Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:20:19.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE ETHICAL BASES OF PUBLIC POLICIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2014

Prasanta K. Pattanaik  and
Yongsheng Xu
Prasanta K. Pattanaik
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside, [email protected]
Yongsheng Xu
Affiliation:
Georgia State University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper develops a conceptual framework, which can accommodate a wide range of value judgements used in ethical evaluations of extended social states and which can be used to differentiate different categories of value judgements by referring to the type of information on which they may be based. The notions of consequentialism, non-consequentialism, exclusive focus on personal well-being, exclusive focus on utility, etc. are conceptualized in operational ways in the framework. The framework and the discussion of different types of ethical criteria that may be used in evaluating extended social states contribute to conceptual clarity about the ethical bases of public policies.

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , July 2014 , pp. 175 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anand, P. and Wailoo, A.. 2000. Utilities vs. rights to publicly provided goods: arguments and evidence from health-care rationing. Economica 67: 543–577.Google Scholar
Arneson, R. J. 1990. Liberalism, distributive subjectivism, and equal opportunity for welfare. Philosophy and Public Affairs 19: 158–194.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: John Wiley and Sons. [2nd edition, 1963].Google Scholar
Atkinson, A. B. 2009. Economics as a moral science. Economica 76: 791–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergson, A. 1938. A reformulation of certain aspects of welfare economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics 52: 310–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergson, A. 1954. On the concept of social welfare. Quarterly Journal of Economics 68: 233–252.Google Scholar
Bolton, G. E., Brandts, J. and Ockenfels, A.. 2005. Fair procedures: evidence from games involving lotteries. Economic Journal 117: 1054–1076.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 2008. Why economics needs ethical theory. In Arguments for a Better World, Vol. I, ed. Basu, K. and Kanbur, R., 7–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. I. 2009. Compensation for historic injustices: completing the Boxill and Sher argument. Philosophy and Public Affairs 37: 81–102.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 1989. On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics 99: 906–944.Google Scholar
Dolan, P., Edlin, R., Tsuchiya, A. and Wailoo, A.. 2007. It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it: characteristics of procedural justice and their importance in social decision making. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 64: 157–170.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 2008. Fairness, Responsibility and Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Maniquet, F.. 2009. Compensation and responsibility. In Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, Vol. 2, ed. Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K. and Suzumura, K., 507–604. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Frey, B. S. and Stutzer, A.. 2004. Beyond outcomes: measuring procedural utility. Oxford Economic Papers 57: 90–111.Google Scholar
Gaertner, W., Pattanaik, P. K. and Suzumura, K.. 1992. Individual rights revisited. Economica 59: 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaertner, W. and Schokkaert, E.. 2012. Empirical Social Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1976. Affirmative action. Philosophy and Public Affairs 5: 178–195.Google Scholar
Graaff, J. de V. 1957. Theoretical Welfare Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. 1982. Morality and the theory of rational behavior. In Utilitarianism and Beyond, ed. , A. K. Sen and Williams, B., 39–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, P. and Sugden, R.. 1982. Evaluating choice. International Review of Law and Economics 2: 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, I. 1952. Social choice and individual values. Journal of Political Economy 60: 422–432.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 1988. Nature, function and capability: Aristotle on political distribution. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy Suppl. I: 145–184.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2000. Women and Human Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pattanaik, P. K. 2005. Little and Bergson on Arrow's concept of social welfare. Social Choice and Welfare 25: 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattanaik, P. K. and Suzumura, K.. 1996. Individual rights and social evaluation: a conceptual framework. Oxford Economic Papers 48: 194–212.Google Scholar
Pattanaik, P. K. and Xu, Y.. 1990. On ranking opportunity sets in terms of freedom of choice. Recherches Economiques de Louvain 56: 383–390.Google Scholar
Pattanaik, P. K. and Xu, Y.. 2009. Conceptions of individual rights and freedom in welfare economics: a re-examination. In Against Injustice: The New Economics of Amartya Sen, ed. Gotoh, R. and Dumouchel, P., 187–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rabin, M. 1993. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. American Economic Review 83: 1281–1302.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. 1993. A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner. Philosophy and Public Affairs 22: 146–166.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. 1998. Equality of Opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P. 1947. Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1970a. The impossibility of a Paretian liberal. Journal of Political Economy 78: 152–157.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1970b. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco, CA: Holden Day.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1988. Freedom of choice: concept and content. European economic Review 32: 269–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1991. Welfare, preference, and freedom. Journal of Econometrics 50: 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1977. Social choice theory: a re-examination. Econometrica 45: 53–89.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1985. Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1987. The Standard of Living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sher, G. 1975. Justifying reverse discrimination in employment. Philosophy and Public Affairs 4: 159–170.Google Scholar
Sher, G. 1979. Reverse discrimination, the future, and the past. Ethics 90: 81–87.Google Scholar
Simon, R. L. 1974. Preferential hiring: a reply to Judith Jarvis Thomson. Philosophy and Public Affairs 3: 312–320.Google Scholar
Steiner, H. 1983. How free: computing personal liberty. In Of Liberty, ed. A. Philips-Griffiths, 73–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. 1985. Liberty, preference, and choice. Economics and Philosophy 1: 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R. 1998. The metric of opportunity. Economics and Philosophy 14: 307–337.Google Scholar
Suzumura, K. and Xu, Y. 2001. Characterization of consequentialism and non-consequentialism. Journal of Economic Theory 101: 423–436.Google Scholar
Suzumura, K. and Xu, Y. 2003. Consequences, opportunities, and generalized consequentialism and non-consequentialism. Journal of Economic Theory 111: 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 1973. Preferential hiring. Philosophy and Public Affairs 2: 364–384.Google Scholar
van Hees, M. 1995. Rights and decisions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
van Hees, M. 2000. Legal Reductionism and Freedom. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Wailoo, A. and Anand, P.. 2005. The nature of procedural preferences for health-care rationing decisions. Social Science and Medicine 60: 223–236.Google Scholar