Freedom of choice in a social context: comparing game forms
In this paper we introduce the set of outcomes of game forms as the relevant attribute for evaluating freedom of choice. These sets are defined as the cartesian product of every individual’s set of available options. It is argued that doing so is one way of taking into account social interactions when evaluating individual freedom. A set of axioms is introduced that convey some intuitions about how interactions affect freedom of choice. Using these axioms, two criteria are characterized for comparing game forms in terms of the freedom of choice they offer, the Max and the MaxMin. These criteria are based respectively on the comparison of the best and the worse outcome the individual can reach in the game form.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 29 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00355/index.htm|
|Order Information:||Web: http://link.springer.de/orders.htm|
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Sen, Amartya, 1970. "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(1), pages 152-57, Jan.-Feb..
- James E. Foster, 2010. "Freedom, Opportunity and Wellbeing," Working Papers 2010-15, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
- Gaertner, Wulf & Pattanaik, Prasanta K & Suzumura, Kotaro, 1992.
"Individual Rights Revisited,"
London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 59(234), pages 161-77, May.
- 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.
- Bezalel Peleg, 1997. "Effectivity functions, game forms, games, and rights," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 67-80.
- Sen, Amartya, 1988. "Freedom of choice : Concept and content," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2-3), pages 269-294, March.
- N. Gravel & J.-F. Laslier & A. Trannoy, 1996.
"Individual freedom of choice in a social setting,"
THEMA Working Papers
96-25, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
- Kreps, David M, 1979. "A Representation Theorem for "Preference for Flexibility"," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 565-77, May.
- Gravel, Nicolas, 1994.
"Ranking Opportunity Sets on the Basis of their Freedom of Choice and their Ability to Satisfy Preferences : A Difficulty,"
Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales)
1994008, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
- Nicolas Gravel, 1998. "Ranking opportunity sets on the basis of their freedom of choice and their ability to satisfy preferences: A difficulty," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 371-382.
- Deb, Rajat & Pattanaik, Prasanta K. & Razzolini, Laura, 1997. "Game Forms, Rights, and the Efficiency of Social Outcomes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 74-95, January.
- Bossert Walter & Pattanaik Prasanta K. & Xu Yongsheng, 1994. "Ranking Opportunity Sets: An Axiomatic Approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 326-345, August.
- Klaus Nehring & Clemens Puppe, 1999.
"On the multi-preference approach to evaluating opportunities,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 41-63.
- Klaus Nehring & Clemens Puppe, . "On The Multi-Preference Approach To Evaluating Opportunities," Department of Economics 97-07, California Davis - Department of Economics.
- Klaus Nehring & Clemens Puppe & James D. Hamilton, 2003. "On The Multi-Preference Approach To Evaluating Opportunities," Working Papers 977, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
- Sen, Amartya, 1991. "Welfare, preference and freedom," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 15-29, October.
- Deb, Rajat, 1994. "Waiver, Effectivity and Rights as Game Forms," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 61(242), pages 167-78, May.
- Sen, Amartya Kumar, 1970. "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal," Scholarly Articles 3612779, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Rajat Deb, 2004. "Rights as alternative game forms," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 83-111, 02.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:29:y:2007:i:2:p:295-315. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn)or (Christopher F Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.