Skip to main content
×
Home

Fairness and Aggregation

  • A. C. PASEAU (a1) and BEN SAUNDERS (a2)
Abstract

Sometimes, two unfair distributions cancel out in aggregate. Paradoxically, two distributions each of which is fair in isolation may give rise to aggregate unfairness. When assessing the fairness of distributions, it therefore matters whether we assess transactions piecemeal or focus only on the overall result. This piece illustrates these difficulties for two leading theories of fairness (proportionality and shortfall minimization) before offering a formal proof that no non-trivial theory guarantees aggregativity. This is not intended as a criticism of any particular theory, but as a datum that must be taken into account in constructing a theory of fairness.

Copyright
References
Hide All

1 E.g. Geoffrey Cupit, ‘Fairness, by Nicholas Rescher [book review]’, Mind 113 (2002), pp. 387–90, at 389.

2 E.g. Brams Steven J. and Taylor Alan D., Fair Division: From Cake-cutting to Dispute Resolution (Cambridge, 1996).

3 A seminal paper on the bankruptcy (or conflicting claim) problem is Aumann R. and Maschler M., ‘Game Theoretic Analysis of a Bankruptcy Problem from the Talmud’, Journal of Economic Theory 36 (1985), pp. 195213. For a survey of the ensuing literature, see Thomson W., ‘Axiomatic and Game-theoretic Analysis of Bankruptcy and Taxation Problems: A Survey’, Mathematical Social Sciences 45 (2003), pp. 249–97.

4 E.g. Reiff Mark, ‘Proportionality, Winner-take-all and Distributive Justice’, Politics, Philosophy & Economics 8 (2009), pp. 542, at 11; Brown Alexander, ‘Principles of Stakes Fairness in Sport’, Politics, Philosophy & Economics 14 (2015), pp. 152–86.

5 Broome John, ‘Fairness’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91 (1990), pp. 87101.

6 E.g. Hooker Brad, ‘Fairness’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 (2005), pp. 329–52; Saunders Ben, ‘Fairness between Competing Claims’, Res Publica 16 (2010), pp. 4155; Tomlin Patrick, ‘On Fairness and Claims’, Utilitas 24 (2012), pp. 200–13; Lazenby Hugh, ‘Broome on Fairness and Lotteries’, Utilitas 26 (2014), pp. 331–45; and Kirkpatrick James R. and Eastwood Nick, ‘Broome's Theory of Fairness and the Problem of Quantifying the Strengths of Claims’, Utilitas 27 (2015), pp. 8291.

7 Broome, ‘Fairness’, p. 92.

8 Broome, ‘Fairness’, p. 93.

9 Shortfall minimization is discussed in Nicholas Rescher, Fairness (New Brunswick, NJ, 2002), pp. 52–3, and endorsed by Cupit, ‘Fairness [review]’.

10 Broome, ‘Fairness’, p. 95.

11 Stone Peter, ‘Lotteries, Justice and Probability’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 21 (2009), pp. 395409, at 398.

12 Rawls John, Political Liberalism (New York, 1993), pp. 265–71.

13 The authors share authorship and credit equally for this work. A predecessor of this article was presented at the Universities of Stirling (September 2012), St Andrews (September 2012) and Oxford (January 2013). The authors thank these audiences, along with John Broome, Hugo Dixon, Hugh Lazenby, Patrick Tomlin and two anonymous referees for the journal for their comments.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Utilitas
  • ISSN: 0953-8208
  • EISSN: 1741-6183
  • URL: /core/journals/utilitas
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 5
Total number of PDF views: 74 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 304 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.