Welfarist evaluations of decision rules under interstate utility dependencies

We provide welfarist evaluations of decision rules for federations of states and consider models, under which the interests of people from different states are stochastically dependent. We concentrate on two welfarist standards, viz. that the expected average utility for a person in the federation be maximized or that the expected utilities for the different people be equal. We discuss an analytical result that characterizes the decision rule with maximum expected average utility, set up a class of models that display interstate dependencies and run simulations for different dependency scenarios in the European Union. We find that the results that Beisbart and Bovens (Soc Choice Welf 29:581–608, 2007) established for two types of models without interstate dependencies are fairly stable if interstate dependencies are switched on. There are exceptions, though: sometimes the way in which alternative decision rules shape the welfare distribution is significantly affected by such dependencies. These exceptions particularly include cases in which the interests of people from different states are partly anti-correlated.

[1]  A. Sen,et al.  On Economic Inequality , 1999 .

[2]  I. J. Good,et al.  Estimating the efficacy of a vote , 1975 .

[3]  Luc Bovens,et al.  Welfare, voting and the constitution of a federal assembly , 2007 .

[4]  Robert D. Tollison,et al.  The Probability of Being President , 1993 .

[5]  Salvador Barberà,et al.  On the Weights of Nations: Assigning Voting Weights in a Heterogeneous Union , 2004, Journal of Political Economy.

[6]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  Standard Voting Power Indexes Do Not Work: An Empirical Analysis , 2002, British Journal of Political Science.

[7]  Luc Bovens,et al.  Welfarist evaluations of decision rules for boards of representatives , 2007, Soc. Choice Welf..

[8]  Annick Laruelle,et al.  Assessing success and decisiveness in voting situations , 2005, Soc. Choice Welf..

[9]  D. Felsenthal,et al.  The Measurement of Voting Power: Theory and Practice, Problems and Paradoxes , 1998 .

[10]  Patrick Suppes,et al.  Reasoning, rationality, and probability , 2008 .

[11]  M. Kovačević,et al.  A Method to Calculate the Jackknife Variance Estimator for the Gini Coefficient , 2000 .

[12]  J. Dancy Ethics Without Principles , 2004 .

[13]  Gary Chamberlain,et al.  A note on the probability of casting a decisive vote , 1981 .

[14]  Satya R. Chakravarty,et al.  The Variance as a subgroup decomposable measure of inequality , 2001 .

[15]  Stephan Hartmann,et al.  A Utilitarian Assessment of Alternative Decision Rules in the Council of Ministers , 2005 .

[16]  D. Felsenthal,et al.  Enlargement of the EU and weighted voting in its council of ministers , 2000 .

[17]  Stephan Hartmann,et al.  Welfarism and the Assessments of Social Decision Rules , 2006 .

[18]  Danilo Coelho Maximin choice of voting rules for committees , 2005 .

[19]  A. Sen On Economic Inequality , 1974 .

[20]  Urs Schweizer Calculus of consent: A game-theoretic perspective , 1989 .