IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v15y1995i1p49-59.html

Fair Processes for Societal Decisions Involving Distributional Inequalities

Author

Listed:
  • L. Robin Keller
  • Rakesh K. Sarin

Abstract

We investigate fair processes for societal decisions that involve different risks and benefits to different groups. A fair decision‐making process is particularly important for decisions such as siting hazardous facilities. We experimentally evaluate the impact of alternative decision processes on the final choice of hypothetical facility sites and the resulting benefit and risk distribution to groups. The experimental task required choice among many alternative sites for a hazardous facility. Sites differ by the distribution of risks and benefits to each of two communities, and in the attractiveness of the sites to each community. Subjects were divided into three groups: individuals who judged the best site in the role of arbitrators, pairs of negotiators with one person representing each of the two communities, and trios who identified the best site in the role of a siting jury. We found the choices of negotiating and siting jury groups tended to emphasize the communities’preferences compared to the individual arbitrators who tended to focus on balancing the distribution of risks and benefits. Also, undergraduate psychology students, regardless of the dispute resolution mechanism, tended to display more emphasis on the risks and benefits, and graduate business students tended to focus more on the communities’preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • L. Robin Keller & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1995. "Fair Processes for Societal Decisions Involving Distributional Inequalities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 49-59, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:15:y:1995:i:1:p:49-59
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00092.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00092.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00092.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter C. Fishburn, 1984. "Equity Axioms for Public Risks," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 901-908, August.
    2. Peter C. Fishburn & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1991. "Dispersive Equity and Social Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(7), pages 751-769, July.
    3. Peter A. Diamond, 1967. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparison of Utility: Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 75(5), pages 765-765.
    4. Kunreuther, Howard & Kleindorfer, Paul R, 1986. "A Sealed-Bid Auction Mechanism for Siting Noxious Facilities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 295-299, May.
    5. Ralph L. Keeney & Robert L. Winkler, 1985. "Evaluating Decision Strategies for Equity of Public Risks," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 955-970, October.
    6. Peter C. Fishburn & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1994. "Fairness and Social Risk I: Unaggregated Analyses," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(9), pages 1174-1188, September.
    7. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    8. Robin Gregory & Howard Kunreuther & Doug Easterling & Ken Richards, 1991. "Incentives Policies to Site Hazardous Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 667-675, December.
    9. Jonathan Baron & Rajeev Gowda & Howard Kunreuther, 1993. "Attitudes Toward Managing Hazardous Waste: What Should Be Cleaned Up and Who Should Pay for It?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 183-192, April.
    10. John Broome, 1982. "Technical Note—Equity in Risk Bearing," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 412-414, April.
    11. L. Robin Keller & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1988. "Equity in Social Risk: Some Empirical Observations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 135-146, March.
    12. Kunreuther, Howard & Easterling, Douglas, 1990. "Are Risk-Benefit Tradeoffs Possible in Siting Hazardous Facilities?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 252-256, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Martin Peterson, 2002. "The Limits of Catastrophe Aversion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 527-538, June.
    2. Guyse, Jeffery L. & Keller, L. Robin & Eppel, Thomas, 2002. "Valuing Environmental Outcomes: Preferences for Constant or Improving Sequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 253-277, March.
    3. Thibault Gajdos & John Weymark & Claudio Zoli, 2010. "Shared destinies and the measurement of social risk equity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 409-424, April.
    4. Wen‐Qiang Bian & L. Robin Keller, 1999. "Chinese and Americans Agree on What Is Fair, but Disagree on What Is Best in Societal Decisions Affecting Health and Safety Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 439-452, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thibault Gajdos & John Weymark & Claudio Zoli, 2010. "Shared destinies and the measurement of social risk equity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 409-424, April.
    2. Ingrid T. Rohde & Kirsten M. Rohde, 2015. "Managing social risks – tradeoffs between risks and inequalities," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 103-124, October.
    3. Carole Bernard & Christoph M. Rheinberger & Nicolas Treich, 2018. "Catastrophe Aversion and Risk Equity in an Interdependent World," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4490-4504, October.
    4. Christoph M. Rheinberger & Nicolas Treich, 2017. "Attitudes Toward Catastrophe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 609-636, July.
    5. Attema, Arthur E. & L'Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2023. "Decomposing social risk preferences for health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    6. Ehsan Taheri & Chen Wang, 2018. "Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 223-241, December.
    7. Thibault Gajdos & John A. Weymark & Claudio Zoli, 2008. "Shared Destinies and the Measurement and of Social Risk Equity," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0821, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    8. L. Robin Keller & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1988. "Equity in Social Risk: Some Empirical Observations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 135-146, March.
    9. Wen‐Qiang Bian & L. Robin Keller, 1999. "Chinese and Americans Agree on What Is Fair, but Disagree on What Is Best in Societal Decisions Affecting Health and Safety Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 439-452, June.
    10. Sprumont, Yves, 2018. "Belief-weighted Nash aggregation of Savage preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 222-245.
    11. Bossert, Walter & Peters, Hans, 2014. "Single-basined choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 162-168.
    12. Fumihiro Yamane & Hideaki Ohgaki & Kota Asano, 2011. "Nuclear Power‐Related Facilities and Neighboring Land Price: A Case Study on the Mutsu‐Ogawara Region, Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1969-1994, December.
    13. LAMAS, ALEJANDRO & CHEVALIER, Philippe, 2013. "Jumping the hurdles for collaboration: fairness in operations pooling in the absence of transfer payments," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2013073, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    14. Yves Sprumont, 2013. "On relative egalitarianism," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 1015-1032, April.
    15. Leslie A. Nieves & Jeffery J. Himmelberger & Samuel J. Ratick & Allen L. White, 1992. "Negotiated Compensation for Solid‐Waste Disposal Facility Siting: An Analysis of the Wisconsin Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 505-511, December.
    16. Yew‐Kwang Ng, 1981. "Bentham or Nash? On the Acceptable Form of Social Welfare Functions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 57(3), pages 238-250, September.
    17. Yves Sprumont, 2020. "Nash welfarism and the distributive implications of informational constraints," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 8(1), pages 49-64, April.
    18. Arthur E. Attema & Olivier L’Haridon & Gijs Kuilen, 2023. "An experimental investigation of social risk preferences for health," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(3), pages 379-403, October.
    19. Ingrid M.T. Rohde & Kirsten I.M. Rohde, 2012. "Risk and Inequality in a Social Decision Making Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-045/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. Takashi Hayashi & Michele Lombardi, 2019. "Fair social decision under uncertainty and belief disagreements," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(4), pages 775-816, June.

    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:wly:riskan:v:15:y:1995:i:1:p:49-59. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.