Individual judgments and social choice in Sen's idea of justice and democracy
The aim of this paper is to propose a conceptual reconstruction of Sen’s conception of individual judgments, through a back-and-forth analysis between his democratic theory of justice and social choice theory. Firstly, while this is never explicitly presented in Sen’s work, we highlight the importance of the three following elements in the characterization of judgments: position, objectivity and the sense of otherness. Once combined, these three conditions are necessary in order to characterize positional judgments, which, unlike individual preferences, are relevant for justice issues. Secondly, we identify two forces which, in Sen’s view, drive the evolution of such judgments: a widened informational basis and sentiments. This leads us to conclude that a relevant approach to communication, i.e., one which acknowledges the scope of positional judgments and the forces at the source of their evolution, is a third condition for a fruitful transformation of judgments. This last point constitutes, according to us, a missing element in Sen’s idea of justice.
|Date of creation:||May 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: 02 23 23 35 63
Fax: (33) 2 23 23 35 99
Web page: http://www.condorcet-center.fr
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Postal: CREM (UMR CNRS 6211) - Faculty of Economics, 7 place Hoche, 35065 Rennes Cedex - France|
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 K, 1977. "Social Choice Theory: A Re-examination," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(1), pages 53-89, January.
- Sen, Amartya K, 1973. "Behaviour and the Concept of Preference," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 40(159), pages 241-59, August.
- Rawls, John, 1974. "Some Reasons for the Maximin Criterion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(2), pages 141-46, May.
- Antoinette Baujard, 2009. "A return to Bentham's felicific calculus: From moral welfarism to technical non-welfarism," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 431-453.
- Perote-Pena, Juan & Piggins, Ashley, 2012. "A model of deliberative and aggregative democracy," MPRA Paper 48914, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Antoinette Baujard, 2010. "Collective interest versus individual interest in Bentham's felicific calculus. Questioning welfarism and fairness," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 607-634.
- Antoinette Baujard, 2013.
"Value judgments and economics expertise,"
- Muriel Gilardone, 2011.
"Rawls’ influence and counter-influence on Sen: post-welfarism and impartiality,"
Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes 1 & University of Caen)
201104, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes 1, University of Caen and CNRS.
- Muriel Gilardone, 2015. "Rawls's influence and counter-influence on Sen: Post-welfarism and impartiality," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 198-235, April.
- Prasanta Pattanaik, 2005. "Little and Bergson on Arrow's concept of social welfare," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 369-379, December.
- Muriel Gilardone, 2009. "Inégalités De Genre Et Approche Par Les Capabilités : Quelle Mise En Dialogue Chez Sen ?," Revue Tiers-Monde, Armand Colin, vol. 0(2), pages 357-371.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tut:cccrwp:2013-03-ccr. 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: (CODA-POIREY Hélène)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.