Fairness-Accuracy Frontier," Papers 2112.09975, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    9. Laura Blattner & Scott Nelson, 2021. "How Costly is Noise? Data and Disparities in Consumer Credit," Papers 2105.07554, arXiv.org.
    10. Wenlong Sun & Olfa Nasraoui & Patrick Shafto, 2020. "Evolution and impact of bias in human and machine learning algorithm interaction," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-39, August.
    11. Charlson, G., 2022. "Digital Gold? Pricing, Inequality and Participation in Data Markets," Janeway Institute Working Papers 2225, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    12. Charlson, G., 2022. "Digital gold? Pricing, inequality and participation in data markets," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2258, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    13. Jon Kleinberg & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2019. "Simplicity Creates Inequity: Implications for Fairness, Stereotypes, and Interpretability," NBER Working Papers 25854, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Davide Viviano & Jelena Bradic, 2020. "Fair Policy Targeting," Papers 2005.12395, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    15. Anna Zink & Sherri Rose, 2020. "Fair regression for health care spending," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 973-982, September.
    16. Leo Leppänen & Hanna Tuulonen & Stefanie Sirén-Heikel, 2020. "Automated Journalism as a Source of and a Diagnostic Device for Bias in Reporting," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(3), pages 39-49.
    17. Claire Lazar Reich, 2021. "The Disparate Impact of Uncertainty: Affirmative Action vs. Affirmative Information," Papers 2102.10019, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    18. Karaenke, Paul & Bichler, Martin & Merting, Soeren & Minner, Stefan, 2020. "Non-monetary coordination mechanisms for time slot allocation in warehouse delivery," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(3), pages 897-907.
    19. Emily Owens & CarlyWill Sloan, 2023. "Can text messages reduce incarceration in rural and vulnerable populations?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(4), pages 992-1009, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C38 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Classification Methdos; Cluster Analysis; Principal Components; Factor Analysis
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • J15 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Minorities, Races, Indigenous Peoples, and Immigrants; Non-labor Discrimination

    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:aea:apandp:v:108:y:2018:p:22-27. 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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.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.