IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eko/ekoeko/45_105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Theories of well-being and interpersonal comparability

Author

Listed:
  • Tomasz Kwarciński

Abstract

The interpersonal utility comparisons (IUC) appear to be intuitively possible and practically requisite to carry out public policy and theoretically indispensible if we want to avoid difficulties regarding Arrow’s impossibility theorem. Although economists are usually skeptical of the possibility and meaningfulness of such comparisons, because of above mentioned practical and theoretical requirements they tried to build a “bridge” between subjective utility or well-being of different people. This “bridge” constitutes personal preferences the fulfillments of which determine the level of subjective well-being. There is another, less exposed, objective approach to overcoming the IUC problem. It is an effort to justify some external comparability criterion to the personal mental states. The aim of my paper is an attempt to argue for an objective account of well-being. There are following steps of the argumentation: (1) the analysis of the reasons why economists tend to choose preference-based theory of well-being, (2) the indication of the weaknesses of this approach to well-being, (3) the discussion of some doubts regarding objective list theory of well-being, (4) the suggestion of the hybrid version of well-being which contains the objective standards useful to carry out interpersonal comparison. All of these steps will be complemented by some remarks devoted to the issue of categorization of the well-being theories.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomasz Kwarciński, 2016. "Theories of well-being and interpersonal comparability," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 45.
    • Handle: RePEc:eko:ekoeko:45_105
    DOI: 10.17451/eko/45/2016/185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ekonomia.wne.uw.edu.pl/ekonomia/getFile/788
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17451/eko/45/2016/185?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hausman,Daniel M., 2012. "Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107695122, January.
    2. Hausman,Daniel M., 2012. "Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107015432, January.
    3. Martha Nussbaum, 2003. "Capabilities As Fundamental Entitlements: Sen And Social Justice," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2-3), pages 33-59.
    4. Fletcher, Guy, 2013. "A Fresh Start for the Objective-List Theory of Well-Being," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 206-220, June.
    5. William Vickrey, 1960. "Utility, Strategy, and Social Decision Rules," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 74(4), pages 507-535.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hausman, Catherine & Stolper, Samuel, 2021. "Inequality, information failures, and air pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    2. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    3. Cheng Li, 2019. "Morality and value neutrality in economics: a dualist view," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 97-118, May.
    4. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    5. Roberto Fumagalli, 2016. "Decision sciences and the new case for paternalism: three welfare-related justificatory challenges," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 459-480, August.
    6. Gerardo Infante & Guilhem Lecouteux & Robert Sugden, 2016. "Preference purification and the inner rational agent: a critique of the conventional wisdom of behavioural welfare economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 1-25, March.
    7. Moscati, Ivan, 2021. "On the recent philosophy of decision theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115039, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Antoinette Baujard, 2022. "Ethics and Technique in Welfare Economics: How Welfarism Evolves in the Making," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 73(6), pages 1039-1053.
    9. D Wade Hands, 2013. "GP08 is the New F53: Gul and Pesendorfer’s Methodological Essay from the Viewpoint of Blaug’s Popperian Methodology," Chapters, in: Marcel Boumans & Matthias Klaes (ed.), Mark Blaug: Rebel with Many Causes, chapter 17, pages 245-266, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Marek Jenöffy, 2023. "A Seesaw Model of Choices," Working Papers hal-04136550, HAL.
    11. Guilhem Lecouteux & Ivan Mitrouchev, 2022. "Preference Purification in Behavioural Welfare Economics: an Impossibility Result," GREDEG Working Papers 2022-31, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    12. Koen Decancq & Dirk Neumann, 2014. "Does the Choice of Well-Being Measure Matter Empirically?: An Illustration with German Data," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 717, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    13. Daniel J. Benjamin & Kristen Cooper & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball, 2023. "From Happiness Data to Economic Conclusions," NBER Working Papers 31727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Fumagalli, Roberto, 2021. "Rationality, preference satisfaction and anomalous intentions: why rational choice theory is not self-defeating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112446, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Lauren Larrouy & Guilhem Lecouteux, 2017. "Mindreading and endogenous beliefs in games," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 318-343, July.
    16. Mozaffar Qizilbash, 2019. "The market, utilitarianism and the corruption argument," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 66(1), pages 37-55, March.
    17. Mattauch, Linus & Hepburn, Cameron, 2016. "Climate policy when preferences are endogenous – and sometimes they are," INET Oxford Working Papers 2016-04, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    18. Maniquet, François & Neumann, Dirk, 2016. "Well-Being, Poverty and Labor Income Taxation: Theory and Application to Europe and the U.S," IZA Discussion Papers 10181, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Dorian Jullien & Nicolas Vallois, 2014. "A probabilistic ghost in the experimental machine," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 232-250, September.
    20. S³awomir Czech, 2016. "Choice Overload Paradox And Public Policy Design. The Case Of Swedish Pension System," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 11(3), pages 559-584, September.

    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:eko:ekoeko:45_105. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fesuwpl.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.