Marco, Mariotti and Roberto, Veneziani (2012): Opportunities as chances: maximising the probability that everybody succeeds.

PDF
MPRA_paper_41884.pdf Download (316kB)  Preview 
Abstract
Opportunities in society are commonly interpreted as `chances of success'. Within this interpretation, should opportunities be equalised? We show that a liberal principle of justice and a limited principle of social rationality imply that opportunity profiles should be evaluated by means of a `Nash' criterion. The interpretation is new: the social objective should be to maximise the chance that everybody in society succeeds. In particular, the failure of even only one individual must be considered maximally detrimental. We also study a refinement of this criterion and its extension to problems of intergenerational justice.
Item Type:  MPRA Paper 

Original Title:  Opportunities as chances: maximising the probability that everybody succeeds 
Language:  English 
Keywords:  Opportunities, chances in life, NonInterference, Nash ordering 
Subjects:  D  Microeconomics > D6  Welfare Economics > D63  Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement D  Microeconomics > D7  Analysis of Collective DecisionMaking > D70  General 
Item ID:  41884 
Depositing User:  Roberto Veneziani 
Date Deposited:  13 Oct 2012 10:34 
Last Modified:  04 Oct 2019 16:22 
References:  Alcantud, J.C.R. (2011) "Liberal approaches to ranking infinite utility streams: When can we avoid interferences?", MPRA Paper No. 32198. Asheim, G.B. (2010) "Intergenerational Equity", Annual Review of Economics 2: 197222. Asheim, G.B. and K. Banerjee (2010) "Fixedstep anonymous overtaking and catchingup", International Journal of Economic Theory 6: 149165. Basu, K. and T. Mitra (2007) "Utilitarianism for infinite utility streams: a new welfare criterion and its axiomatic characterization", Journal of Economic Theory 133: 350373. Bénabou, R. and E. Ok (2001) "Mobility as Progressivity: Ranking Income Processes According to Equality of Opportunity", NBER Working Paper 8431. Boadway, R. and N. Bruce (1984) Welfare Economics, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Bosi, G., J.C. Candeal, and E. Indurain (2000) "Continuous representability of homothetic preferences by means of homogeneous utility functions", Journal of Mathematical Economics 33: 291298. Bossert, W. and M. Fleurbaey (1996) "Redistribution and Compensation", Social Choice and Welfare 13: 343355. Bossert, W., Y. Sprumont, and K. Suzumura (2007) "Ordering infinite utility streams", Journal of Economic Theory 135: 179189. Cato, S. (2009) "Characterizing the Nash social welfare relation for infinite utility streams: a note", Economics Bullettin 29: 23722379. Diamond, P.A. (1967) "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: Comment", Journal of Political Economy 75: 765766. Field, F. (2010) The Foundation Years: preventing poor children becoming poor adults, Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances, London. Fleurbaey, M. (1995) "Equal Opportunity or Equal Social Outcome?", Economics and Philosophy 11: 2555. Fleurbaey, M. (2005) "Freedom with Forgiveness", Politics, Philosophy and Economics 4: 2967. Fleurbaey, M. (2010) "Assessing Risky Social Situations", Journal of Political Economy 118: 649680. Hammond, P. (1976) "Equity, Arrow's Conditions and Rawls' Difference Principle", Econometrica 44: 793864. Harsanyi, J. (1955) "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility", Journal of Political Economy LXIII: 309321. Herrero, C. (1996) "Capabilities and Utilities", Economic Design 2: 6988. Kolm, S. (1996) Modern Theories of Justice, MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma. Kranich, L. (1996) "Equitable Opportunities: An Axiomatic Approach", Journal of Economic Theory 71: 131147. Laslier, JF., M. Fleurbaey, N. Gravel, and A. Trannoy (1998) (Eds.) Freedom in Economics, Routledge, London and New York. Lombardi, M. and R. Veneziani (2009) "Liberal Egalitarianism and the Harm Principle", WP 649, Queen Mary University of London. Mariotti, M. (1999) "Fair Bargains: Distributive Justice and Nash Bargaining Theory", Review of Economic Studies 66: 733741. Mariotti, M. and R. Veneziani (2009) "NonInterference Implies Equality", Social Choice and Welfare 32: 123128. Mariotti, M. and R. Veneziani (2011) "Allocating chances of success in finite and infinite societies: The Utilitarian criterion", mimeo. Mariotti, M. and R. Veneziani (2011) "On the impossibility of complete noninterference in Paretian social judgements", mimeo. Mayer, S.E. (1997) What Money Can't Buy: Family Income and Children's Life Chances, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma. Moulin, H. (1988) Axioms of Cooperative Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Naumova, N. and E. Yanovskaya (2001) "Nash social welfare orderings", Mathematical Social Sciences 42: 203231. Ok, E.A. (1998) "Inequality Averse Collective Choice", Journal of Mathematical Economics 30: 301321. Ok, E.A. and L. Kranich (1998) "The Measurement of Opportunity Inequality: A Cardinality Based Approach", Social Choice and Welfare 15: 263287. Roemer, J.E. (1996) Theories of Distributive Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma. Roemer, J.E. (2000) Equality of Opportunity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma. Rubinstein, A. (2000) Economics and Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sen, A.K. (1985) Commodities and Capabilities, North Holland, Amsterdam. Tsui, K. and J. Weymark (1997) "Social welfare orderings for ratioscale measurable utilities", Economic Theory 10: 241256. Tungodden, B. (2000) "Hammond Equity: A Generalisation", DP 20/99, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration. Veneziani, R. and M. Mariotti (2009) "The paradoxes of the liberal ethics of noninterference", WP 653, Queen Mary University of London. Warnock, M. (1962) (Ed.) Utilitarianism, Fontana Press, Glasgow. 
URI:  https://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/id/eprint/41884 