Book contents
- Welfare Theory, Public Action, and Ethical Values
- Welfare Theory, Public Action, and Ethical Values
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Revisiting the History of Welfare Economics
- Part I Plurality of Welfare in the Making of Welfare Economics
- Part II Developing Modern Welfare Economics
- Index
- References
Introduction: Revisiting the History of Welfare Economics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 March 2021
Book contents
- Welfare Theory, Public Action, and Ethical Values
- Welfare Theory, Public Action, and Ethical Values
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Revisiting the History of Welfare Economics
- Part I Plurality of Welfare in the Making of Welfare Economics
- Part II Developing Modern Welfare Economics
- Index
- References
Summary
The Introduction explains the concepts of welfarism and non-welfarism, relating it to the way economistss have typically approached the problem of welfare. Drawing on the chapters in the volume, it explores ways in which economists have departed from welfarism when tackling practical problems and discussing public policy.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Welfare Theory, Public Action, and Ethical ValuesRevisiting the History of Welfare Economics, pp. 1 - 18Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Adler, M. D. 2012. Well-Being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arneson, R. J. 1990. Liberalism, distributive subjectivism, and equal opportunity for welfare. Philosophy & Public Affairs 19, 158–94.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley. 2nd ed., New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. and Debreu, G. 1954. Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica 22(3), 265–90.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. and Scitovsky, T. (eds.) 1969. Readings in Welfare Economics. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A. B. 1970. On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory 2(3), 244–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, R. E. 1985. A History of Modern Economic Analysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Backhouse, R. E. and Nishizawa, T. 2010. No Wealth but Life: Welfare Economics and the Welfare State in Britain, 1880–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bator, F. M. 1958. The anatomy of market failure. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 72(3), 351–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baujard, A. 2014. A Utility Reading for the History of Welfare Economics. Mimeo Gate Lyon Saint-Etienne.Google Scholar
Baujard, A. 2016. Utilitarianism and anti-utilitarianism. In Faccarello, G. and Kurz, H. D. (eds.), Handbook of the History of Economic Analysis, Vol. 3, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 577–88.Google Scholar
Baujard, A. 2017. L’économie du bien-être est morte. Vive l’économie du bien-être! In Campagnolo, G. and Gharbi, J. S. (eds.), Philosophie économique, Paris: Editions Matériologiques, 77–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baujard, A. and Gilardone, M. 2017. Sen is not a capability theorist. Journal of Economic Methodology 24(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baujard, A., Gilardone, M. and Salles, M. A conversation with Amartya Sen, to be published in Social Choice and Welfare (video overview available at www.unicaen.fr/recherche/mrsh/forge/262).Google Scholar
Bergson (Burk), A. 1938. A reformulation of certain aspects of welfare economics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 52(2), 310–34.Google Scholar
Blaug, M. 1996. Economic Theory in Retrospect, 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bossert, W. and Fleurbaey, M. 1996. Redistribution and compensation. Social Choice and Welfare 13(3), 343–55.Google Scholar
Boulding, K. E. 1952. Welfare economics. In Haley, B. F. (ed.), A Survey of Contemporary Economics, Vol. II, Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin for the American Economic Association, 1–34.Google Scholar
Brouwer, W. B. F., Culyer, A. J., van Exel, N. J. A. and Rutten, F. F. H. 2008. Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. Journal of Health Economics 27(2), 325–38.Google Scholar
Chipman, J. S., and Moore, J. C. 1978. The new welfare economics, 1939–1974. International Economic Review 19, 547–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clément, V., Le Clainche, C. and Serra, D. 2008. Economie de la justice et de l’équité. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
Coase, R. H. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law & Economics 3 (Oct.), 1–44.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 1989. On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics 99(4), 906–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D. 2019. Homo Economicus, AIs, humans and rats: Decision-making and economic welfare. Journal of Economic Methodology 26(1), 2–12.Google Scholar
d’Aspremont, C. and Gevers, L. 1977. Equity and the informational basis of collective choice. Review of Economic Studies 44(2), 199–209.Google Scholar
d’Aspremont, C. and Gevers, L. 2002. Social welfare functionals and interpersonal comparability. In Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K. and Suzumura, K. (eds.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, Vol. 1, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 459–541.Google Scholar
Dobb, M. 1969. Welfare Economics and the Economics of Socialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1981a. What is equality? Part 1: Equality of welfare. Philosophy & Public Affairs 10(3), 185–246.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1981b. What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1(4), 283–345.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 2007. Social choice and just institutions: New perspectives. Economics and Philosophy 23, 15–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 2008. Fairness, Responsibility, and Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Maniquet, F. 2011. A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., Tungodden, B. and Chang, H. F. 2003. Any non-welfarist method of policy assessment violates the Pareto principle: A comment. Journal of Political Economy 111(6), 1382–5.Google Scholar
Gaertner, W., Pattanaik, P. and Suzumura, K. 1992. Individual rights revisited. Economica 59S, 161–77.Google Scholar
Graaff, J. de V. 1957. Theoretical Welfare Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. 1953. Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk-taking. Journal of Political Economy 61(5), 434–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. 1955. Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy 63(4), 309–21.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1939. The foundations of welfare economics. Economic Journal 49(196), 696–712.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1941. The rehabilitation of consumers’ surplus. Review of Economic Studies 9, 108–16.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. (no date; c. 1955): ‘Another Shot at Welfare Economics, Lecture I and Lecture II’, unpublished typescript, 19 pages folio + 21 pages, diagrams in the text.Google Scholar
Hicks, , 1959. A preface and a manifesto. In Essays in World Economics, Oxford: Clarendon Press, viii–xiv. Reprinted in Arrow and Scitovsky, 1969.Google Scholar
Igersheim, H. 2017. The death of welfare economics: History of a controversy. CHOPE Working Paper 2017-03, 1–37.Google Scholar
Kaldor, N. 1939. Welfare propositions of economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. The Economic Journal 49(195), 549–52.Google Scholar
Kaplow, L. and Shavell, S. 2001. Any non-welfarist method of policy assessment violates the Pareto principle. Journal of Political Economy 109(2), 281–6.Google Scholar
Kaplow, L. and Shavell, S. 2004. Any non-welfarist method of policy assessment violates the Pareto principle: Reply. Journal of Political Economy 112(1), 249–51.Google Scholar
Kolm, S.-C. 1971. Justice et équité. Paris: CEPREMAP. New ed., Paris: CNRS, 1972; English version, Justice and Equity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Lipsey, R. G., and Lancaster, K. 1956. The general theory of second best. Review of Economic Studies 24(1), 11–32.Google Scholar
Little, I. M. D. 1950. A Critique of Welfare Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maguain, D. 2002. Les théories de la justice distributive post-rawlsiennes. Une revue de la littérature. Revue Economique 53(2), 165–99.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 1988. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1848. Principles of Political Economy and Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy. Reprinted as Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vols. II–III, edited by Robson, J. M., Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1963.Google Scholar
Mongin, P. 2003. L’axiomatisation et les théories économiques. Revue Economique 54(1), 99–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mongin, P. 2006. Is there progress in normative economics? Economics and Philosophy 22, 19–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mongin, P. and Fleurbaey, M. 2005. The news of the death of welfare economics is greatly exaggerated. Social Choice and Welfare 25(2), 381–418.Google Scholar
Musgrave, R. 1959. The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economy. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Ng, Y.-K. 1999. Utility, informed preferences, or happiness: Following Harsanyi’s argument to its logical conclusion. Social Choice and Welfare 16(2), 197–21.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. 1995. Equality or priority. Lindley Lecture, University of Kansas Press. Reprinted in Clayton, M. and Williams, A. (eds.), The Ideal of Equality, New York: St Martin’s Press and London: Macmillan, ch. 5, 81–125.Google Scholar
Pattanaik, P. K. 1994. Some non-welfaristic issues in welfare economics. In Dutta, B. (ed.), Welfare Economics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 197–248.Google Scholar
Pattanaik, P. K. and Xu, Y. 1990. On ranking opportunity sets in terms of freedom of choice. Recherches Economiques de Louvain 56(3/4), 383–90.Google Scholar
Pattanaik, P. K. and Xu, Y. 2003. Non-welfaristic policy assessment and the Pareto principle. Public Choice Conference, Nashville.Google Scholar
Pazner, E. A. and Schmeidler, D. 1974. A difficulty in the concept of fairness. Review of Economic Studies 41(3), 441–3.Google Scholar
Pazner, E. A. and Schmeidler, D. 1978. Egalitarian equivalent allocations: A new concept of economic equity. Quarterly Journal of Economics 92(4), 671–87.Google Scholar
Robbins, L. C. 1932. Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan. 2nd ed. 1935.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. 1947. Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. 1950. Evaluation of real national income. Oxford Economic Papers 2(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Scitovsky, T. 1941. A note on welfare propositions in economics. Review of Economic Studies 9, 77–88. Reprinted in Arrow and Scitovsky 1969.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1970a. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco, CA: Holden Day.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1970b. The impossibility of a Paretian liberal. Journal of Political Economy 78(1), 152–7.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1977a. On weights and measures: Informational constraints in social welfare analysis. Econometrica 45(7), 1539–72.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1979a. Personal utilities and public judgements: Or what’s wrong with welfare economics. The Economic Journal 89(355), 537–58.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1979b. Utilitarianism and welfarism. The Journal of Philosophy 76(9), 463–89.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1979c. Equality of what? In McMurrin, S. (ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 197–220. New ed. in Sen, A. K., Choice, Welfare and Measurement, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1985b. Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy 72(4), 169–221.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1999. The possibility of social choice. American Economic Review 89(3), 349–78.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 2009. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. 2005. The pre-history of Kenneth Arrow’s social choice and individual values. Social Choice and Welfare 25(2/3), 319–26.Google Scholar
Suzumura, K. 2016. Choice, Preferences, and Procedures: A Rational Choice Theoretic Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Suzumura, K. and Xu, Y. 2001. Characterizations of consequentialism and non-consequentialism. Journal of Economic Theory 101, 423–36.Google Scholar
Tessier, P. 2009. Harsanyi, Sen ou Bentham. Quelle perspective adopter pour l’évaluation du bien-être en santé? Revue Economique 60(6), 1309–33.Google Scholar
Thomson, W. 2001. On the axiomatic method and its recent applications to game theory and resource allocation. Social Choice and Welfare 18, 327–86.Google Scholar
Varian, H. R. 1974. Equity, envy, and efficiency. Journal of Economic Theory 9, 63–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winch, D. 1996. Riches and Poverty: An Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain, 1750–1834. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Winch, D. 2009. Wealth and Life: Essays on the Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain, 1848–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 2
- Cited by