IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxivy2021i2p207-226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Dichotomy of Procedural and Distributive Justice in the Theory of Social Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Iana Okhrimenko

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the article is to provide critical analysis regarding the application of distributive justice in the theory of social choice. Design/Methodology/Approach: The research combines the elements of critical analysis and synthesis utilizing a rich scope of inter-disciplinary evidence. Findings: Distributive justice serves as the dominant concept in economics, at the same time being hardly competitive with the principles of social sustainability. Practical Implications: Social choice framework should incorporate "justice of procedure", relying more on the fairness of processes governing social resources distribution. Originality/Value: The proposed paper re-discovers and examines the application of procedural justice in the field of social choice, while distributive justice remains the dominant principle in economics.

Suggested Citation

  • Iana Okhrimenko, 2021. "The Dichotomy of Procedural and Distributive Justice in the Theory of Social Choice," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 207-226.
    • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:2:p:207-226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ersj.eu/journal/2122/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc Fleurbaey & Peter Hammond, 2004. "Interpersonally comparable utility," Post-Print hal-00247066, HAL.
    2. Stark, Oded & Jakubek, Marcin & Falniowski, Fryderyk, 2014. "Reconciling the Rawlsian and the utilitarian approaches to the maximization of social welfare," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 439-444.
    3. Petersen, H.-G., 1998. "Redistribution and the Efficiency/Justice Trade-Off," Athens University of Economics and Business 92, Athens University of Economics and Business, Department of International and European Economic Studies.
    4. Charles Blackorby, 1990. "Economic Policy in a Second-Best Environment," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 23(4), pages 748-771, November.
    5. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    6. John C. Harsanyi, 1953. "Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-taking," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(5), pages 434-434.
    7. Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, December.
    8. Hans Georg Petersen, 2004. "Redistribution and the Efficiency," STUDI ECONOMICI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2004(82).
    9. Stark, Oded & Jakubek, Marcin & Falniowski, Fryderyk, 2014. "Corrigendum to "Reconciling the Rawlsian and the utilitarian approaches to the maximization of social welfare, [Economics Letters 122 (2014) 439–444]"," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 160-161.
    10. Olof Johansson-Stenman, 1998. "On the problematic link between fundamental ethics and economic policy recommendations," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 263-297.
    11. Vernon L. Smith, 2003. "Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 465-508, June.
    12. Kaneko, Mamoru & Nakamura, Kenjiro, 1979. "The Nash Social Welfare Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 423-435, March.
    13. Kenneth J. Arrow, 1997. "The Functions of Social Choice Theory," International Economic Association Series, in: Kenneth J. Arrow & Amartya Sen & Kotaro Suzumura (ed.), Social Choice Re-examined, chapter 1, pages 3-9, Palgrave Macmillan.
    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. Yew‐Kwang Ng, 1981. "Bentham or Nash? On the Acceptable Form of Social Welfare Functions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 57(3), pages 238-250, September.
    2. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    3. Nikhil Garg & Ashish Goel & Benjamin Plaut, 2021. "Markets for public decision-making," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 755-801, May.
    4. Waśniewski, Krzysztof, 2012. "Local governments’ fiscal policy as a factor of urban development – evidence from Poland," MPRA Paper 39176, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. John A. Weymark, 2011. "On Kolm’s Use of Epistemic Counterfactuals in Social Choice Theory," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Marc Fleurbaey & Maurice Salles & John A. Weymark (ed.), Social Ethics and Normative Economics, pages 279-301, Springer.
    6. Sprumont, Yves, 2018. "Belief-weighted Nash aggregation of Savage preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 222-245.
    7. Moti Michaeli, 2021. "On Measuring Welfare ‘Behind a Veil of Ignorance’," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(1), pages 57-66, January.
    8. Pivato, Marcus, 2009. "Social choice with approximate interpersonal comparisons of well-being," MPRA Paper 17060, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Naumova, Natalia & Yanovskaya, Elena, 2001. "Nash social welfare orderings," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 203-231, November.
    10. Songtao Wang & Bin Li & Tristan Kenderdine, 2019. "Towards a Utilitarian Social Welfare Function¡ªIncome Inequality and National Welfare Growth in China," Research in World Economy, Research in World Economy, Sciedu Press, vol. 10(3), pages 344-358, December.
    11. Edi Karni & Zvi Safra, 2003. "Moral Sentiments and Social Choice: Fairness Considerations in University Admissions," Economics Working Paper Archive 492, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics.
    12. Marcus Pivato, 2009. "Twofold optimality of the relative utilitarian bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(1), pages 79-92, January.
    13. Kato, Hironori & Matsumoto, Manabu, 2009. "Intra-household interaction in a nuclear family: A utility-maximizing approach," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 191-203, February.
    14. Thomas Saaty & Luis Vargas, 2012. "The possibility of group choice: pairwise comparisons and merging functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(3), pages 481-496, March.
    15. d'Aspremont, Claude & Gevers, Louis, 2002. "Social welfare functionals and interpersonal comparability," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 10, pages 459-541, Elsevier.
    16. Hans Peters & Dries Vermeulen, 2012. "WPO, COV and IIA bargaining solutions for non-convex bargaining problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(4), pages 851-884, November.
    17. Ashish Goel & Reyna Hulett & Benjamin Plaut, 2018. "Markets Beyond Nash Welfare for Leontief Utilities," Papers 1807.05293, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2019.
    18. Krzysztof Waśniewski, 2015. "Discretionary freedom of choice and risk in alternative capital markets," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 573-605, June.
    19. Stefano Fiori, 2006. "The emergence of institutions in Hayek’s theory: two views or one?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 49-61, March.
    20. Abigail N. Devereaux, 2019. "The nudge wars: A modern socialist calculation debate," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 32(2), pages 139-158, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social choice; procedural justice; distributive justice.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B15 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought through 1925 - - - Historical; Institutional; Evolutionary
    • D30 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - General

    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:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:2:p:207-226. 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: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    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.