IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2502.04989.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Social Choice Rules with Responsibility for Individual Skills

Author

Listed:
  • Kensei Nakamura

Abstract

This paper examines normatively acceptable criteria for evaluating social states when individuals are responsible for their skills or productivity and these factors should be accounted for. We consider social choice rules over sets of feasible utility vectors \`a la Nash's (1950) bargaining problem. First, we identify necessary and sufficient conditions for choice rules to be rationalized by welfare orderings or functions over ability-normalized utility vectors. These general results provide a foundation for exploring novel choice rules with the normalization and providing their axiomatic foundations. By adding natural axioms, we propose and axiomatize a new class of choice rules, which can be viewed as combinations of three key principles: distribution according to individuals' abilities, utilitarianism, and egalitarianism. Furthermore, we show that at the axiomatic level, this class of choice rules is closely related to the classical bargaining solution introduced by Kalai and Smorodinsky (1975).

Suggested Citation

  • Kensei Nakamura, 2025. "Social Choice Rules with Responsibility for Individual Skills," Papers 2502.04989, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2025.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2502.04989
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.04989
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Kaname Miyagishima, 2010. "A characterization of the maximin social ordering," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(2), pages 1278-1282.
    3. Walter Bossert & Kohei Kamaga, 2020. "An axiomatization of the mixed utilitarian–maximin social welfare orderings," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(2), pages 451-473, March.
    4. Uzi Segal, 2000. "Let's Agree That All Dictatorships Are Equally Bad," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(3), pages 569-589, June.
    5. Xu, Yongsheng & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2006. "Alternative characterizations of three bargaining solutions for nonconvex problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 86-92, October.
    6. Eric Maskin, 1978. "A Theorem on Utilitarianism," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 45(1), pages 93-96.
    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. Mark Schneider & Byung‐Cheol Kim, 2020. "The utilitarian–maximin social welfare function and anomalies in social choice," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 87(2), pages 629-646, October.
    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. Segal, Uzi & Sobel, Joel, 2002. "Min, Max, and Sum," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 126-150, September.
    4. Gaertner, Wulf & Xu, Yongsheng, 2012. "A general scoring rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 193-196.
    5. 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.
    6. St'ephane Gonzalez & Nikolaos Pnevmatikos, 2023. "A Story of Consistency: Bridging the Gap between Bentham and Rawls Foundations," Papers 2303.07488, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    7. Pivato, Marcus, 2007. "A non-monetary form of Clarke pivotal voting," MPRA Paper 3964, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Walter Bossert & Kohei Kamaga, 2020. "An axiomatization of the mixed utilitarian–maximin social welfare orderings," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(2), pages 451-473, March.
    9. Sakamoto, Norihito, 2020. "Equity Principles and Interpersonal Comparison of Well-being: Old and New Joint Characterizations of Generalized Leximin, Rank-dependent Utilitarian, and Leximin Rules," RCNE Discussion Paper Series 7, Research Center for Normative Economics, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    10. Kensei Nakamura, 2025. "Impartial utilitarianism on infinite utility streams," Papers 2502.04934, arXiv.org.
    11. Tilman Börgers & Yan-Min Choo, 2017. "Revealed Relative Utilitarianism," CESifo Working Paper Series 6613, CESifo.
    12. Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2017. "A Fairness Justification of Utilitarianism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1261-1276, July.
    13. James Boudreau & Vicki Knoblauch, 2013. "Preferences and the price of stability in matching markets," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 565-589, April.
    14. Blackorby, Charles & Bossert, Walter, 2004. "Interpersonal comparisons of well-being," Economic Research Papers 269605, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    15. Juan Moreno-Ternero & John E. Roemer, 2004. "Impartiality and Priority. Part 1: The Veil of Ignorance," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1477A, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised May 2005.
    16. Attila Ambrus & Kareen Rozen, 2015. "Rationalising Choice with Multi‐self Models," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(585), pages 1136-1156, June.
    17. Simon Grant & Atsushi Kajii & Ben Polak, 2003. "Accidents of Birth, Life Chances and the Impartial Observer," ISER Discussion Paper 0582, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.
    18. Giraud, Gaël & Renouard, Cécile, 2011. "Is the Veil of Ignorance Transparent?," OEconomia, Editions NecPlus, vol. 2011(02), pages 239-258, June.
    19. David H. Wolpert & James Bono, 2010. "A theory of unstructured bargaining using distribution-valued solution concepts," Working Papers 2010-14, American University, Department of Economics.
    20. Kristof Bosmans & Erwin Ooghe, 2013. "A characterization of maximin," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 1(2), pages 151-156, November.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2502.04989. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.