IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v91y1997i1p89-105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fairness and Competence in Democratic Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Oberholzer-Gee, Felix
  • Bohnet, Iris
  • Frey, Bruno S

Abstract

The price system is generally thought to be the epitome of efficiency. In some cases, however, lotteries are preferred to the market as a social decision-making system for reasons of fairness. As recent research has shown, neither procedure is always well accepted among the general population. The authors analyze the social acceptability of both mechanisms and apply their framework to the allocation of social burdens, namely the sighting of nuclear waste facilities. Lotteries are only acceptable if they are applied to a set of efficient options. The market is accepted if the production of fairness precedes the use of prices. Copyright 1997 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Oberholzer-Gee, Felix & Bohnet, Iris & Frey, Bruno S, 1997. "Fairness and Competence in Democratic Decisions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 89-105, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:91:y:1997:i:1:p:89-105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0048-5829/contents
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Cooter, Robert & Garoupa, Nuno, 2000. "The Virtuous Circle of Distrust: A Mechanism to Deter Bribes and Other Cooperative Crimes," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt83c0k3wc, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    2. Gary E Bolton & Jordi Brandts & Axel Ockenfels, 2005. "Fair Procedures: Evidence from Games Involving Lotteries," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(506), pages 1054-1076, October.
    3. Joachim Schleich & Claudia Schwirplies & Andreas Ziegler, 2014. "Private provision of public goods: Do individual climate protection efforts depend on perceptions of climate policy?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201453, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    4. repec:qut:qubewp:wp014 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Camilleri, Adrian R. & Dankova, Katarina & Ortiz, Jose M. & Neelim, Ananta, 2023. "Increasing worker motivation using a reward scheme with probabilistic elements," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    6. Dorrough, Angela R. & Leszczyńska, Monika & Barreto, Manuela & Glöckner, Andreas, 2016. "Revealing side effects of quota rules on group cooperation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 136-152.
    7. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Konow, James, 2009. "Fairness Concerns in Environmental Economics - Do They Really Matter and If So How?," Working Papers in Economics 398, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    8. Gideon Keren & Karl H. Teigen, 2010. "Decisions by coin toss: Inappropriate but fair," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 83-101, April.
    9. Sondak, Harris & Tyler, Tom R., 2007. "How does procedural justice shape the desirability of markets?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 79-92, January.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:2:p:83-101 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Schleich, Joachim & Dütschke, Elisabeth & Schwirplies, Claudia & Ziegler, Andreas, 2014. "Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: Empirical insights from China, Germany and the US," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S2/2014, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    12. Elias Bouacida & Renaud Foucart, 2020. "The acceptability of lotteries in allocation problems," Working Papers 301646245, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    13. Timo Tammi, 2011. "Contractual preferences and moral biases: social identity and procedural fairness in the exclusion game experiment," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 373-397, December.
    14. Cooter Robert D. & Garoupa Nuno, 2014. "A Disruption Mechanism for Bribes," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(3), pages 1-23, November.
    15. James Konow, 2003. "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1188-1239, December.
    16. Rachel A. Hirsch & Jamie Baxter, 2011. "Context, Cultural Bias, and Health Risk Perception: The “Everyday” Nature of Pesticide Policy Preferences in London, Calgary, and Halifax," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 847-865, May.
    17. McCann, Laura M.J. & Hafdahl, Adam, 2003. "Agency Perceptions Of Alternative Salinity Policies: The Role Of Fairness," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22097, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Hong, Kessely & Bohnet, Iris, 2007. "Status and distrust: The relevance of inequality and betrayal aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 197-213, April.
    19. Elias Bouacida & Renaud Foucart, 2022. "Rituals of Reason," Working Papers 344119591, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    20. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne, 2017. "Explaining citizens’ perceptions of international climate-policy relevance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 62-71.
    21. Olof Johansson-Stenman & James Konow, 2010. "Fair Air: Distributive Justice and Environmental Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 147-166, June.
    22. Gary E. Bolton & Axel Ockenfels, 2004. "The Behavioral Tradeoff between Efficiency and Equity when a Majority Rules," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2003-12, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:91:y:1997:i:1:p:89-105. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.