IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kud/kuiedp/0222.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preference for Flexibility and the Opportunities of Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Salvador Barberà

    (Universitat Autonoma De Barcelona)

  • Birgit Grodal

    (Institute of Economics, University of Copenhagen)

Abstract

A decision-maker exhibits preference for flexibility if he always prefers any set of alternatives to its subsets, even when two of them contain the same best element. Desire for flexibility can be explained as the consequence of the agent’s uncertainty along a two-stage process, where he must first preselect a subset of alternatives from which to make a final choice later on. We investigate conditions on the rankings of subsets that are compatible with the following assumptions: (1) the agent is endowed with a VN-M utility function on alternatives, (2) the agent attaches a subjective probability to the survival of each subset of alternatives, and (3) the agent will make a best choice out of any set which becomes available, and ranks sets ex-ante in terms of the expected utility of the best choices within them. We first prove that any total ordering respecting set inclusion is rationalizable in these terms. This result is essentially the same obtained by Kreps (1979) under an alternative interpretation. We also show that we cannot learn anything about the underlying utilities of agents unless we impose further restrictions on the admissible distributions of survival probabilities. Then we investigate the additional consequences of assuming that the survival probabilities of individual alternatives are independently distributed. We prove that this reduces significantly the class of set rankings which can be rationalized and that then one can infer some of the characteristics of the agent’s preferences. We offer a full characterization for the case of three alternatives. We also provide necessary conditions for rationalizability in the general case.

Suggested Citation

  • Salvador Barberà & Birgit Grodal, 2002. "Preference for Flexibility and the Opportunities of Choice," Discussion Papers 02-22, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:kud:kuiedp:0222
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.ku.dk/english/research/publications/wp/2002/0222.pdf/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prasanta K. PATTANAIK & Yongsheng XU, 1990. "On Ranking Opportunity Sets in Terms of Freedom of Choice," Discussion Papers (REL - Recherches Economiques de Louvain) 1990036, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    2. Sen, Amartya, 1988. "Freedom of choice : Concept and content," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2-3), pages 269-294, March.
    3. Sen, Amartya, 1991. "Welfare, preference and freedom," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 15-29, October.
    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. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2013. "Imperfect Attention and Menu Evaluations," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-98, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    2. Matias D. Cattaneo & Xinwei Ma & Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Elchin Suleymanov, 2020. "A Random Attention Model," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(7), pages 2796-2836.
    3. Marco Casari, 2009. "Pre-commitment and flexibility in a time decision experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 117-141, April.
    4. Larry G. Epstein, 2006. "An Axiomatic Model of Non-Bayesian Updating," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(2), pages 413-436.
    5. 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.
    6. Matthew Ryan, 2014. "Belief functions and preference for flexibility," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 34(1), pages 581-588.

    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. 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.
    2. Martin van Hees, 1998. "On the Analysis of Negative Freedom," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 175-197, October.
    3. Martin Van Hees, 2003. "Acting Autonomously Versus not Acting Heteronomously," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 337-355, June.
    4. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Miguel Ballester & Jorge Nieto, 2012. "Freedom of choice: John Stuart Mill and the tree of life," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 209-226, March.
    5. Serge-Christophe Kolm, 2003. "Macrojustice : distribution, impôts et transferts optimaux," IDEP Working Papers 0305, Institut d'economie publique (IDEP), Marseille, France.
    6. Sebastian Bervoets, 2007. "Freedom of choice in a social context: comparing game forms," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(2), pages 295-315, September.
    7. Nicolas Gravel & Benoît Tarroux, 2011. "Freedom-Based Measurement of Living Standard," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 101-102, pages 37-69.
    8. Sebastiano Bavetta & Marco Del Seta, 2001. "Constraints and the Measurement of Freedom of Choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 213-238, May.
    9. Gekker, Ruvin & van Hees, Martin, 2006. "Freedom, opportunity and uncertainty: A logical approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 246-263, September.
    10. Walter Bossert, 1998. "Opportunity Sets and the Measurement of Information," Discussion Papers 98/6, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    11. James E. Foster, 2010. "Freedom, Opportunity and Wellbeing," Working Papers 2010-15, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    12. Ok, Efe A., 1997. "On Opportunity Inequality Measurement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 300-329, December.
    13. Iwata, Yukinori, 2007. "A variant of non-consequentialism and its characterization," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 284-295, May.
    14. Sebastiano Bavetta & Francesco Guala, 2003. "Autonomy-Freedom and Deliberation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(4), pages 423-443, October.
    15. Bossert, Walter, 2000. "Opportunity sets and uncertain consequences1," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 475-496, May.
    16. AR. Arlegi & AR. M. Besada & J. Nieto & AR. C. Vázquez, 2006. "Freedom of Choice: The Leximax Criterion in the Infinite Case," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 0608, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
    17. Ritxar Arlegi & Manuel Besada & Jorge Nieto & Carmen Vázquez, 2000. "Freedom of choice: the leximax criterion in economic environments," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 0009, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
    18. Arlegi, R. & Besada, M. & Nieto, J. & Vazquez, C., 2005. "Freedom of choice: the leximax criterion in the infinite case," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Arlegi, Ritxar & Dimitrov, Dinko, 2016. "Power set extensions of dichotomous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 20-29.
    20. Ricardo Arlegi, 1998. "Incomplete Preferences and The Preference for Flexibility," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 9819, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:kud:kuiedp:0222. 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: Thomas Hoffmann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/okokudk.html .

    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.