Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T08:00:05.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L'absence d'envie dans une problématique «post-welfariste»

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Marc Fleurbaey
Marc Fleurbaey*
Affiliation:
INSEE, Paris
Get access

Résumé

Le critère d'absence d'envie dérivait traditionnellement sa pertinence de la difficulté d'égaliser le bien-être des individus dans un cadre purement ordinal. Les développements récents des théories de l'égalité (Rawls, Dworkin, Sen, etc.), conduisant à préconiser l'égalité des ressources ou des chances, et non du bien-être, mettent en lumière la véritable signification du critère d'absence d'envie et lui confèrent une valeur nouvelle. Cet article introduit à cette problématique «post-welfariste», et en propose une formalisation qui fait apparaître certains arbitrages entre le possible et le souhaitable.

Summary

Summary

Traditionally, the no-envy criterion was justified by the aim of equalizing welfare in a purely ordinal framework. Recent theories of equality (Rawls, Dworkin, Sen, etc.), which reject equality of welfare and instead prefer equality of resources or opportunities, reveal the actual meaning of no-envy and give it a renewed relevance. This paper presents an introduction to this “post-welfarist” approach, et proposes a formalization which shows the existence of some tradeoffs between ethical goals and feasibility.

Keywords

D63D63
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 9 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 1994 

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.)

Footnotes

(*)

Cet article a bénéficié des commentaires de S. Kolm, Ph. Mongin et A. Trannoy, et des interventions des participants au colloque sur l'absence d'envie (Louvain-la-neuve, 17 et 18 décembre 1992), en particulier Ph. Van Parijs. Je remercie aussi C. Arnsperger, ainsi que I. Iturbe et J. Nieto, pour des discussions trés utiles sur la non-domination. La responsabilité des erreurs et limites de cet article n'incombe qu'à son auteur.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Alkan, A., Démange, G. et Gale, D. [1991], Fair Allocations of Indivisible Goods and Criteria of Justice, Econometrica, vol. 59, pp. 1023–1040.Google Scholar
Arneson, R. J. [1989], Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare, Philosophical Studies, vol. 56, pp. 77–93.Google Scholar
Arneson, R. J. [1990], Liberalism, Distributive Subjectivism, and Equal Opportunity for Welfare, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 19(2), pp. 158–194.Google Scholar
Arnsperger, C. [1993], Envy-Freeness and Distributive Justice, à paraître Dans Journal of Economic Surveys. Google Scholar
Aumann, R. et Maschler, M. [1985], Game Theoretic Analysis of a Bankruptcy Problem from the Talmud, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 36, pp. 195–213.Google Scholar
Broome, J. [1993], A Cause of Preference is not an Object of Preference, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 10, pp. 57–68.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. [1989], On The Currency of Egalitarian Justice, Ethics, vol. 99, pp. 906–944.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. [1990], Equality of What? on Welfare, Goods and Capabilities, Recherches économiques de Louvain, vol. 56, pp. 357–382.Google Scholar
Daniel, T. E. [1975], A Revised Concept of Distributional Equity, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 11, pp. 94—109.Google Scholar
Diamantaras, D. et Thomson, W. [1990], A Refinement and Extension of the No-Envy Concept, Economic Letters, vol. 33, pp. 217–222.Google Scholar
Dupuy, J.P. [1992], Le sacrifice et l'envie, Paris, Calmann-Lévy.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. [1981a], What is Equality ? Part 1, Equality of Welfare, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 10(3), pp. 185–246.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. [1981b], What is Equality? Part 2, Equality of Resources, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 10(4), pp. 283–345.Google Scholar
Elster, J. et Roemer, J. E. éds. [1991], Interpersonal Comparisons of Weil-Being, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, A. et Kirman, A. [1974], Fairness and Envy, American Economic Review, vol. 64(6), pp. 995–1005.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. [1991A], On Fair Compensation, rév. 1992, MimÉO, U.C. Davis (à Paraître Dans Theory and Decision). Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. [1991b], Equal Opportunity or Equal Social Outcome ?, à paraître Dans Economics and Philosophy. Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. [1992], The Requisites of Equal Opportunity, à Paraître dans Barnett, W., Moulin, H., Salles, M. et Schofield, N., éds., Advances in Social Choice Theory and Cooperative Games, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. [1993], Three Solutions for the Compensation Problem, à Paraître dans Journal of Economic Theory. Google Scholar
Foley, D. K. [1967], Resource Allocation and the Public Sector, Yale Economic Essays, vol. 7, pp. 45–98.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. [1986], Interpersonal Comparisons: Preference, Good, and the Intrinsic Reward of a Life, in Elster, J. et Hylland, A., Foundations of Social Choice Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Girard, R. [1972], La violence et le sacré, Paris, Grasset.Google Scholar
Girard, R. [1978], Des choses cachées depuis la fondation du monde, Paris, Grasset.Google Scholar
Girard, R. [1982], Le bouc émissaire, Paris, Grasset.Google Scholar
Goldman, S. M. et Sussangkarn, C. [1983], Dealing with Envy, Journal of Public Economies, vol. 22, pp. 103–112.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. [1955], Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 63, pp. 309–321.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. [1973], Law, Legislation and Liberty, Londres, Routledge & Kegan. Trad. fr. Paris, PUF, 1979.Google Scholar
Iturbe, I. et Nieto, J. [1992], On Fair Allocations and Monetary Compensations, MiméO.Google Scholar
Kolm, S. C. [1972], Justice et équité, Paris, Ed. du CNRS.Google Scholar
Kolm, S. C. [1991A], Philosophical Reasons for Equity, Doc. de trav. n° 99, Ceras, Paris.Google Scholar
Kolm, S. C. [1991B], The Ethical Economics of Envy, Miméo.Google Scholar
Maskin, E. [1987], On the Fair Allocation of Indivisible Goods, In Feiwel, G.R. éd., Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy, Londres, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mirrlees, J. [1974], Notes on Welfare Economics, Information and Uncertainty, in Balch, M. S., McFadden, D. et Wu, S. Y., éds., Essays on Economic Behaviour under Uncertainty, Amsterdam, North-Holland.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. [1974], Anarchy, State and Utopia, New York, Basic Books. Trad. fr. Paris, PUF, 1988.Google Scholar
O'Neill, B. [1982], Aproblem of Rights Arbitration in the Talmud, Mathematical Social Sciences, vol. 2, pp. 345–371.Google Scholar
Pazner, E. [1977], Pitfalls in the Theory of Fairness, Journal ofEconomic Theory, vol. 14, pp. 458–466.Google Scholar
Pazner, E. et Schmeidler, D. [1974], A Difficulty in the Concept of Fairness, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 41, pp. 441—443.Google Scholar
Pazner, E. et Schmeidler, D. [1978], Egalitarian-Equivalent Allocations: A New Concept of Economic Equity, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 92, pp. 671–687.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. [1971], Theory of Justice, Cambridge, pp. Harvard University Press. Trad. fr. Paris, Seuil, 1987.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. [1982], Social Unity and Primary Goods, In Sen, A. et Williams, B. éds., Utilitarianism and Beyond, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. E. [1985], Equality of Talent, Economics and Philosophy, vol. 1, pp. 151–187.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. E. [1986], Equality of Resources Implies Equality of Welfare, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 101, pp. 751–784.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. E. [1993], A Pragmatic Theory of Responsibility for the Egalitarian Planner, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 22, pp. 146–166.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. [1988], The Significance of Choice, Tanner Lectures on Human Values, vol. VIII, University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. [1973], On Economic Inequality, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. [1985], Commodities and Capabilities, Amsterdam, North-Holland.Google Scholar
Svensson, L. G. [1983], Large Indivisibles: An Analysis with respect to Price Equilibrium and Fairness, Econometrica, vol. 51, pp. 939–954.Google Scholar
Thomson, W. [1990], The Consistency Principle, In Ichiishi, T., Neyman, A. et Tauman, Y., Eds., Game Theory and Applications, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, W. et Varian, H. [1985], Theories of Justice Based On Symmetry, In Hurwicz, L., Schmeidler, D., Sonnenschein, H. éds., Social Goals and Social Organization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, J. [1946], Redelijke inkomensverdeling, Haarlem, De Gulden Pers.Google Scholar
Van Parus, P. [1990], Equal Endowments As Undominated Diversity, Recherches Economiques de Louvain, vol. 56, pp. 327–355.Google Scholar
Varian, H. [1974], Equity, Envy and Efficiency, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 9, pp. 63–91.Google Scholar
Wolfelsperger, A. [1993], Sadisme, Altruisme et ÉConomie Du Bien-ÊTre, MimÉO, Iep Paris.Google Scholar