Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:02:28.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring Opportunity: Toward a Contractarian Measure of Individual Interest*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2009

Robert Sugden
Robert Sugden
Affiliation:
Economics, University of East Anglia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Liberals have often been attracted by contractarian modes of argument— and with good reason. Any system of social organization requires that some constraints be imposed on individuals' freedom of action; it is a central problem for any liberal political theory to show which constraints can be justified, and which cannot. A contractarian justification works by showing that the constraints in question can be understood as if they were the product of an agreement, voluntarily entered into by every member of society. Thus, no one is required to give up his freedom for someone else's benefit, or in the pursuit of someone else's conception of the social good.

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Philosophy and Policy , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , Summer 1998 , pp. 34 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Buchanan, James M., The Limits of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Gauthier, David, Morals by Agreement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

2 Hume, David, A Treatise of Human Nature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), p. 497, first published 1740.Google Scholar

3 von Hayek, Friedrich A., Law, Legislation, and Liberty, vol. 2: The Mirage of Social Justice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

4 I offer a general reading of Hayek's social theory as implicit contractarianism in Sugden, Robert, “Normative Judgments and Spontaneous Order: The Contractarian Element in Hayek's Thought,” Constitutional Political Economy, vol. 4 (1993), pp. 393–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 In a parallel paper, I review some of the main proposals that have been made up to now: see Sugden, Robert, “The Metric of Opportunity,” Economics and Philosophy (forthcoming 1998).Google Scholar

6 Harsanyi, John C., “Morality and the Theory of Rational Behaviour,” in Utilitarianism and Beyond, ed. Sen, Amartya and Williams, Bernard (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

7 Arrow, Kenneth J., “Some Ordinalist-Utilitarian Notes on Rawls's Theory of Justice,” journal of Philosophy, vol. 7 (1973), pp. 245–63.Google Scholar

8 Bentham, Jeremy, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (London: Athlone Press, 1970), ch. 1, first published 1789.Google Scholar

9 Strictly speaking, the utilitarian principle I have stated is stronger than the first principle of welfarism, since the latter does not require that the aggregation of individuals' goods is an arithmetic sum. Welfarism allows any increasing function of individual welfare levels to count as a social-welfare function.

10 Scanlon, Thomas M., “The Moral Basis of Interpersonal Comparisons,”Google Scholar and Griffin, James, “Against the Taste Model,” both in Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, ed. Elster, Jon and Roemer, John E. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Broome, John, Weighing Goods (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991)Google Scholar; Hausman, Daniel M. and McPherson, Michael S., Economic Analysis and Moral Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

11 Jevons, William Stanley, The Theory of Political Economy (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970), first published 1871Google Scholar; Edgeworth, Francis Y., Mathematical Psychics (London: Kegan Paul, 1881)Google Scholar; Walras, Léon, Elements of Pure Economics, trans. Jaffé, W. (London: Allen and Unwin, 1954), first published in French 1889Google Scholar; Marshall, Alfred, Principles of Economics (London: Macmillan, 1920), first published 1890.Google Scholar

12 Jevons, , The Theory of Political Economy, p. 93.Google Scholar

13 Mill, John Stuart, Considerations on Representative Government (London: Dent, 1972), pp. 259–60, first published 1861.Google Scholar

14 Pareto, Vilfredo, Manual of Political Economy, trans. Schweir, A. S. (London: Macmillan, 1972), first published in Italian 1906Google Scholar. It is difficult to assign credit for this “discovery,” which was a natural progression of neoclassical economics. Some scholars give the credit to Fisher, Irving, Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Prices (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1925), first published 1892.Google Scholar

15 Ibid., p. 391.

16 Ibid., p. 113.

17 Among the classic statements of the modern theory are: Hicks, John, Value and Capital (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946)Google Scholar; Samuelson, Paul A., Foundations of Economic Analysis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947)Google Scholar; and Hicks, John, A Revision of Demand Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956).Google Scholar

18 Slovic, Paul and Lichtenstein, Sarah, “Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective,” American Economic Review, vol. 73 (1983), pp. 596–605Google Scholar; Tversky, Amos, Slovic, Paul, and Kahneman, Daniel, “The Causes of Preference Reversal,” American Economic Review, vol. 80 (1990), pp. 204–17.Google Scholar

19 Thaler, Richard, “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 1 (1980), pp. 39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knetsch, Jack L., “The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves,” American Economic Review, vol. 79 (1989), pp. 1277–84.Google Scholar

20 Hey, John and Orme, Chris, “Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data,” Econometrica, vol. 47 (1994), pp. 263–91Google Scholar; Loomes, Graham and Sugden, Robert, “Incorporating a Stochastic Element into Decision Theory,” European Economic Review, vol. 39 (1995), pp. 641–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Perhaps the most careful argument for interpreting anomalies as mistakes is Charles Plott's “discovered preference hypothesis”: Plott, Charles R., “Rational Behavior in Markets and Social Choice Processes: The Discovered Preference Hypothesis,” in The Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior, ed. Arrow, Kenneth J., Colombatto, Enrico, Perlman, Mark, and Schmidt, Christian (New York: Macmillan, 1996)Google Scholar. I think Plott's argument is questionbegging. On this, see Kahneman, Daniel's “Comment” in the same volume.Google Scholar

22 Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty (London: Dent, 1972), first published 1859.Google Scholar

23 A strict statement of this position would allow the possibility that, in some decision problems, rational deliberation leads to a tie between two or more equally rational solutions. The essential idea is that considerations of rationality fully determine the decision maker's ranking of the options open to him.

24 Harsanyi, , “Morality and the Theory of Rational Behaviour” (supra note 6), pp. 49–52.Google Scholar

25 Broome, , Weighing Goods (supra note 10).Google Scholar

26 Griffin, James, Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986)Google Scholar, and Griffin, , “Against the Taste Model” (supra note 10)Google Scholar. The quotation is from p. 64 of “Against the Taste Model.”

27 Sen, Amartya, Inequality Reexamined (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992).Google Scholar

28 Ibid., pp. 5, 45.

29 Griffin, , “Against the Taste Model,” pp. 50–52, 66–67.Google Scholar

30 Ibid., pp. 59–61.

31 Gauthier, , Morals by Agreement, pp. 21–59.Google Scholar

32 Hume, , A Treatise of Human Nature, p. 416.Google Scholar

33 Sugden, Robert, “Rational Choice: A Survey of Contributions from Economics and Philosophy,” Economic Journal, vol. 101 (1991), pp. 751–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hampton, Jean, “The Failure of Expected-Utility Theory as a Theory of Reason,” Economics and Philosophy, vol. 10 (1994), pp. 195–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Broome, , Weighing Goods, pp. 100–104.Google Scholar

35 There is some evidence that people's preferences over certain kinds of lotteries are cyclical in this way: we can find lotteries A, B, and, C such that people prefer A to B, B to C, and C to A. See Loomes, Graham, Starmer, Chris, and Sugden, Robert, “Observing Violations of Transitivity by Experimental Methods,” Econometrica, vol. 59 (1991), pp. 425–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Gauthier, , Morals by Agreement, p. 26.Google Scholar

37 Schelling, Thomas, The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Lewis, David, Convention: A Philosophical Study (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969)Google Scholar. I explore the implications of Schelling's and Lewis's analyses for contractarian theory in Sugden, Robert, “Contractarianism and Norms,” Ethics, vol. 100 (1990), pp. 768–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I discuss Hume's treatment of these issues in Sugden, Robert, The Economics of Rights, Co-operation, and Welfare (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986).Google Scholar

38 Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971). Primary goods are defined on p. 62.Google Scholar

39 Rawls explains the Kantian nature of his theory on pp. 251–57 of A Theory of Justice (the quotation is from p. 252). In his later work, Rawls puts less emphasis on ideal rationality, and more on the need to secure agreement among individuals with incompatible moral or religious beliefs: see Rawls, John, “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 14 (1985), pp. 223–51Google Scholar. This later work is closer to the contractarian tradition in which I am working.

40 Rawls, , A Theory of Justice, p. 395.Google Scholar

41 Ibid., p. 417.

42 Ibid., p. 174.

43 Ibid., p. 62.

44 Ibid., pp. 93–94.

45 Ibid., p. 95.

46 For example, if I own shares in a company, the value of those shares on the stock market is (part of) my wealth. The dividends I receive from the shares is income. But the market value of a share is just the capitalization of the expected flow of future dividends. Income and wealth are just different ways of describing the same underlying source of value: I can realize the capital value of my shares only by forgoing the dividends.

47 Rawls, , A Theory of justice, pp. 93–95.Google Scholar

48 Dworkin, Ronald, “What Is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 10 (1981), pp. 283–345.Google Scholar