Abstract
This article uses a stated-preference survey to investigate the impact on judgments regarding the fair division of a fixed supply of a good of differing types of information by which to describe five distributional principles. The three types of information are quantitative information only (the predominant approach in existing studies), verbal information only, and both quantitative and verbal information. The five distributional principles are equal division among recipients, Rawlsian maximin, total benefit maximization (TBM), equal benefit (EB) for recipients, and allocation according to relative need (RN) among recipients. We find important informational effects on judgments of the fair division of each of two health-related goods (pain-relief pills and apples consumed to obtain an essential vitamin): judgments based on quantitative information only are consistent with previous research; changing to verbal descriptions causes a notable shift in support among principles, and in particular greater support for the principle of TBM; judgments based on both quantitative and verbal information match more closely those made with only quantitative information. The pattern of judgments is consistent with the hypothesis that subjects do not fully understand the relationship between the conceptual meaning of the principles (as described verbally) and their implied quantitative divisions. We also find evidence of modest differential judgments across goods (pills vs. apples), sample effects (university vs. community), and sex effects, and little support for a non-zero allocation principle.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amiel Y, Cowell F (1999) Thinking about inequality: personal judgment and income distributions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bar-Hillel M, Yaari M (1993) Judgments of distributive justice. In: Mellers B, Baron J (eds) Psychological perspectives on justice: theory and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Barer, ML, Evans, RG, Marmor, TR (eds) (1994) Why are some people healthy and others not? The determinants of the health of populations. A. de Gruyter, New York
Bosmans K, Schokkaert E (2009) Equality preferences in the claims problem: a questionnaire study of cuts in earnings and pensions. Soc Choice Welf 33(4): 533–557
Cookson R, Dolan P (1999) Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study. Health Policy 49: 63–74
Culyer AJ, Wagstaff A (1993) Equity and equality in health and health care. J Health Econ 12(4): 431–457
Dominguez D, Thomson W (2006) A new solution to the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims. Econ Theory 28: 283–307
Faravelli M (2007) How context matters: a survey-based experiment on distributive justice. J Public Econ 91(7-8): 1399–1422
Fleurbaey M (2008) Fairness, responsibility, and welfare. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Frey B, Pommerehne W (1993) On the fairness of pricing—an empirical survey among the general population. J Econ Behav Organ 20: 295–307
Gaertner W (1994) Distributive justice: theoretical foundations and empirical findings. Eur Econ Rev 38(711): 720
Gaertner W, Jungeilges J (2002) Evaluation via extended orderings: empirical findings from Western and Eastern Europe. Soc Choice Welf 19(1): 29–55
Gaertner W, Schwettmann L (2007) Equity, responsibility and the cultural dimension. Economica 74(276): 627–649
Gaertner W, Jungeilges J, Neck R (2001) Cross-cultural equity evaluations: a questionnaire-experimental approach. Eur Econ Rev 45: 953–963
Herrero C, Moreno-Tereno J, Ponti G (2010) On the adjudication of conflicting claims: an experimental study. Soc Choice Welf 34(1): 145–179
Hey J, Pasca C (2009) Inferring social preferences over income distributions through axioms. Discussion Paper 18/2009. University of York, York, UK
Hurley J (2000) The normative economics of heath and health care. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP (eds) Handbook of health economics. North Holland, Amsterdam
Jungeilges J, Theisen T (2008) A comparative study of equity judgments in Lithuania and Norway. J Socioecon 37: 1090–1118
Kahneman D, Varey C (1991) Notes on the psychology of utility. In: Elster J, Roemer J (eds) Interpersonal comparisons of well-being. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Konow J (2000) Fair shares: accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. Am Econ Rev 90(4): 1072
Konow J (2003) Which if the Fairest of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories. J Econ Lit 41(4): 1188–1239
Konow J (2009) Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? An impartial spectator analysis of justice. Soc Choice Welf 33(1): 101–127
Long JS, Freese J (2006) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. Stata Press, College Station
Moreno-Ternero J, Villar A (2004) The Talmud rule and securement of agents’ rewards. Math Soc Sci 47: 245–257
Moulin H (1991) Welfare bounds in the fair-division problem. J Econ Theory 54: 321–337
Myerson RB, Satterthwaite MA (1983) Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading. J Econ Theory 28: 265–281
Nord E, Richardson J, Street A, Kuhse H, Singer P (1995) Who cares about cost? Does economic analysis impose or reflect social values?. Health Policy 34: 79–94
OECD: (2009) OECD health data 2009. OECD, Paris
Paulos JA (1988) Innumeracy: mathematical illiteracy and its consequences. Hill and Wang, New York
Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Rice N, Smith P (2001) Capitation and risk adjustment in health care financing: an international progress report. Milbank Q 79(1): 81–113
Roemer J (1986) Equality of resources implies equality of welfare. Q J Econ 101: 751–784
Roemer J (1998) Equality of opportunity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Schokkaert E, Devooght K (2003) Responsibility-sensitive fair compensation in different cultures. Soc Choice Welf 21: 207–242
Schokkaert E, Lagrou L (1983) An empirical approach to distributive justice. J Public Econ 21: 33–52
Schokkaert E, Overlaet B (1989) Moral intuitions and economics models of distributive justice. Soc Choice Welf 6(19): 31
Schokkaert E, Devooght K, Capeau B, Lelli S (2007) Allocating an indivisible good: a questionnaire-experimental study of intercultural differences. Leuven Discussion Paper 07-16. Department of Economics, KULeuven
Sen A (1992) Inequality re-examined. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Smith P, Rice N, Carr-Hill RA (2001) Capitation funding in the public sector. J R Stat Soc A 164(2): 217–257
Traub S (2002) Equitable taxation: qualitative versus quantitative ratings. J Econ 9(Supplement 1): 223–240
Traub S, Seidl C, Schmidt U (2009) An experimental study on individual choice, social welfare, and social preferences. Eur Econ Rev 53(4): 285–300
Tversky A, Kahneman D, Bell D, Raiffa H (1988) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In: Decision making: descriptive, normative and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ubel P (2001) Pricing life: why it’s time for health care rationing. MIT Press, Cambridge
Williams A, Cookson R, Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP (2000) Equity in health. In: Handbook of health economics. North-Holland, Amsterdam
Yaari ME, Bar-Hillel M (1984) On dividing justly. Soc Choice Welf 1: 1–24
Young HP (1994) Equity in theory and practice. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hurley, J., Buckley, N.J., Cuff, K. et al. Judgments regarding the fair division of goods: the impact of verbal versus quantitative descriptions of alternative divisions. Soc Choice Welf 37, 341–372 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-010-0487-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-010-0487-0