Advertisement

Equity Judgements Elicited Through Experiments: An Econometric Examination

  • Jochen Jungeilges
  • Theis Theisen
Part of the International Economic Association Series book series (IEA)

Abstract

Utilitarianism and Rawisianism stand out as prominent schools of social welfare assessment. According to the utilitarian school, welfare judgements should be based on how policies affect the sum of individual utilities. By contrast, according to the maximin principle of Rawls (1971), the Rawlsian school claims that welfare judgements should be based on how policies affect the utility of the worst-off individual in society.

Keywords

Parental Background Dialysis Machine Decision Pattern Intelligent Child Equity Axiom 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agarwal, B. (2000) ‘Conceptualizing Environmental Collective Action: Why Gender Matters’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 24, pp. 283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amiel, Y. and F. Cowell (2000) ‘Attitudes towards Risk and Inequality’, A Questionnaire-experimental Approach; Discussion Paper no. DARP 56, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  3. Andreoni, J. and L. Vesterlund (2001) ‘Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism’, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 116, pp. 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolton, G.E. and E. Katok (1995) ‘An Experimental Test for Gender Differences in Beneficient Behavior’, Economics Letters, vol. 48, pp. 287–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown-Kruse, J. and D. Hummels (1993) ‘Gender Effects in Laboratory Public Goods Contribution’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, vol. 22, pp. 255–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cadsby, C.B. and E. Maynes (1998) ‘Choosing between a Socially Efficient and Free-riding Equilibrium: Nurses versus Economics and Business Students’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 37, pp. 183–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, J.R. and M.D. Irons (1991) ‘Are Economists Different, and if So, Why?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 5, pp. 171–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson, R. and J.G. MacKinnon (1993) Estimation and Inference in Econometrics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  9. Deschamps, R. and R. Gevers (1978) ‘Leximin and Utalitarian Rules: A Joint Characterization’, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 17, pp. 143–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eckel, C.C. and P.J. Grossman (1998) ‘Are Women Less Selfish than Men? Evidence from Dictator Experiments’, Economic Journal, vol. 108(2), pp. 726–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frank, B., and G.G. Schultze (2000) ‘Does Economics Make Citizens Corrupt?’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 43, pp. 101–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frank, R.H., T. Gilovich, and D. Regan (1993a) ‘Do Economists Make Bad Citizens?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 10, pp. 187–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. — (1993b) ‘Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 2, pp. 159–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frohlich, N., J.A. Oppenheimer, and Ch. Eavey (1987a) ‘Choices of Principles of Distributive Justice in Experimental Groups’, American Journal of Political Science, vol. 31, pp. 606–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. — (1987b) ‘Laboratory Results on Rawls’s Principle of Distributive Justice’, British Journal of Political Science, vol. 17, pp. 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaertner, W. (1992) ‘Distributive Judgements’ in W. Gaertner and M. Klemisch-Ahlert (eds), Social Choice and Bargaining Perspectives on Distributive Justice (Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, New York), pp. 17–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. — (1994) ‘Distributive Justice: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Findings’, European Economic Review, vol. 38, pp. 711–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaertner, W., and J. Jungeilges (2002) ‘Evaluations via Extended Orderings: Empirical Findings From West and East’, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19, pp. 29–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaertner, W., J. Jungeilges, and R. Neck (2001) ‘Cross-cultural Equity Evaluations: A Questionnaire-experimental Approach’, European Economic Review, vol. 45, pp. 953–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilligan, C. (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  21. Gray, J. (1991) Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus: A Practical Guide for Improving Communication and Getting What You Want in Your Relationship (New York: Harper Collins).Google Scholar
  22. Green, W.H. (1990) Econometric Analysis (London: Macmillan).Google Scholar
  23. Hargreaves-Heap, S., and M. Hollis (1987) ‘Epistemological Issues in Economics’ J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. Newman (eds) In The New Palgrave (London: Macmillan) vol. 2, pp. 166–8.Google Scholar
  24. Hogg, R.V., and A.T. Craig (1978) Introduction to Mathematical Statistics (New York: Macmillan).Google Scholar
  25. Jacobsen, D.I. (2001) ‘Higher Education as an Arena for Political Socialisation: Myth or Reality?’, Scandinavian Political Studies, vol. 24, pp. 351–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jungeilges, J., and T. Theisen (2003) ‘An econometric examination of equity judgements elicited through experiments’, Working Paper, Department of Economics and Business Administration, Agder University College, Kristiansand, Norway.Google Scholar
  27. Laband, D.N., and R.O. Beil (1999) ‘Are Economists More Selfish than Other “Social” Scientists?’, Public Choice, vol. 100, pp. 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manski, C.F. (2002) ‘Identification of Decision Rules in Experiments on Simple Games of Proposal and Response’, European Economic Review, vol. 46, pp. 880–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marwell, G., and R.E. Ames (1981) ‘Economists Free Ride, Does Anyone Else? Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods’, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 15, pp. 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mason, C.F., and O.R. Philips (1991) ‘The Role of Gender in a Non-cooperative Game’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 15(2), pp. 215–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mason, C.F., and O.R. Philips (1991) ‘The Role of Gender in a Non-cooperative Game’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 15(2), pp. 215–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ortmann, A., and L.K. Tichy (1999) ‘Gender Differences in the Laboratory: Evidence from Prisoner’s Dilemma Games’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 39(3), pp. 327–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rapoport, A., and A. Chammah (1965) Prisoner’s Dilemma: A Study in Conflict and Cooperation (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press).Google Scholar
  34. Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  35. Rosener, J.B. (1990) ‘Why Women Lead’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 68(5), pp. 119–25.Google Scholar
  36. Sell, J., W.L. Griffith, and R.K. Wilson (1993) ‘Are Women More Cooperative than Men in Social Dilemmas?’, Social Psychology Quarterly, vol. 56, pp. 211–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sell, J. (1997) ‘Gender, Strategies, and Contributions to Public Goods’, Social Psychology Quarterly, vol. 60, pp. 252–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Selten, R., and A. Ockenfels (1998) ‘An Experimental Solidarity Game’, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, vol. 34, pp. 517–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Solnick, S.J. (2001) ‘Gender differences in the ultimatum game’, Economic Enquiry, vol. 39, pp. 711–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tannen, D. (2001) You Just Don’t Understand Women and Men in Conversation (New York: Quill).Google Scholar
  41. Yaari, M.E., and M. Bar-Hillel (1984) ‘On Dividing Justly’, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 1, pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yetzer, A.M., R.S. Goldfarb, and P.J. Poppen (1996) ‘Does Studying Economics Discourage Cooperation? Watch What We Do, Not What We Say or How We Play’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 105, pp. 177–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Economic Association 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jochen Jungeilges
    • 1
  • Theis Theisen
    • 2
  1. 1.University of BielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Agder University CollegeNorway

Personalised recommendations