Book contents
- Prioritarianism in Practice
- Prioritarianism in Practice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- List of Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Theory of Prioritarianism
- 3 Well-Being Measurement
- 4 Prioritarianism and Optimal Taxation
- 5 Prioritarianism and Measuring Social Progress
- 6 Prioritarianism and Health Policy
- 7 Prioritarianism and Fatality Risk Regulation
- 8 Prioritarianism and Climate Change
- 9 Prioritarianism and Education
- 10 Empirical Research on Ethical Preferences: How Popular is Prioritarianism?
- 11 Prioritarianism and Equality of Opportunity
- 12 Prioritarianism and the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Index
- References
1 - Introduction
Prioritarianism in Practice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 June 2022
Book contents
- Prioritarianism in Practice
- Prioritarianism in Practice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- List of Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Theory of Prioritarianism
- 3 Well-Being Measurement
- 4 Prioritarianism and Optimal Taxation
- 5 Prioritarianism and Measuring Social Progress
- 6 Prioritarianism and Health Policy
- 7 Prioritarianism and Fatality Risk Regulation
- 8 Prioritarianism and Climate Change
- 9 Prioritarianism and Education
- 10 Empirical Research on Ethical Preferences: How Popular is Prioritarianism?
- 11 Prioritarianism and Equality of Opportunity
- 12 Prioritarianism and the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Index
- References
Summary
Prioritarianism is a framework for ethical assessment that gives extra weight to the worse off. Unlike utilitarianism, which simply adds up well-being numbers, prioritarianism is sensitive to the distribution of well-being across the population of ethical concern. Prioritarianism in Practice examines the use of prioritarianism as a policy-evaluation methodology – across a range of policy domains, including taxation, health policy, risk regulation, climate change, education, and responses to the COVID-19 pandemic –and as an indicator of a society’s condition (as contrasted with GDP). This chapter is an introductory chapter to the Prioritarianism in Practice volume.It surveys the intellectual roots of prioritarianism: in the philosophical literature, in welfare economics, and in scholarship about public health. And it provides brief summaries of each of the volume’s chapters.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Prioritarianism in Practice , pp. 1 - 36Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Adler, M.D. (2012). Well-Being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adler, M.D. (2019). Measuring Social Welfare: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adler, M.D., Ferranna, M., Hammitt, J.K., and Treich, N. (2021). “Fair innings? The utilitarian and prioritarian value of risk reduction over a whole lifetime.” Journal of Health Economics, 75: 102412.Google Scholar
Adler, M.D., Hammitt, J.K., and Treich, N. (2014). “The social value of mortality risk reduction: VSL versus the social welfare function approach.” Journal of Health Economics, 35: 82–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adler, M.D., and Holtug, N. (2019). “Prioritarianism: A response to critics.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 18: 101–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anand, S., Diderichsen, F., Evans, T., Shkolnikov, V.M., and Wirth, M. (2001). “Measuring disparities in health: methods and indicators.” In Evans, T., Whitehead, M., Diderichsen, F., Bhuiya, A., and Wirth, M., eds., Challenging Inequities in Health: From Ethics to Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–67.Google Scholar
Asaria, M., Griffin, S., and Cookson, R. (2016). “Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: A tutorial.” Medical Decision Making, 36: 8–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asaria, M., Griffin, S., Cookson, R., Whyte, S., and Tappenden, P. (2015). “Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of health care programmes—a methodological case study of the UK bowel cancer screening programme.” Health Economics, 24: 742–754.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A.B. (1970). “On the measurement of inequality.” Journal of Economic Theory, 2: 244–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergson, A. (1938). “A reformulation of certain aspects of welfare economics.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 52: 310–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackorby, C., Bossert, W. and Donaldson, D. (2002). “Utilitarianism and the theory of justice.” In Arrow, K.J., Sen, A.K., and Suzumura, K., eds., Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 543–596.Google Scholar
Blackorby, C., Bossert, W. and Donaldson, D. (2005). Population Issues in Social Choice Theory, Welfare Economics, and Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bleichrodt, H., Diecidue, E., and Quiggin, J. (2004). “Equity weights in the allocation of health care: The rank-dependent QALY model.” Journal of Health Economics, 23: 157–171.Google Scholar
Bossert, W., and Weymark, J.A. (2004). “Utility in social choice.” In Barberà, S., Hammond, P.J., and Seidl, C., eds., Handbook of Utility Theory, vol. 2 (Extensions). Boston: Kluwer Academic, pp. 1099–1177.Google Scholar
Brandt, R.B. (1979). A Theory of the Good and the Right. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broome, J. (1991). Weighing Goods: Equality, Uncertainty, and Time. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Broome, J. (2015). “Equality versus priority: A useful distinction.” Economics and Philosophy, 31: 219–228.Google Scholar
Cookson, R., Griffin, S., Norheim, O.F., and Culyer, A.J., eds. (2021). Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Quantifying Health Equity Impacts and Trade-Offs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
d’Aspremont, C., and Gevers, L. (2002). “Social welfare functionals and interpersonal comparability.” In Arrow, K.J., Sen, A.K. and Suzumura, K., eds., Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 459–541.Google Scholar
Dolan, P., Shaw, R., Tsuchiya, A., and Williams, A. (2005). “QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: A methodological review of the literature.” Health Economics, 14: 197–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, M.F., Stoddart, G.L., and Torrance, G.W. (1987). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eggleston, B., and Miller, D.E., eds. (2014). The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F.H.G., and Peragine, V. (2016). “Individual responsibility and equality of opportunity.” In Adler, M.D. and Fleurbaey, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 746–784.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., Luchini, S., Muller, C., and Schokkaert, E. (2013). “Equivalent income and fair evaluation of health care.” Health Economics, 22: 711–729.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., and Schokkaert, E. (2009). “Unfair inequalities in health and health care.” Journal of Health Economics, 28: 73–90.Google Scholar
Goodin, R.E. (1995). Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J.C. (1977). Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hernæs, U.J.V., Johansson, K.A., Ottersen, T., and Norheim, O.F. (2017). “Distribution-weighted cost-effectiveness analysis using lifetime health loss.” PharmacoEconomics, 35: 965–974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holtug, N. (2017). “Prioritarianism.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.232.Google Scholar
Johansson, K.A., and Norheim, O.F. (2011). “Problems with prioritization: Exploring ethical solutions to inequalities in HIV care.” American Journal of Bioethics, 11: 32–40.Google Scholar
Johri, M., and Norheim, O.F. (2012). “Can cost-effectiveness analysis integrate concerns for equity? Systematic review.” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 28: 125–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolm, S.-C. (1969). “The optimal production of social justice.” In Margolis, J. and Guitton, H., eds., Public Economics. London: Macmillan, pp. 145–200.Google Scholar
Lambert, P.J. (2001). The Distribution and Redistribution of Income, 3rd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D. (2008). “Utilitarianism and prioritarianism II.” Economics and Philosophy, 24: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirrlees, J.A. (1971). “An exploration in the theory of optimum income taxation.” Review of Economic Studies, 38: 175–208.Google Scholar
Mongin, P. and d’Aspremont, C. (1998). “Utility theory and ethics.” In Barberà, S., Hammond, P.J., and Seidl, C., eds., Handbook of Utility Theory, vol. 1 (Principles). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 371–481.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. (1979). “Equality.” In Nagel, T., ed., Mortal Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 106–127.Google Scholar
Nebel, J.M. (2017). “Priority, not equality, for possible people.” Ethics, 127: 896–911.Google Scholar
Norheim, O.F. (2013). “Atkinson’s index applied to health: Can measures of economic inequality help us understand trade-offs in health care priority setting?” In Eyal, N., Hurst, S., Norheim, O.F., and Wikler, D., eds., Inequalities in Health: Concepts, Measures, and Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 214–231.Google Scholar
Norheim, O.F., Asaria, M., Johansson, K.A., Ottersen, T., and Tsuchiya, A. (2021). “Level-dependent equity weights.” In Cookson, R., Griffin, S., Norheim, O.F. and Culyer, A.J., eds., Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Quantifying Health Equity Impacts and Trade-Offs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–274.Google Scholar
Norheim, O.F., Ottersen, T., Tolla, M.T., Memirie, S.T., and Johansson, K.A. (2020). “Incorporating distributional concerns into practical tools for priority-setting.” In Norheim, O.F., Emanuel, E.J. and Millum, J., eds., Global Health Priority-Setting: Beyond Cost-Effectiveness. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 181–203.Google Scholar
Otsuka, M., and Voorhoeve, A. (2009). “Why it matters that some are worse off than others: An argument against the priority view.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 37: 171–199.Google Scholar
Otsuka, M., and Voorhoeve, A. (2018). “Equality versus priority.” In Olsaretti, S., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Distributive Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 65–85.Google Scholar
Ottersen, T. (2013). “Lifetime QALY prioritarianism in priority setting.” Journal of Medical Ethics, 39: 175–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ottersen, T., et al. (2016). “A new proposal for priority setting in Norway: Open and fair.” Health Policy, 120: 246–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parfit, D. (2000). “Equality or priority?” In Clayton, M. and Williams, A., eds., The Ideal of Equality. Houndmills: Palgrave, pp. 81–125. Delivered as the Lindley Lecture at the University of Kansas in 1991.Google Scholar
Pollak, R. (1971). “Additive utility functions and linear Engel curves.” Review of Economic Studies, 38: 401–414.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice, rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. First published in 1971.Google Scholar
Samson, A.L., et al. (2018). “Fairness in cost-benefit analysis: A methodology for health technology assessment.” Health Economics, 27: 102–114.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. (1947). Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sassi, F., Archard, L., and Le Grand, J. (2001). “Equity and the economic evaluation of healthcare.” Health Technology Assessment, 5: 1–138.Google Scholar
Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 3rd ed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temkin, L.S. (2003b). “Equality, priority or what?” Economics and Philosophy, 19: 61–87.Google Scholar
van de Wetering, E.J., Stolk, E.A., van Exel, N.J.A., and Brouwer, W.B.F. (2013). “Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall.” European Journal of Health Economics, 14: 107–115.Google Scholar
Weymark, J.A. (2016). “Social welfare functions.” In Adler, M.D. and Fleurbaey, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 126–159.Google Scholar
Williams, A. (2012). “The priority view bites the dust?” Utilitas, 24: 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WHO (2014). Making Fair Choices on the Path to Universal Health Coverage. Final report of the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
WHO (2020). Cost-effectiveness and strategic planning (WHO-CHOICE). Available at www.who.int/choice/cost-effectiveness/en/ (accessed February 26, 2020).Google Scholar
World Bank (1993). World Development Report 1993: Investing in Health. Oxford: Published for the World Bank, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by