87 results
A RESPONSE TO ERIK SCHOKKAERT ON MACROJUSTICE
- Serge-Christophe Kolm
-
- Journal:
- Economics & Philosophy / Volume 25 / Issue 1 / March 2009
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 March 2009, pp. 85-98
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Erik Schokkaert's note presents a very good summary of the theory of macrojustice and a very good list of the directions of research it points to. This is quite fitting since a research programme defines a paradigm, and he sees this proposal as a paradigm shift. This is also very appropriate since his own qualifications are the best for advancing fast in these research topics. I have only a very small number of qualifications to add to his presentation, but I prefer to begin with emphasizing the most important issues. Two aspects can be seen as the most important: the de facto axiomatic derivation of the solution ELIE and its application on the one hand, and the present state of scholarly studies of the optimum or just distribution of income on the other hand. Let us enter by the second door (as opposed to what is done in the book Macrojustice). This will lead us to conclude with a more synthetic and broader view of the basic logic of the paradigms of justice and of the surprising recent history of their interpretations.
21 - General properties of processes
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 290-297
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
General preferences
Transfers, process and preferences
Let variable x ∈ X denote the set of transfers, from and to any agent (these distinctions will come later). As noted, x also entails the final allocation, and the “allocative preferences” can be about both the transfers per se and the resulting allocation. Variable z ∈ Z denotes a type of process, and hence both a type of “mechanism” leading to a solution, and the type of social relations that accompany it. An agent's (overall) preferences are concerned with the pairs (x, z). Classically, these preferences will be assumed to constitute a preordering with pairwise relations denoted as ≻ (preference), (indifference), and ≻̰ (≻ or ~). These preferences are often representable by an ordinal utility function u(x, z), and we will often consider this representation for convenience. These preferences, considered for all involved agents, will be used to explain the outcome x of each type of process z; the emergence of a specific process z; the normative evaluation and comparison of the processes; and the evaluation of the realized solution among them.
Intrinsic process preference and a basic lemma
Let us first point out a basic general property. Assume that x and x′ ∈ X, z and z′ ∈ Z, and (x′, z′) ≻̰ (x, z). Then, (x, z) ≻ (x, z′) implies (x′, z′) ≻ (x, z′), and (x′, z) ≻ (x′, z′) implies (x′, z) ≻ (x, z).
9 - Reciprocity and social sentiments
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 142-150
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Reciprocities are closely related to a complex of sentiments about society and about one's place in it. The motives for reciprocations are not emotional or motivational atoms. Each is a compound of several such sentiments, and each of these constituent sentiments also applies in vast other domains. Balance reciprocity rests on senses of equality and impartiality, and, sometimes, fairness and equity, distributive or compensatory justice, and all the sentiments that can accompany the sense of moral indebtedness (sometimes questions of dignity, inferiority or dependency), and it is supported by senses of propriety or duty, social or moral norms, and sometimes sentiments of guilt or shame. Liking reciprocity mobilizes affection of various types and intensity, concepts of responsibility, and the sense of self and of social existence. Gratitude mixes balance and liking. Revenge and resentment can mobilize issues of responsibility, senses of imbalance and balance, propriety and impropriety, and sometimes injustice, and they can be motivated by anger or by social norms and shame.
Moreover, fairness and affection may be not only motives for reciprocity but also objects of the relation. Such a reciprocal fairness is an important ingredient in the realization of social justice and social peace. The essential social normative motive of “universalization” – such as Kant's categorical imperative – is a kind of putative reciprocity (“act as if it induced other people to act likewise”). Other sentiments also have some relevance.
This chapter focuses on the relations between reciprocity and these sentiments, and their consequences.
1 - Presentation
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 11-32
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Evidence, scope, and motives of reciprocity
In his Essay on the Gift (1924) – one of the most influential founding works of social science – Marcel Mauss calls reciprocity “one of the human rocks on which societies are built.” Reciprocity is treating others as they treat you, because of this very fact and not as the result of some agreed upon or expected exchange (this will be explained in detail). This basic, polymorphic and pervasive pattern of human social conduct is present in all social interactions and relations between individuals or groups that are neither overt violence nor based on threat of it, as the main fact or as a reciprocity of respect or attention that permits the other aspects of the relation. Nevertheless, reciprocity is not a primitive social fact; it results from some of three more fundamental ingredients – a duty of social balance or equity, the interaction of liking, and a mutuality of interests – which themselves result from a number of still more basic psychological elements. Of course, besides the reciprocity of favourable acts and sentiments – to which the tradition of social science restricts the concept of reciprocity –, there also is the negative reciprocation of revenge and retaliation for deterrence, which is only partially symmetrical to and does not have the fundamental role of (“positive”) reciprocity.
The existence, extent, importance and forms of reciprocity are in fact obvious.
List of illustrations
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp ix-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
3 - Giving and exchanges
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 50-73
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Concepts and distinctions
Person, agent, actor, individual, etc.
We consider entities with these names who can act, perform actions, engage in conduct resulting in behaviour, be responsible, have feelings, emotions, sentiments, reasons and motives of all kinds, have information, expectations and memory, have attitudes, preferences and desires, have social status, and so on. They will usually be individuals, but they can occasionally be constituted groups or institutional entities (whose consideration as persons in these various respects requires an extended discussion omitted here).
Action, conduct, behaviour, motives, preference
An action is a set of acts (possibly a single act) with an intention (or joint intentions) and a meaning for its actor (and generally also for other members of the society). An action manifests some freedom (although it can be more or less constrained and induced). Hence, it implies some responsibility of the agent. The intention results from motives, which can be reasons or sentiments of various possible types. A set of acts is behaviour. A set of actions is conduct. Hence, conduct is behaviour plus the corresponding motives (and meaning). Desires and drives are types of motives. Preference evaluates several alternatives comparatively with respect to some values. Applied to action, it describes the choice of one of the possible alternatives (economists' “revealed preferences”), as a result of the corresponding motives.
Gift giving
We consider actions that are intended to benefit someone else and are in some way costly for the actor.
6 - Balance reciprocity
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 105-115
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The propriety of reciprocity
Balance reciprocity results from the urge or desire to reciprocate the gift or favour with a return gift or favour that has a certain relation of equality with the former, and, in some sense, matches or compensates it. The balance sometimes takes the form of pure tit-for-tat reciprocation; in limiting cases, the reaction can be instinctive or almost so, with no conscious motive. However, the answer is more often conscious and weighed, sometimes carefully. Then, the action is pushed by a sense of propriety or duty, rather than directly pulled by desire – although one can always consider a desire to restore a balance, and even speak trivially of a desire to act properly or to do one's duty. The balance-reciprocal action is “deontic” rather than “consequentialist” – although this motive induces one to want consequences of one's act, namely the resulting balance and even, one can say, to have behaved properly or morally, and it is often also supported by a desire for social approval (or non-disapproval). At any rate, the motives for balance reciprocity are thoroughly different from those of other reciprocities: they have nothing to do either with liking or – consciously – with seeking interest (although they can be associated with some motives of these types to some extent and in various ways). These other motives for reciprocity are consequences of other sentiments or desires – liking and interest.
17 - General methodology of reciprocity analysis
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 245-250
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The previous analysis of reciprocity should be continued by a formal analysis. This permits making the relations in question more precise and finding out the consequences of sets of relations, in particular the consequences of the interdependence among the acts, sentiments and attitudes of agents that concern others.
In the end, we will arrive at the discussion of the form most classic in economic analysis. In this form, there are two individuals indexed by i and j, who, respectively, chose items xi and xj and seek the highest value of ordinal utility functions ui (xi, xj, zi) and uj (xj, xi, zj), where zi and zj denote sets of relevant parameters (they can in particular include a description of the type of relationship between these two individuals when they make these choices). These utility functions can be generalized into preference orderings, which is practically relevant when some aspects of the choices have priority. The resulting interaction also depends on other items, besides domains of choice, such as the information of agents, the order of actions in time, and possibilities of communication and agreement.
In such a formulation, xi or xj can, for instance, be a gift of any kind, and the other the return gift (or a harm and the corresponding response).
18 - The theory of comparative, matching, or balance reciprocity
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 251-261
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Reciprocitarian comparative sentiments
Reciprocity is motivated by comparison when the return-gift is elicited by sentiments based on a comparison between the gift and the return-gift. Such comparative reciprocity contrasts with liking reciprocity (although both are joined in a particular case, when the return giver wishes to show that she likes the other as much as she is liked by her).
Comparative reciprocities can involve various kinds of sentiments that elicit giving in return. The essential sentiment is the propriety of balancing the gift with some appropriate return gift. It has various different basic motives. Some of them focus on the overall situations, and others on the transfers (gifts). Some focus on one of the two agents, and others on both of them. Some refer to concepts or sentiments in the family of justice or fairness, whereas this is not the case for others. The sentiments or senses that can be involved are very varied: propriety, adequacy, fairness, justice, equity, equality, deserts, merit, moral indebtedness, shame, guilt, duty, or the requirement of a norm. These sentiments can be on the part of the initial receiver who gives in return, or of other people (including the initial giver). The initial receiver may care about these opinions and judgments of other people. Her decision to give in return can depend jointly on her own intrinsic judgment and on her view of other people's or society's judgments and opinions.
2 - Evidence and scope
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 33-49
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Scope and role
All social relations and interactions probably have a dimension of reciprocity. You are more favourable to other people when other people are more favourable to you. You are less hostile to them when they are less hostile towards you. This is the consequence of a sense of balance and equity (or a desire of revenge), of liking of all kinds and intensities, and sometimes of interest in pursuing the relation. Some relations are only reciprocity (such as actually providing a return gift). Reciprocity can also be an essential part of the relationship, as within families with emphasis on affection. It is more or less important in other cases, as with relationships within communities of all types and more or less tight or loose – nation, local community, kinship, culture, workplace, organization, class or caste and the general community of mankind. Moreover, all peaceful and free relationships are based on a basic reciprocity of respect of others and their property, if the expression “peaceful and free” excludes the protracted war of an exclusive balance of threats (a generally unstable state that tends to erupt in overt violence or to lead to the political agreement shortly discussed). This provides general sociability and permits, in particular, standard (market) exchange and cooperation, and the working of organizations of all types.
Let us make this later point precise. Thomas Hobbes told us that human societies are trapped in a dreadful dilemma.
14 - Normative uses of reciprocity
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 192-201
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The values of reciprocity
Properly reciprocal and, in particular, reciprocitarian conducts result from the appropriate sentiments, and sentiments are more given than chosen. However, there are a number of ways in which relying more or less on reciprocity can be chosen. Such a choice should rest on the values and possibilities of reciprocities, qualified for their possible shortcomings. These choices and instruments include various types of social and institutional design. They rely on the existing or potential relevant social sentiments. Hence, they are also closely associated with ways of shaping and modifying such sentiments, in education both in childhood and in the general culture, including the effect of imitation and psychological and emotional “contagion.” At an overall level, social structures and these formations of social sentiments are closely interdependent (Jean-Jacques Rousseau published simultaneously his work on moral education, Emile, and his work on political theory, The Social Contract, and he considered the second to be an appendix to the first).
The values and shortcomings of reciprocities to be considered have been pointed out. They relate to efficiency, justice, and social relations. Reciprocity permits general sociability and social peace (through reciprocal respect), in particular the general possibility of a market system, and it corrects a number of market failures, although it can also somewhat impair strict economic efficiency in not making the best use of the information role of the price system.
8 - Other reciprocities: continuation, relational, imitation, extended
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 134-141
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Presentation
The last two chapters have analysed the two basic types of genuine reciprocity, balance (matching, comparative) reciprocity and liking reciprocity. Their theories will be presented in chapters 18 and 19, respectively. The present chapter completes the general presentation of reciprocity by considering the other phenomena involved and can propose a more general synthesis. The presentation of continuation reciprocity completes that of the trio of types of reciprocity in a broad sense, but is only brief here because this process relates closely to sequential exchange discussed in chapter 3 (and applied in following chapters). The central and comparative triangular structure of the phenomenon of reciprocity can then be understood better. Other important phenomena are then considered: the appreciation, in reciprocities, of the relation or of the process in themselves, and the cases of status and symbolic reciprocities; the roles of imitation of acts and conforming; and the particular ways in which the reciprocitarian motives induce the various types of extended reciprocities.
Continuation reciprocity
Reacting in reciprocity to an act, an attitude or an expressed judgment in order to induce its repetition is common but requires a number of conditions. This act, attitude or judgment has to be desired by the reciprocator, and the reciprocation has to be desired by the initial actor. The repetition should be a possibility. Moreover, the initial actor should believe that this new act, attitude or judgment of hers will again be rewarded, for instance again by a reciprocation.
Index
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 378-390
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
15 - The logic of good social relations
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 202-223
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The nature of good social relations
“Hell is the others,” a character of Jean-Paul Sartre says. Paradise may be the others too. The quality of social relations is an essential part of the quality of a society, a basic factor of the happiness, blooming or misery of its members, a widespread cause of the success or failure of its workings, and, indeed, a main consequence of the quality and virtue of the people themselves. The quality of social relations differs widely from one society to the other, and among various segments of a society – a fact that begs for explanation. This quality may also be improved as a result of social organization, or progress in social consciousness or education, and these possibilities of improvement should be understood.
However, the explanation of the quality of social relations raises major puzzles. People often complain about the poor quality or deterioration of social relations, and yet they are their own doing. They would often all benefit from better relations, and yet they fail to improve them. Can the required relations be obtained by exchanges and markets, or are they impaired by such selfish interactions, or, again, does the working of exchanges and markets require some of these good relations in the form of honesty? Do other-regarding conducts require out-and-out altruism, which could explain some insufficiencies, or are some more moderate and balanced social conducts sufficient? For instance, varieties of reciprocities may be relevant, or needed.
13 - Reciprocity in trust, and intrinsic values
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 185-191
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Reciprocity in trust, relational capital, and efficiency
Conducts and relations of reciprocity are also frequent in the working of most organizations, including firms. They commonly improve this working and are often necessary for it, particularly because of the impossibilities and costs of specific information and checking. They take the form of mutual aid, including in questions of information and advising. This happens between members of the organization, or between the organization as such and its hired employees, in which case it is a particular case of reciprocity within an exchange or market relationship. These reciprocities within organizations can also have all the extended forms: generalized, general and reverse.
These effects of reciprocities as correcting microeconomic deficiencies of markets and improving or making possible the working of organizations are important causes of economic and social efficiency. In particular, impossibilities or costs of contracting or enforcing contracts, and of imposing hierarchical command, and resulting uncertainties about the behaviour of others, are corrected by a family of conducts that are largely supported by their being – in these cases – reciprocal, notably keeping one's promises, hence being trustworthy, and also trusting, along with voluntarily paying one's due and doing one's part. These conducts and attitudes can be at work between individuals, within organizations (including firms) between members or bureaus and between the management and other parts, between organizations or organizations and individuals, for social relations of various types and importance. They are essential factors of economic efficiency and social cohesion.
Reciprocity
- An Economics of Social Relations
- Serge-Christophe Kolm
-
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008
-
Reciprocity is the basis of social relations. It permits a peaceful and free society in which people and rights are respected. The essence of families and communities, it also enables the working of markets and organisations, while correcting their main failures. Reciprocity is also a basis of politics, and it justifies social policies. Although the importance of reciprocity has been widely recognised in other social sciences, it has, until recently, been somewhat ignored in economic analysis. Over the past three decades, economic theorist and moral philosopher Serge-Christophe Kolm has been at the forefront of research into the economics of the deepest aspects of societies. In Reciprocity, he provides a unique in-depth analysis of the motives, conducts, and effects of reciprocal relationships. In doing this, he explains crucial functionings of society and its economy, and the ways in which they can be improved. This book should be read by economists, sociologists, philosophers, and anyone concerned with understanding the economy of social relationships and its far-reaching consequences.
11 - The values of reciprocity
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 161-167
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The issues
Relations of reciprocity have a number of good consequences – some of which are very important – and also sometimes bad ones. Very briefly, they will be shown to permit a generally peaceful and free society and to correct “failures” of markets and organizations in various ways, liking reciprocities are appreciated for liking and balance reciprocities for social balance or fairness, and yet reciprocities may also take the place of an efficient price system and balance reciprocity is sometimes imposed by oppressive norms. Understanding these effects is important for two reasons, acting and explaining. Indeed, reciprocity can be more or less favoured or promoted, often indirectly, by collective choices regarding institutions, rules and education, and by individual choices in choosing a type of relationship with other people in specific circumstances. These choices then have to evaluate reciprocities and try to foresee and understand their various effects. However, such wilful and conscious decisions are usually only a small part of the causes of reciprocities or of their absence. Indeed, these modes of social relation result essentially from a social and psychological process of evolution involving the joint formation of sentiments, culture, traditions, habits, social structures, institutions, and moral and educational views.
Part II - Motives
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 95-96
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
16 - How and why? Understanding and explaining reciprocity
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 224-242
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Understanding
The main focus, so far, has been on understanding reciprocity. The term understanding is to be understood here in two senses. The first is the common sense of knowing the whereabouts, the various elements and types, the workings, the influences, and the reasons for actions. For reciprocity and its various types, clear and explicit awareness and knowledge of all these elements, workings and possibilities are by no means a priori obvious. They should be a posteriori, though, once the descriptive analysis is presented, apart from the specific analysis of the effects of strategic interactions (this is the object of chapter 20). The reason is the reliance on understanding in the second sense, which is the technical sense in which this term is used in social science (Max Weber's verstehen). This refers to the fact that we speak of things about humans, and we ourselves belong to this category. To begin with, the crucial items are sentiments, which cannot be given a definition – they can only be specified. When we mention a sentiment, each of us understands what the term means from her own subjective experience. This refers to our feelings, but this information is supported by our experience of life in society, with watching others, hearing from them, interacting meaningfully with them, experiencing some empathy or compassion towards them, understanding their words, situations, and feelings, and being so understood by them. We can use our memory of these facts.
19 - The theory of liking reciprocity
- Serge-Christophe Kolm, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
-
- Book:
- Reciprocity
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 22 May 2008, pp 262-282
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Liking reciprocity and comparative reciprocity
Liking reciprocity is reciprocity in which giving in return is motivated by liking. As we have seen in chapter 7, this liking results either from the initial giving, essentially when it is benevolent towards the beneficiary, or directly from the reciprocity in sentiments of reciprocal liking. In both cases, the motivation of the initial giver is essential. In balance reciprocity, in contrast, the motivation for giving in return is thoroughly different, and the motivation of the initial giving is a priori irrelevant. This motive for returning gifts is a “preference” for balance or matching, or deficit aversion (and, possibly, surplus seeking), whereas, in both types of liking reciprocity, giving in return is motivated by liking. These two families of reciprocity are thus inconsistent with one another, at least for strong forms of liking reciprocities: “L'amour ne compte pas” (He who loves does not count or “Love counts for all”), the dictum says, and love makes one give without seeking any kind of balance. One is also always “indebted” towards the loved one for her love or for her existence. However, for milder kinds of liking the two reciprocating sentiments and motives can be jointly present in the same person for the same return-gift. There can then be both liking and a preference for balance or for lower deficit – and surplus seeking may not be absent.