IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v111y2003i6p1382-1386.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Any Non-welfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle: A Comment

Author

Listed:
  • Marc Fleurbaey
  • Bertil Tungodden
  • Howard F. Chang

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Marc Fleurbaey & Bertil Tungodden & Howard F. Chang, 2003. "Any Non-welfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle: A Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(6), pages 1382-1386, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jpolec:v:111:y:2003:i:6:p:1382-1386
    DOI: 10.1086/378533
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/378533
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/378533?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
    ---><---

    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. Gibbard, Allan, 1974. "A Pareto-consistent libertarian claim," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 388-410, April.
    2. Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, 2001. "Any Non-welfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(2), pages 281-286, April.
    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. Kristof Bosmans & Z. Emel Öztürk, 2022. "Laissez-faire versus Pareto," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(4), pages 741-751, May.
    2. Eric Langlais, 2009. "On the Ambiguous Effects of Repression," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 93-94, pages 327-348.
    3. Susumu Cato, 2014. "Common preference, non-consequential features, and collective decision making," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 265-287, December.
    4. Mariotti, Marco & Veneziani, Roberto, 2013. "On the impossibility of complete Non-Interference in Paretian social judgements," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1689-1699.
    5. Éric Langlais & Marie Obidzinski, 2015. "The Structure of Fines in the Light of Political Competition," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 125(5), pages 717-729.
    6. John A. Weymark, 2017. "Conundrums for nonconsequentialists," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 269-294, February.
    7. Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, 2004. "Any Non-welfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle: Reply," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(1), pages 249-278, February.
    8. Cato, Susumu, 2023. "When is weak Pareto equivalent to strong Pareto?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    9. Bertil Tungodden, 2004. "Some Reflections on the Role of Moral Reasoning in Economics," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 30, pages 49-59.
    10. Pertti Haaparanta & Ravi Kanbur & Tuuli Paukkeri & Jukka Pirttilä & Matti Tuomala, 2022. "Promoting education under distortionary taxation: equality of opportunity versus welfarism," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 20(2), pages 281-297, June.
    11. Kristof Bosmans & Z. Emel Ozt ̈urk, 2015. "Laissez-faire versus Pareto," Working Papers 2015_21, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    12. Éric Langlais, 2010. "Les criminels aiment-ils le risque ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 61(2), pages 263-280.
    13. Mariotti, Marco & Veneziani, Roberto, 2012. "Allocating chances of success in finite and infinite societies: The utilitarian criterion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 226-236.
    14. Itai Sher, 2021. "Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights Imply Inconsistent Comparisons of Tax Policies," Working Papers 2021-009, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    15. Woo, Wai Chiu, 2018. "Kaplow–Shavell welfarism without continuity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 92-96.
    16. Clément, Valérie & Moureau, Nathalie & Vidal, Marion, 2009. "À la recherche des biens sous tutelle," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 85(4), pages 383-401, décembre.
    17. Itai Sher, 2021. "Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights Imply Inconsistent Comparisons of Tax Policies," Papers 2102.07702, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    18. Nikolai Hoberg & Stefan Baumgärtner, 2014. "Value pluralism, trade-offs and efficiencies," Working Paper Series in Economics 311, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    19. Yang, Binxin & Wu, Guangdong, 2023. "Multi-criteria analysis of cross-regional railways interconnection under the post COVID-19 pandemic crisis: A hybrid BWM-FAISM-DFS evaluation framework," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).

    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. Kristof Bosmans & Z. Emel Öztürk, 2022. "Laissez-faire versus Pareto," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(4), pages 741-751, May.
    2. da Costa, Carlos E. & Pereira, Thiago, 2014. "On the efficiency of equal sacrifice income tax schedules," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 399-418.
    3. Mariotti, Marco & Veneziani, Roberto, 2013. "On the impossibility of complete Non-Interference in Paretian social judgements," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1689-1699.
    4. Vipul Bhatt & Masao Ogaki & Yuichi Yaguchi, 2017. "Introducing Virtue Ethics into Normative Economics for Models with Endogenous Preferences," RCER Working Papers 600, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    5. Matthew C. Weinzierl, 2016. "A Welfarist Role for Nonwelfarist Rules: An example with envy," Harvard Business School Working Papers 17-021, Harvard Business School, revised Jul 2017.
    6. Christian Seidl, 1990. "On the impossibility of a generalization of the libertarian resolution of the liberal paradox," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 71-88, February.
    7. Kaplow Louis & Moyer Elisabeth & Weisbach David A, 2010. "The Social Evaluation of Intergenerational Policies and Its Application to Integrated Assessment Models of Climate Change," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-34, November.
    8. Henrik Jordahl & Luca Micheletto, 2005. "Optimal Utilitarian Taxation and Horizontal Equity," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 7(4), pages 681-708, October.
    9. John A. Weymark, 2017. "Conundrums for nonconsequentialists," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 269-294, February.
    10. Roy Gardner, 1980. "The strategic inconsistency of Paretian liberalism," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 241-252, January.
    11. Alessandro Morselli, 2021. "Individual decisions and collective choices in the history of economic thought," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 3, pages 77-96,97-11.
    12. Koen Decancq & Marc Fleurbaey & Erik Schokkaert, 2015. "Happiness, Equivalent Incomes and Respect for Individual Preferences," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 82, pages 1082-1106, December.
    13. Bezalel Peleg & Ron Holzman, 2017. "Representations of Political Power Structures by Strategically Stable Game Forms: A Survey," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, October.
    14. Erlend Bø & Peter Lambert & Thor Thoresen, 2012. "Horizontal inequity under a dual income tax system: principles and measurement," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 19(5), pages 625-640, October.
    15. Björn Bartling & Alexander W. Cappelen & Henning Hermes & Marit Skivenes & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "Free to fail? Paternalistic preferences in the United States," ECON - Working Papers 436, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    16. Roy Gardner, 1983. "Variation of the electorate: Veto and purge," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 237-247, January.
    17. Éric Langlais & Marie Obidzinski, 2015. "The Structure of Fines in the Light of Political Competition," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 125(5), pages 717-729.
    18. Mariotti, Marco & Veneziani, Roberto, 2014. "The Liberal Ethics of Non-Interference and the Pareto Principle," SIRE Discussion Papers 2014-016, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    19. Louis Kaplow, 2020. "A Unified Perspective on Efficiency, Redistribution, and Public Policy," NBER Working Papers 26683, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Ben McQuillin & Robert Sugden, 2011. "The representation of alienable and inalienable rights: games in transition function form," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(4), pages 683-706, October.

    More about this item

    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:ucp:jpolec:v:111:y:2003:i:6:p:1382-1386. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE .

    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.