Is Fairness in the Eye of the Beholder? An Impartial Spectator Analysis of Justice

Konow, James (2006): Is Fairness in the Eye of the Beholder? An Impartial Spectator Analysis of Justice. Published in: Social Choice and Welfare , Vol. 33, No. 1 (June 2009): pp. 101-127.

Abstract

A popular sentiment is that fairness is inexorably subjective and incapable of being determined by objective standards. This study, on the other hand, seeks to establish evidence on unbiased justice and to propose and demonstrate a general approach for measuring impartial views empirically. Most normative justice theories associate impartiality with limited information and with consensus, i.e., a high level of agreement about what is right. In both the normative and positive literature, information is usually seen as the raw material for self-serving bias and disagreement. In contrast, this paper proposes a type of impartiality that is associated with a high level of information. The crucial distinction is the emphasis here on the views of impartial spectators, rather than implicated stakeholders. I describe the quasi-spectator method, i.e., an empirical means to approximate the views of impartial spectators that is based on a direct relationship between information and consensus, whereby consensus refers to the level of agreement among actual evaluators of real world situations. Results of surveys provide evidence on quasi-spectator views and support this approach as a means to elicit moral preferences. By establishing a relationship between consensus and impartiality, this paper seeks to help lay an empirical foundation for welfare analysis, social choice theory and practical policy applications.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Institution: Loyola Marymount University
• Language: English
• Keywords: Justice; fairness; impartial spectator
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D61 - Allocative Efficiency ; Cost-Benefit Analysis; A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A12 - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines; D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D63 - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

References

Amiel, Yoram, Frank A. Cowell and Wulf Gaertner (2006), “To Be Involved or Not To Be Involved: A Questionnaire-Experimental View on Harsanyi’s Utilitarian Ethics,” Manuscript. STICERD, London School of Economics.

Babcock, Linda and George Loewenstein (1997). "Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(1), Winter, 109-126.

Blinder, Alan S., and Don H. Choi (1990). "A Shred of Evidence on Theories of Wage Stickiness." Quarterly Journal of Economics 105:4, pp. 1003-15.

Cappelen, Alexander, Hole, Astri, Sørensen, Erik, and Tungodden, Bertil (forthcoming). "The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review.

Charness, Gary and Matthew Rabin (2002). "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," Quarterly Journal of Economics 117(3), pp. 817-869.

Dunning, David, Meyerowitz, Judith A. and Holzberg, Amy D. (1989). "Ambiguity and Self-Evaluation: The Role of Idiosyncratic Trait Definitions in Self-Serving Assessments of Ability," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1082-1090.

Ellingsen, Tore and Johannesson, Magnus (2004). "Promises, Threats and Fairness," The Economic Journal, Vol. 114, No. 495, pp. 397-420.

----- (2005). “Does Impartial Deliberation Breed Fair Behavior?” Rationality and Society, Vol. 17, No. 1, 116-136.

Forsythe, Robert, Joel L. Horowitz, N. E. Savin, and Martin Sefton (1994). "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, 6, pp. 347-69.

Frohlich, Norman, and Joe A. Oppenheimer (1992). Choosing Justice: An Experimental Approach to Ethical Theory. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Gaertner, Wulf (1994). "Distributive Justice: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Claims," European Economic Review, 38, 711-720.

-----, Jochen Jungeilges and Reinhard Neck (2001). "Cross-Cultural Equity Evaluations: A Questionnaire-Experimental Approach," European Economic Review, 45, 953-963.

Gächter, Simon Arno Riedl (2005). "Moral Property Rights with Infeasible Claims," Management Science, 51(2), 249-263.

Harsanyi, John C. (1953). "Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-Taking," Journal of Political Economy 61, pp. 434-35.

----- (1955). "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy 63, pp. 309-21.

----- (1978). "Bayesian Decision Theory and Utilitarian Ethics," American Economic Review 68(2), pp. 223-228.

Hume, David (1751 [1983]). An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, edited by J. B. Schneewind, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch and Richard Thaler (1986): "Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market," American Economic Review, 76 (September), 728-741.

Konow, James (2000). "Fair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions," The American Economic Review, 90(4), September, 1072-1092.

------ (2003). "Which is the Fairest One of All?: A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories," Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), December, 1186-1237.

------ (2005). "Blind Spots: The Effects of Information and Stakes on Fairness Bias and Dispersion," Social Justice Research, 18(4), December, 349-390.

------ (2006). "The Moral High Ground," manuscript, Loyola Marymount University.

Kravitz, David A., and Samuel Gunto (1992). "Decisions and Perceptions of Recipients in Ultimatum Bargaining Games," Journal of Socio-Economics 21(1), pp. 65-84.

Kritikos, Alexander, and Friedel Bolle (2001). "Distributional Concerns: Equity- or Efficiency-oriented?" Economic Letters 73(3), pp. 333-338.

Rawls, John (1971). A theory of justice, Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Rubinstein, Ariel (1999). "Experience from a Course in Game Theory: Pre- and Postclass Problem Sets as a Didactic Device," Games and Economic Behavior, 28, 155-170.

Schokkaert, Erik and Bart Capeau (1991). "Interindividual Differences in Opinions About Distributive Justice," Kyklos, 44(3), 325-345.

------ and Kurt Devooght (2003). "Responsibility-sensitive Fair Compensation in Different Cultures," Social Choice and Welfare, 21, 207-242.

Smith, Adam (1759 [1809]). The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Glasgow: R. Chapman.

Traub, Stefan, Christian Seidl, Ulrich Schmidt and Maria Levati (2005). "Friedman, Harsanyi, Rawls, Boulding – or somebody else? An experimental investigation of distributive justice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 283-309.

Yaari, Menahem E., and Maya Bar-Hillel (1984). "On Dividing Justly," Social Choice and Welfare 1(1), pp. 1-24.