Fairness and Equity via Concepts of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
We briefly discuss principles of fairness and equity in order to incorporate them in a mathematical method for the allocation of benefits or costs (the output) in a distribution problem, on the basis of the effort, the strength or the needs (the input) of the respective parties. Usually, input and output are multi-dimensional, and proportionality seems to be the leading principle. Therefore we employ several algorithmic ideas of Multi- Criteria Decision Analysis in order to support the solution of distribution problems, in particular the ideas underlying the Multiplicative AHP which was designed to process ratio information. We extend the method in order to cover the principles of progressivity, priority, and parity as well. Two examples, (a) the establishment of the member state contributions to the European Union, and (b) the allocation of seats in the European Parliament to the member states, show that the proposed method produces contributions and allocations with a higher degree of fairness and equity than the actual solutions.
KeywordsFairness equity proportionality progressivity priority parity distribution criteria desired ratios logarithmic regression geometric means.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Aristotle, "Ethics in the translation by J. Warrington. Dent and Sons, London, 1963.Google Scholar
- 3.Beckerman, W., "An Introduction to National Income Analysis Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1980.Google Scholar
- 5.Deutsch, M., "Distributive Justice ". Yale University Press, New Haven, 1985.Google Scholar
- 6."Eurostat Yearbook 1995, a Statistical Eye on Europe 1983–1993". Office for the Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg, 1995.Google Scholar
- 8.Kasperson, R.E. (ed.), "Equity Issues in Radioactive Waste Management Oelschlager, Gunn, and Hain, Cambridge, 1983.Google Scholar
- 9.Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Davy, B., Faast, A., and Fitzgerald, K., "Hazardous Waste Cleanup and Facility Siting in Central Europe: the Austrian Case". Technical Report GZ 308.903/3–43/92, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 1994.Google Scholar
- 10.Lootsma, F.A., "Scale Sensitivity in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART". Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 87–110, 1993.Google Scholar
- 12.Messick, D.M., and Cook, K.S. (eds.), "Equity Theory, Psychological and Sociological Perspectives’ Praeger, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
- 13.Ramanathan, R., and Lootsma, F.A., "Fairness Issues in Group Decision Making, and a Model using the Multiplicative AHP". Report 96–05, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1996.Google Scholar
- 14.Saaty, T.L., "The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, and Resource Allocation". McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
- 15.Young, H.P., "Equity in Theory and Practice". Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1994.Google Scholar