IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00246562.html

Social choice and the indexing dilemma

Author

Listed:
  • Marc Fleurbaey

    (CERSES - UMR 8137 - Centre de recherche sens, ethique, société - UPD5 - Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

This paper distinguishes an index ordering and a social ordering function as a simple way to formalize the indexing problem in the social choice framework. Two main conclusions are derived. First, the alleged dilemma between welfarism and perfectionnism is shown to involve a third possibility, exemplified by the fairness approach to social choice. Second, the idea that an individual is better off than another whenever he has more (goods, functionings...) in all dimensions, which is known to enter in conflict with the Pareto principle, can be partly salvaged by adopting the fairness approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Marc Fleurbaey, 2007. "Social choice and the indexing dilemma," Post-Print hal-00246562, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00246562
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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. Reiko Gotoh & Naoki Yoshihara, 2018. "Securing basic well-being for all," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(4), pages 422-452, October.
    2. repec:qeh:ophiwp:ophiwp046 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Lucio Esposito & Enrica Chiappero‐Martinetti, 2019. "Eliciting, Applying And Exploring Multidimensional Welfare Weights: Evidence From The Field," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 65(S1), pages 204-227, November.
    4. DECANCQ, Koen & FLEURBAEY, Marc & SCHOKKAERT, Erik, 2014. "Inequality, income, and well-being," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014018, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    5. Yang, Lin, 2017. "The relationship between poverty and inequality: concepts and measurement," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103491, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. 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.
    7. Pivato, Marcus, 2010. "Approximate interpersonal comparisons of well-being," MPRA Paper 25224, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Antoine de Mahieu, 2021. "In-work Benefits in Belgium: Effects on Labour Supply and Welfare," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 14(1), pages 43-72.
    9. repec:qeh:ophiwp:ophiwp018 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Lin Yang, 2017. "The relationship between poverty and inequality: Concepts and measurement," CASE Papers /205, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    11. 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.
    12. Decerf,Benoit Marie A, 2023. "An Axiomatic Study Contrasting the Two Main Poverty Line Rules," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10519, The World Bank.
    13. Marc Fleurbaey, 2012. "The importance of what people care about," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 11(4), pages 415-447, November.
    14. Decancq, Koen & Nys, Annemie, 2021. "Non-parametric well-being comparisons," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    15. Nikolai Hoberg & Stefan Baumgärtner, 2014. "Value pluralism, trade-offs and efficiencies," Working Paper Series in Economics 311, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    16. Decerf, Benoit, 2025. "On the properties of the two main types of global poverty lines," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    17. Sakamoto, Norihito, 2018. "Equity Criteria Based on the Dominance Principle and Individual Preferences: Refinements of the Consensus Approach," RCNE Discussion Paper Series 5, Research Center for Normative Economics, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    18. Hoberg, Nikolai & Strunz, Sebastian, 2018. "When Individual Preferences Defy Sustainability — Can Merit Good Arguments Close the Gap?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 286-293.
    19. repec:qeh:ophiwp:ophiwp020 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:hal:journl:hal-00246562. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.