IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v22y2004i1p49-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-welfaristic theories of justice: Is “the intersection approach” a solution to the indexing impasse?

Author

Listed:
  • Bernt Christian Brun

    ()

  • Bertil Tungodden

    ()

Abstract

Rawls (1971, 1993) suggests that a primary goods index should be the basis for interpersonal comparisons in a theory of justice, but it is well known that in general this approach is not compatible with the Pareto principle. This is the indexing impasse. Sen (1985, 1991) argues that this is partly due to the fact that the approach does not take note of the citizen’s orderings of these bundles of valuable objects. He suggests an “intersection approach”, which is an incomplete approach to interpersonal comparisons based on judgements that are shared implications of the relevant set of weighting schemes. In this paper, we show that “the intersection approach” does not provide any solution to the indexing impasse. Unless the individuals have identical preferences, “the intersection approach” is incompatible with the Pareto principle. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2004

Suggested Citation

  • Bernt Christian Brun & Bertil Tungodden, 2004. "Non-welfaristic theories of justice: Is “the intersection approach” a solution to the indexing impasse?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(1), pages 49-60, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:22:y:2004:i:1:p:49-60
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-003-0276-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00355-003-0276-0
    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. Marc Fleurbaey, 2003. "Social Welfare, Priority to the Worst-Off And the Dimensions of Individual Well-Being," IDEP Working Papers 0312, Institut d'economie publique (IDEP), Marseille, France.
    2. Koen Decancq & Dirk Neumann, 2014. "Does the Choice of Well-Being Measure Matter Empirically?: An Illustration with German Data," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 717, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    3. DECANCQ, Koen & FLEURBAEY, Marc & SCHOKKAERT, Erik, 2014. "Inequality, income, and well-being," CORE Discussion Papers 2014018, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    4. Olivier Bargain & André Decoster & Mathias Dolls & Dirk Neumann & Andreas Peichl & Sebastian Siegloch, 2013. "Welfare, labor supply and heterogeneous preferences: evidence for Europe and the US," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(4), pages 789-817, October.
    5. Marc Fleurbaey & Erik Schokkaert, 2013. "Behavioral Welfare Economics and Redistribution," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(3), pages 180-205, August.
    6. FLEURBAEY, Marc & SCHOKKAERT, Erik, 2011. "Behavioral fair social choice," CORE Discussion Papers 2011043, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    7. Koen Decancq & Marc Fleurbaey & Erik Schokkaert, 2015. "Happiness, Equivalent Incomes and Respect for Individual Preferences," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 82, pages 1082-1106, December.
    8. Bleichrodt, Han & Quiggin, John, 2013. "Capabilities as menus: A non-welfarist basis for QALY evaluation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 128-137.
    9. Koen Decancq & Annemie Nys, 2018. "Non-parametric well-being comparisons," Working Papers 1814, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    10. repec:oup:cesifo:v:64:y:2018:i:3:p:396-425. is not listed on IDEAS
    11. John A. Weymark, 2017. "Conundrums for nonconsequentialists," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 269-294, February.
    12. Koen Decancq & Luc Van Ootegem & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2013. "What If We Voted on the Weights of a Multidimensional Well‐Being Index? An Illustration with Flemish Data," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 34, pages 315-332, September.
    13. repec:eee:ecolec:v:143:y:2018:i:c:p:286-293 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Bertil Tungodden, 2001. "A balanced view of development as freedom," CMI Working Papers WP 2001:14, CMI (Chr. Michelsen Institute), Bergen, Norway.

    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:22:y:2004:i:1:p:49-60. 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.