IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v14y1996i1p97-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opportunity sets and individual well-being

Author

Listed:
  • Walter Bossert

    (Department of Economics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada)

Abstract

An opportunity set ranking rule assigns an ordering of opportunity sets to each individual utility function (defined on the universal set of alternatives) within the domain of this rule. Using an axiomatic approach, this paper characterizes a general class of opportunity set ranking rules which are based on the utilities associated with the elements of an opportunity set. It is argued that the addition of an alternative to a given opportunity set is not necessarily desirable in terms of overall well-being, and this position is reflected in replacing a commonly used monotonicity axiom with an alternative condition.

Suggested Citation

  • Walter Bossert, 1996. "Opportunity sets and individual well-being," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 14(1), pages 97-112.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:14:y:1996:i:1:p:97-112
    Note: Received: 15 May 1995/Accepted: 14 December 1995
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00355/papers/6014001/60140097.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted

    File URL: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00355/papers/6014001/60140097.ps.gz
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted

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

    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. Antoinette Baujard, 2006. "Conceptions of freedom and ranking opportunity sets. A typology," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes 1 & University of Caen) 200611, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes 1, University of Caen and CNRS.
    2. Bervoets, Sebastian & Gravel, Nicolas, 2007. "Appraising diversity with an ordinal notion of similarity: An axiomatic approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 259-273, May.
    3. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    4. Erwin Ooghe & Erik Schokkaert & Dirk gaer, 2007. "Equality of Opportunity versus Equality of Opportunity Sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(2), pages 209-230, February.
    5. John E. Roemer & Alain Trannoy, 2016. "Equality of Opportunity: Theory and Measurement," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1288-1332, December.
    6. Arlegi, Ritxar & Dimitrov, Dinko, 2011. "On freedom, lack of information and the preference for easy choices," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 364, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    7. Herrero, Carmen, 1997. "Equitable opportunities: an extension," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 91-95, August.
    8. Ricardo Arlegi, 2005. "Freedom Of Choice And Conflict Resolution," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 0502, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
    9. Ricardo Arlegi & Dinko Dimitrov, 2006. "On Freedom of Choice, Ambiguity, and the Preference for Easy Choices," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 0607, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
    10. Walter Bossert, "undated". "Opportunity Sets and the Measurement of Information," Discussion Papers 98/6, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.

    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:spr:sochwe:v:14:y:1996:i:1:p:97-112. See general 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.