Skip to main content
Log in

Axiomatic foundations for fairness-motivated preferences

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Social Choice and Welfare Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Much work in social choice theory takes individual preferences as uninvestigated inputs into aggregation functions designed to reflect considerations of fairness. Advances in experimental and behavioural economics show that fairness can also be an important motivation in the preferences of individuals themselves. A proper characterisation of how fairness concerns enter such preferences can enrich the informational basis of many social choice exercises. This paper proposes axiomatic foundations for individual fairness-motivated preferences that cover most of the models developed to rationalise observed behaviour in experiments. These models fall into two classes: Outcome-based models, which see preferences as defined only over distributive outcomes, and context-dependent models, which allow rankings over distributive outcomes to change systematically with non-outcome factors. I accommodate outcome-based and context-sensitive fairness concerns by modelling fairness-motivated preferences as a reference-dependent preference structure. I first present a set of axioms and two theorems that generate commonly used outcome-based models as special cases. I then generalise the axiomatic basis to allow for reference-dependence, and derive a simple functional form in which the weight on each person’s payoff depends on a reference vector of how much each person deserves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Andreoni J, Miller J (2002) Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica 70(2): 737–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni J, Petrie R (2004) Beauty, gender and stereotypes: evidence from laboratory experiments. Unpublished manuscript

  • Andreoni J, Brown PM, Vesterlund L (2002) What makes an allocation fair? Some experimental evidence. Games Econ Behav 40: 1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ, Chenery HB, Minhas BS, Solow RM (1961) Capital-labor substitution and economic efficiency. Rev Econ Statist XLIII(3): 225–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman I, Munro A, Rhodes B, Starmer C, Sugden R (1997) A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Q J Econ 112: 479–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby C, Donaldson D (1982) Ratio-scale and translation-scale full interpersonal comparability without domain restrictions: admissible social-evaluation functions. Int Econ Rev 23(2): 249–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2000) ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Am Econ Rev 90(1): 166–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandts J, Charness G (1999) Retribution in a cheap-talk experiment. Unpublished manuscript

  • Brandts J, Sola C (2001) Reference points and negative reciprocity in simple sequential games. Games Econ Behav 36(2): 138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer CF (2003) Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. The Roundtable Series in Behavioral Economics. Princeton University Press and Russell Sage Foundation, New York and Princeton

  • Charness G, Dufwenberg M (2006) Promises and partnership. Econometrica 74(6): 1579–1601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Q J Econ 117: 817–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew SH, Epstein LG (1989) A unifying approach to axiomatic non-expected utility theories. J Econ Theory 49: 207–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox JC, Friedman D, Gjerstad S (2007) A tractable model of reciprocity and fairness. Games Econ Behav 59(1): 17–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debreu G (1954) Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function. In: Thrall RM, Davis CH, Coombs RL(eds) Decision processes. Wiley, New York, pp 159–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Debreu G (1983) Topological methods in cardinal utility theory. In: Arrow KJ, Karlin S, Suppes P(eds) Mathematical methods in the social sciences. Stanford mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, vol 4. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 16–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek JS, List C (2003) Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: a reconciliation. Br J Polit Sci 33(1): 1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufwenberg M, Kirchsteiger G (2004) A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games Econ Behav 47(2): 268–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk A, Fischbacher U (2000) A theory of reciprocity. Games Econ Behav 54(2): 293–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Q J Econ 114: 817–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr E, Schmidt KM (2001) (February). Theories of fairness and reciprocity—evidence and economic applications. CEPR Discussion Paper 2703

  • Forsythe R, Horowitz JL, Savin NE, Sefton M (1994) Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games Econ Behav 6: 347–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey BS, Benz M, Stützer A (2004) Introducing procedural utility: not only what, but also how matters. J Institut Theor Econ 160(3): 377–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gächter S, Riedl A (2005) Moral property rights in bargaining with infeasible claims. Manage Sci 51(2): 249–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güth W, Schmittberger R, Schwarze B (1982) An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J Econ Behav Organ 3(4): 367–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güth W, Huck S, Müller W (2001) The relevance of equal splits in ultimatum games. Games Econ Behav 37: 161–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalai E, Smorodinsky M (1975) Other solutions to Nash’s bargaining problem. Econometrica 43: 513–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karni E, Safra Z (2002) Individual sense of justice: a utility representation. Econometrica 70(1): 263–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledyard J (1995) Public goods: a survey of experimental research. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE(eds) The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 111–194

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1963) Constant elasticity of substitution production functions. Rev Econ Stud 30(2): 73–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munro A, Sugden R (2003) On the theory of reference-dependent preferences. J Econ Behav Organ 50(4): 407–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neilson WS (2002) (January). An axiomatic characterization of the Fehr-Schmidt model of inequity aversion. Unpublished manuscript

  • Neilson WS (2006) Axiomatic reference-dependence in behavior toward others and toward risk. Econ Theory 28(3): 681–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state and utopia. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ok EA, Koçkesen L (2000) Negatively interdependent preferences. Soc Choice Welf 17(3): 533–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattanaik PK, Suzumura K (1994) Rights, welfarism and social choice. Am Econ Rev 84(2): 435–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Plott C (1973) Path independence, rationality, and social choice. Econometrica 41(6): 1075–1091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasnikar V, Roth AE (1992) Considerations of fairness and strategy: experimental data from sequential games. Q J Econ 107: 865–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabin M (1993) Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Am Econ Rev 83(5): 1281–1302

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth AE, Prasnikar V, Okuno-Fujiwara M, Zamir S (1991) Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: an experimental study. Am Econ Rev 81(5): 1068–1095

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandbu ME (2003) Explorations in process-dependent preference theory. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University

  • Sandbu ME (2007) Fairness and the roads not taken: An experimental test of non-reciprocal set-dependence in distributive preferences. Games Econ Behav 61(1): 113–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1995) Rationality and social choice. Am Econ Rev 85(1): 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1997) Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrica 65(4): 745–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Anchor Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzumura K (1999) Consequences, opportunities and procedures. Soc Choice Welf 16(1): 17–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q J Econ 106(4): 1039–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzawa H (1962) Production functions with constant elasticities of substitution. Rev Econ Stud 29(4): 291–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Eiliv Sandbu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sandbu, M.E. Axiomatic foundations for fairness-motivated preferences. Soc Choice Welfare 31, 589–619 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-008-0296-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-008-0296-x

Keywords

Navigation