IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/poleco/v26y2010i3p392-402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new approach to procedural freedom in game forms

Author

Listed:
  • Ahlert, Marlies

Abstract

This paper presents a new framework for ranking procedures in terms of freedom of choice. The concept of game forms is used to model procedures as a structure of individuals' interactions. Sets of outcomes for an individual are represented by the individual's own perceptions of the social states that are generated by the interaction of all individuals. I condense the information given by a game form and by the perceptions of outcomes to two sets for each individual, first the set of perceived outcomes the individual can actively determine and secondly the set of perceived outcomes the individual can actively exclude from happening. Techniques that are known from the literature on ranking opportunity sets in terms of freedom of choice are applied to the pairs of determination and exclusion sets. I propose different rankings of game forms in terms of procedural freedom, some of which I characterize axiomatically. The model and the rankings are illustrated by classical examples from Game Theory and Social Choice Theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahlert, Marlies, 2010. "A new approach to procedural freedom in game forms," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 392-402, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:poleco:v:26:y:2010:i:3:p:392-402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176-2680(09)00092-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arlegi, R. & Dimitrov, D.A., 2004. "On Procedural Freedom of Choice," Other publications TiSEM 71c5ab1a-ffc8-42ea-81e1-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Gwartney, James & Lawson, Robert, 2003. "The concept and measurement of economic freedom," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 405-430, September.
    3. Martin van Hees, 1998. "On the Analysis of Negative Freedom," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 175-197, October.
    4. Heckelman, Jac C. & Stroup, Michael D., 2005. "A comparison of aggregation methods for measures of economic freedom," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 953-966, December.
    5. Marlies Ahlert & Arwed Crüger, 2004. "Freedom to veto," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(1), pages 7-16, February.
    6. Wulf Gaertner & Yongsheng Xu, 2004. "Procedural choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 24(2), pages 335-349, August.
    7. Marlies Ahlert, 2008. "Guarantees in Game Forms," Springer Books, in: Matthew Braham & Frank Steffen (ed.), Power, Freedom, and Voting, chapter 17, pages 325-341, Springer.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Carmignani, Fabrizio, 2009. "The distributive effects of institutional quality when government stability is endogenous," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 409-421, December.
    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. Rommeswinkel, Hendrik, 2011. "Measuring Freedom in Games," MPRA Paper 106426, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 03 Mar 2021.

    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. Rommeswinkel, Hendrik, 2011. "Measuring Freedom in Games," MPRA Paper 106426, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 03 Mar 2021.
    2. 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.
    3. Ernesto Screpanti, 2006. "Taxation, Social Goods And The Distribution Of Freedom," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 1-12, February.
    4. Antoinette Baujard, 2006. "Conceptions of freedom and ranking opportunity sets. A typology," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 200611, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    5. José Manuel Cabello & Francisco Ruiz & Blanca Pérez-Gladish, 2021. "An Alternative Aggregation Process for Composite Indexes: An Application to the Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 153(2), pages 443-467, January.
    6. Martin Hees, 2010. "The specific value of freedom," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(4), pages 687-703, October.
    7. Hatice KÜÇÜKKAYA, 2017. "EUREFE’17 International Conference," Turkish Economic Review, KSP Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 343-344, September.
    8. Compton, Ryan A. & Giedeman, Daniel C. & Hoover, Gary A., 2011. "Panel evidence on economic freedom and growth in the United States," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 423-435, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Prasanta K. Pattanaik, 2018. "Individual Freedom and Welfare Economics," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 16(1), pages 1-12, March.
    11. Xu, Yongsheng, 2003. "On ranking compact and comprehensive opportunity sets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 109-119, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Arlegi, R. & Dimitrov, D.A., 2004. "On Procedural Freedom of Choice," Discussion Paper 2004-9, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    14. Gekker, Ruvin & Piggins, Ashley, 2009. "Evaluating Opportunities When People are Uncertainty Averse," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 40(1), pages 109-116.
    15. Jakob De Haan & Susanna Lundström & Jan‐Egbert Sturm, 2006. "Market‐oriented institutions and policies and economic growth: A critical survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 157-191, April.
    16. James E. Foster, 2010. "Freedom, Opportunity and Wellbeing," Working Papers 2010-15, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    17. Jun Matsuyama & Kenji Mori, 2010. "Freedom and achievement of well-being in the adaptive dynamics of capabilities," TERG Discussion Papers 252, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University.
    18. D'Agata, Antonio, 2009. "Measures of freedom," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 209-214, January.
    19. Keith Dowding, 2011. "Republican freedom, rights, and the coalition problem," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 10(3), pages 301-322, August.
    20. Sebastian Bervoets, 2010. "An axiomatic approach to predictability of outcomes in an interactive setting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 311-323, March.

    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:eee:poleco:v:26:y:2010:i:3:p:392-402. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505544 .

    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.