Securing basic well-being for all

Abstract The purpose of this article is to examine the possibility of a social choice rule to implement a social policy for “securing basic well-being for all.” The article introduces a new scheme of social choice, called a social relation function (SRF), which associates a reflexive and transitive binary relation over a set of social policies to each profile of individual well-being appraisals and each profile of group evaluations. As part of the domains of SRFs, the available class of group evaluations is constrained by three conditions. Furthermore, the non-negative response (NR) and the weak Pareto condition (WP) are introduced. NR demands giving priority to group evaluation, while treating the groups as formally equal relative to each other. WP requires treating impartially the well-being appraisals of all individuals. In conclusion, this article shows that under some reasonable assumptions, there exists an SRF that satisfies NR and WP.

[1]  N. Yoshihara,et al.  A class of fair distribution rules à la Rawls and Sen , 2003 .

[2]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[3]  P. Pattanaik,et al.  On Ranking Opportunity Sets in Terms of Freedom of Choice , 1990, Recherches économiques de Louvain.

[4]  Amartya Sen,et al.  Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny , 2006 .

[5]  C. d'Aspremont,et al.  Social welfare functionals and interpersonal comparability , 2002 .

[6]  H. Singer,et al.  Book Review: Poverty and Famines-An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation , 1982, Journal of Xidian University.

[7]  P. Dumouchel,et al.  Against Injustice: The New Economics of Amartya Sen , 2009 .

[8]  Michiel M. Dorenbosch.  The Idea of Will , 2015 .

[9]  R. Nozick.  Anarchy, State, and Utopia , 1975, Princeton Readings in Political Thought.

[10]  K. Arrow,et al.  Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare , 2011 .

[11]  Grethe Peterson,et al.  The Tanner Lectures on Human Values , 1988 .

[12]  Carmen Herrero.  Capabilities and utilities , 1996 .

[13]  P. Pattanaik,et al.  Minimal relativism, dominance, and standard of living comparisons based on functionings , 2006 .

[14]  A. Sen,et al.  The idea of justice , 2009, Princeton Readings in Political Thought.

[15]  A. Sen,et al.  Commodities and Capabilities , 1987 .

[16]  A. Sen,et al.  Rationality and Freedom , 2002 .

[17]  Prem Bahadur Chalaune,et al.  Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny , 2011 .

[18]  Marc Fleurbaey,et al.  On fair compensation , 1994 .

[19]  J. Rawls,et al.  A Theory of Justice , 1971, Princeton Readings in Political Thought.

[20]  L. López-Calva,et al.  Chapter Sixteen - Functionings and Capabilities , 2011 .

[21]  A. Sen,et al.  Equality of What? , 1980, Seven Deadly Economic Sins.

[22]  A. Sen,et al.  Collective Choice and Social Welfare , 2017 .

[23]  S. Maffettone,et al.  Political liberalism , 2004 .

[24]  Amartya Sen,et al.  The Living Standard , 1984 .

[25]  Marc Fleurbaey,et al.  Compensation and responsibility , 2011 .

[26]  P. Pattanaik,et al.  ON DOMINANCE AND CONTEXT-DEPENDENCE IN DECISIONS INVOLVING MULTIPLE ATTRIBUTES , 2012, Economics and Philosophy.

[27]  G. Smith.  ANARCHY, STATE, AND UTOPIA , 1976 .

[28]  Philippe Mongin,et al.  The news of the death of welfare economics is greatly exaggerated , 2005, Soc. Choice Welf..

[29]  Marc Fleurbaey,et al.  Social choice and the indexing dilemma , 2007, Soc. Choice Welf..

[30]  A. Sen.  Reason before identity : the Romanes lecture for 1998 : delivered before the University of Oxford on 17 November 1998 , 1999 .

[31]  A. Sen.  Poverty and famines : an essay on entitlement and deprivation , 1983 .

[32]  K. Basu,et al.  Functionings and Capabilities , 2011 .