IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v12y2000i2p205-227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Measuring Freedom

Author

Listed:
  • Eckehard F. Rosenbaum

Abstract

This article proposes an alternative conceptualization of freedom of choice. The endeavour is motivated by the view that welfare comprises various capabilities (prominently among them freedom), which have to be measured and compared separately. Starting from a critical appraisal of recent work by economists and political philosophers on axiomatizations of freedom, the suggested conceptualization builds on the idea of freedom as reflecting the range of possible actions open to an individual. I argue both that this conceptualization is better suited to capturing many real world examples than are previous conceptualizations, and that it improves our understanding of the notion of freedom (of choice).

Suggested Citation

  • Eckehard F. Rosenbaum, 2000. "On Measuring Freedom," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 205-227, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:12:y:2000:i:2:p:205-227
    DOI: 10.1177/0951692800012002004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692800012002004
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951692800012002004?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. Lindbeck, Assar, 1988. "Individual freedom and welfare state policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2-3), pages 295-318, March.
    2. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    3. 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).
    4. Carter, Ian, 1995. "Interpersonal Comparisons of Freedom," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, April.
    5. Kreps, David M, 1979. "A Representation Theorem for "Preference for Flexibility"," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 565-577, May.
    6. 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. Jun Matsuyama & Kenji Mori, 2011. "Freedom And Achievement Of Well‐Being And Adaptive Dynamics Of Capabilities," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 494-511, July.
    2. Ronen Shnayderman, 2016. "Ian Carter’s non-evaluative theory of freedom and diversity: a critique," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 39-55, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Matthew H. Kramer, 2003. "On Being Free without having any Choices," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(4), pages 445-471, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Johan Gustafsson, 2010. "Freedom of choice and expected compromise," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(1), pages 65-79, June.
    7. Rommeswinkel, Hendrik, 2011. "Measuring Freedom in Games," MPRA Paper 106426, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 03 Mar 2021.
    8. 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.
    9. Ricardo Arlegi, 2005. "Freedom Of Choice And Conflict Resolution," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 0502, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.

    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. Xu, Yongsheng, 2003. "On ranking compact and comprehensive opportunity sets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 109-119, April.
    2. Prasanta Pattanaik & Yongsheng Xu, 1998. "On Preference and Freedom," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 173-198, April.
    3. Wulf Gaertner, 2012. "Evaluating sets of objects in characteristics space," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 303-321, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Pattanaik, Prasanta K. & Xu, Yongsheng, 2000. "On Ranking Opportunity Sets in Economic Environments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 48-71, July.
    6. Serge-Christophe Kolm, 2003. "Macrojustice : distribution, impôts et transferts optimaux," IDEP Working Papers 0305, Institut d'economie publique (IDEP), Marseille, France.
    7. 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.
    8. Walter Bossert, 1998. "Opportunity Sets and the Measurement of Information," Discussion Papers 98/6, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    9. 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.
    10. Pattanaik, Prasanta K. & Xu, Yongsheng, 2000. "On diversity and freedom of choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 123-130, September.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Wulf Gaertner & Yongsheng Xu, 2011. "Reference-dependent rankings of sets in characteristics space," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(4), pages 717-728, October.
    15. James E. Foster, 2010. "Freedom, Opportunity and Wellbeing," Working Papers 2010-15, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    16. Somdeb Lahiri, 2018. "Indirect Utility Reflecting Anxiety and Flexibility of Choice," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 14(1), pages 33-50, February.
    17. Bossert, Walter, 2000. "Opportunity sets and uncertain consequences1," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 475-496, May.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:sae:jothpo:v:12:y:2000:i:2:p:205-227. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.