1 / 10

Welfare: Fairness

Prerequisites. Almost essential Welfare: Basics. Welfare: Fairness. MICROECONOMICS Principles and Analysis Frank Cowell. Fairness: some conceptual problems. Can fairness be reconciled with an individualistic approach to welfare? How can fairness be incorporated into a model?

corinthia
Download Presentation

Welfare: Fairness

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Prerequisites Almost essential Welfare: Basics Welfare: Fairness MICROECONOMICS Principles and Analysis Frank Cowell

  2. Fairness: some conceptual problems • Can fairness be reconciled with an individualistic approach to welfare? • How can fairness be incorporated into a model? • on what can we base it? • what relation to other welfare concepts? • Why introduce a concept of fairness?

  3. Fairness: Concepts example • Fairness as an external moral imperative • Considered further in the social welfare-function approach • Fairness as the mirror image of Pareto superiority • Use individuals’ own utility functions • Fairness based on selfishness? • Formulate fairness concept as “absence of envy” • Reason for introducing fairness as a principle • sometimes efficiency criteria alone produce disgusting results...

  4. b a a b x1 x1 x2 x2 [x′′] [x°°] [x′] [x°] [x] Fairness in the trading model Ob • The Edgeworth box • Extreme, efficient allocations • Two more efficient allocations • Another, intermediate example • Swap a's and b's allocations • Are [x°], [x°°] "obviously" unfair? • Perhaps also [x'], [x''] ? • a prefers to have b's allocation in [x] • So [x] is not fair Oa

  5. Towards a definition of fairness • Recall the definition of Pareto superiority as: • allocation [x] is superior to [x′] if… • for all h: Uh(xh)³ Uh(x′h) • for some h: Uh(xh)> Uh(x′h) • Use this individualistic approach to formalise fairness as “no-envy” • compare, not with an alternative, hypothetical bundle… • ..but with the bundles enjoyed by other people • An allocation is fair if, for every pair of individuals h and k: • Uh(xh) ³Uh(xk ) • given my tastes I weakly prefer my bundle to yours

  6. A result on fairness • THEOREM: if all persons have equal incomes then a competitive equilibrium is a fair allocation. • An apparently appealing result • Seems to combines two opposing principles: • individualism – embodied in competitive behaviour • egalitarianism – embodied in equal-incomes requirement • Proof is straightforward

  7. Fairness result: proof • For every household h let • Ah := {xh: Si pixih  yh} • attainable set for h • If [x*] is a CE then • x*h Ah and • Uh(x*h) ³Uh(xh ) for all xh Ah • But if all incomes are equal then, for any h and k: • Ah = Ak • so x*k Ah • Therefore Uh(x*h) ³Uh(x*k ) for any households h and k • So no one would prefer another person’s bundle • CE is fair (envy free)

  8. b b a a x1 x1 x2 x2 • [x*] The fair allocation Ob • The Edgeworth box • An efficient allocation • Supporting price ratio = MRS • Incomes in terms of good 1 • Allocation[x*] is CE if incomes are as shown Oa

  9. The fairness result – discussion • Is the result as appealing as it seems? • What if Alf and Bill have different needs? • Age, • disability, • family...? • Should not this be reflected in money incomes? • Would not the equal-income solution be regarded as “unfair” • Does the problem come from • competition? • individualism?

  10. Summary • Consider fairness along with other general welfare principles • Efficiency • neat and simple • but perhaps limited • Potential efficiency • Persuasive but perhaps dangerous economics/politics • Fairness • nice idea but doesn't get us far • For these reasons it may be useful to examine an explicit welfare-function approach

More Related