Abstract
According to standard theory founded on Harsanyi (J Polit Econ 61:434–435, 1953; 63:309–321, 1955) a social welfare function can be appropriately based on the individual’s approach to choice under uncertainty. We investigate how people really do rank distributions in terms of welfare. According to Harsanyi, the evaluation can be done from the standpoint of an uninvolved external judge, a public official, for example, or by a person who knows that she holds one of the positions in society, with an equal chance for any of the available positions. Are these two structures to be viewed differently? We use a questionnaire experiment to focus on the two different interpretations of the Harsanyi approach. There are important, systematic differences that transcend the cultural background of respondents.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amiel Y, Cowell FA (1998) Distributional orderings and the transfer principle: a re-examination. Res Econ Inequal 8: 195–215
Amiel Y, Cowell FA (1999) Thinking about inequality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Amiel Y, Cowell FA (2002) Attitudes towards risk and inequality: a questionnaire-experimental approach. In: Andersson F, Holm HJ (eds) Experimental economics: financial markets, auctions, and decision making, Chap. 9. Kluwer, Deventer, pp 85–115
Amiel Y, Cowell FA (2007) Social welfare and individual preferences under uncertainty: a questionnaire-experimental approach. Res Econ Inequal 14: 345–362
Amiel Y, Cowell FA, Gaertner W (2006) To be or not to be involved: a questionnaire-experimental view on Harsanyi’s utilitarian ethics. Distributional analaysis research paper 85, STICERD, LSE, London
Amiel Y, Cowell FA, Gaertner W (2007) Distributional orderings: an approach with seven flavours. Distributional analaysis research paper 93, STICERD, LSE, London
Bernasconi M (2002) How should income be divided? Questionnaire evidence from the theory of ‘impartial preferences’. In: Moyes P, Seidl C, Shorrocks A (eds) Inequalities: theory, experiments and applications. J Econ (Suppl 9):163–195
Bosmans K, Schokkaert E (2004) Social welfare, the veil of ignorance and purely individual risk: an empirical examination. Res Econ Inequal 11: 85–114
Dalton H (1920) Measurement of the inequality of incomes. Econ J 30: 348–361
Gaertner W, Schwettmann L (2007) Equity, responsibility and the cultural dimension. Economica 74: 627–649
Harsanyi JC (1953) Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk-taking. J Polit Econ 61: 434–435
Harsanyi JC (1955) Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. J Polit Econ 63: 309–321
Harsanyi JC (1977) Rational behavior and bargaining equilibrium in games and social situations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Harsanyi JC (1978) Bayesian decision theory and utilitarian ethics. Am Econ Rev 68: 223–228
Henrich J, Boyd R, Bowles S, Camerer C, Fehr E, Gintis H, McElreath R (2001) In search of homo oeconomicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Am Econ Rev 91: 73–78
Herne K, Suojanen M (2004) The role of information in choices over income distributions. J Conflict Resolut 48: 173–193
Mongin P (1994) Harsanyi’s aggregation theorem: multi-profile version and unsettled questions. Soc Choice Welf 11: 331–354
Mongin P (2001) The impartial observer theorem of social ethics. Econ Philos 71: 147–179
Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Smith A (1759, [1976]) The theory of moral sentiments. Millar A, in the Strand, London. Republished and edited by Raphael DD and Macfie AL. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Traub S, Seidl C, Schmidt U, Levati MV (2005) Friedman, Harsanyi, Rawls, Boulding—or somebody else? An experimental investigation of distributive justice. Soc Choice Welf 24: 283–309
Vickrey W (1945) Measuring marginal utility by reaction to risk. Econometrica 13: 319–333
Vogeley K, May M, Rizl A, Falkai P, Zilles K, Fink GR (2004) Neural correlates of first-person perspective as one constituent of human self-consciousness. J Cogn Neurosci 16: 817–827
Weymark J (1991) A reconsideration of the Harsanyi–Sen debate on utilitarianism. In: Elster J, Roemer JE (eds) Interpersonal comparisons of well-being. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Amiel, Y., Cowell, F.A. & Gaertner, W. To be or not to be involved: a questionnaire-experimental view on Harsanyi’s utilitarian ethics. Soc Choice Welf 32, 299–316 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-008-0324-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-008-0324-x