IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Freedom of Choice in a Social Context: Comparing Games 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.

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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Institut d'economie publique (IDEP), Marseille, France in its series IDEP Working Papers with number 0503.

in new window

Length: 19 pages
Date of creation: Jan 2005
Date of revision: Jan 2005
Handle: RePEc:iep:wpidep:0503
Contact details of provider: Postal:
2, rue de la Charité 13002 Marseille

Web page:

More information through EDIRC

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.:

as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. 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..
  3. 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).
  4. James Foster, 2010. "Freedom, Opportunity and Wellbeing," OPHI Working Papers ophiwp035, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
  5. Gravel, N. & Laslier, J.F. & Trannoy, A., 1996. "Individual Freedom of Choice in a Social Setting," Papers 9625, Paris X - Nanterre, U.F.R. de Sc. Ec. Gest. Maths Infor..
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Gaertner, Wulf & Pattanaik, Prasanta K & Suzumura, Kotaro, 1992. "Individual Rights Revisited," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 59(234), pages 161-77, May.
  10. Sen, Amartya, 1988. "Freedom of choice : Concept and content," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2-3), pages 269-294, March.
  11. Kreps, David M, 1979. "A Representation Theorem for "Preference for Flexibility"," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 565-77, May.
  12. Sen, Amartya Kumar, 1970. "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal," Scholarly Articles 3612779, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  13. Sen, Amartya, 1991. "Welfare, preference and freedom," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 15-29, October.
  14. Bezalel Peleg, 1997. "Effectivity functions, game forms, games, and rights," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(1), pages 67-80.
  15. 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.
  16. Rajat Deb, 2004. "Rights as alternative game forms," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(1), pages 83-111, 02.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iep:wpidep:0503. 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: (Yves Doazan)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.