Is more health always better for society? Exploring public preferences that violate monotonicity

There has recently been some literature on the properties of a Health-Related Social Welfare Function (HRSWF). The aim of this article is to contribute to the analysis of the different properties of a HRSWF, paying particular attention to the monotonicity principle. For monotonicity to be fulfilled, any increase in individual health—other things equal—should result in an increase in social welfare. We elicit public preferences concerning trade-offs between the total level of health (concern for efficiency) and its distribution (concern for equality), under different hypothetical scenarios through face-to-face interviews. Of key interests are: the distinction between non-monotonic preferences and Rawlsian preferences; symmetry of HRSWF; and the extent of inequality neutral preferences. The results indicate strong support for non-monotonic preferences, over Rawlsian preferences. Furthermore, the majority of those surveyed had preferences that were consistent with a symmetric and inequality averse HRSWF.     

The aggregation of preferences: can we ignore the past?

The article shows that a Paretian social welfare function can be history independent and time consistent only if a stringent set of conditions is verified. Individual utilities must be additive. The social welfare function must be a linear combination of these utilities. Social preferences are stationary only if, in addition, all individuals have the same constant discount rate. The results are implemented in two frameworks: deterministic dynamic choice and dynamic choice under uncertainty. The applications highlight that the conditions are unlikely to be met by individual preferences, and that they severely restrict social preferences.     

Is Sweden Being Torn Apart? Privatization and Old and New Patterns of Welfare State Support

This article examines the potential impact of institutional change on popular welfare support. The encompassing welfare state of Sweden provides an interesting case where the privatization of social service delivery has been widespread over the last decades. We use survey data from five rounds of the Swedish Welfare State Survey (1992, 1997, 2002, 2006 and 2010) in order to study how public preferences for the financing and organization of welfare services have changed over time. Based on a theory describing an ideal‐typical pattern of public support for an encompassing welfare model, we derive three types of public preferences: support for a pure state model, a pure market model and a mixed model (welfare services are funded by taxes but provided by private firms). We begin by tracking the development of these ideal‐typical attitude patterns between 1992 and 2010. We then investigate how preference patterns vary across municipalities displaying different degrees of privatization of social service delivery. Our results show that welfare support among Swedes over the last decades is better characterized as dynamic rather than stable. Swedes seem to take an overall more ideologically based position on the role of the welfare state over time. The share of respondents expressing such ideologically based preferences has increased from 54 per cent in 1992 to 78 per cent in 2010. This change is principally manifested in increased support for the state and mixed models. This trend seems to be parallel to the increasing share of private welfare service providers over the last decade. We also find a link between the municipal degree of privatization and support for our three ideal‐typical welfare models. Public support for a mixed welfare model and, to some extent, a market model, is comparatively stronger in municipalities where welfare services to a large extent are carried out by private actors. Conversely, data shows that public support for the traditional Swedish state model is more widespread in municipalities having a low degree of welfare services privatization. Lastly, we discuss some theoretical implications of our findings.     

Changing preferences towards redistribution: How deliberation shapes welfare attitudes

The article departs from the argument that research on welfare attitudes is, so far, dominated by large‐scale survey‐studies, which allow for generalizable insights into citizens' preferences and evaluations, but are necessarily limited in their ability to capture the dynamic and contextual aspects of attitude formation. In order to broaden the horizon of welfare attitudes' research, this article introduces a new qualitative method, namely deliberative forums. In these large group discussions—originally developed for participatory decision‐making—attitudes, opinions, and preferences are core aspects of the deliberation process, and the article argues that by observing deliberation, we can observe attitude construction “in vivo ”. The evidence from a two‐day German deliberation event illustrates in an exploratory manner how information, reasoning, and group processes can influence people's evaluations and expressed policy preferences with regard to redistribution. By linking participants' answers from a survey before and after the event to their statements during the discussions, the article not only shows that the preferences for redistribution people expressed in the survey answers are often higher after the deliberative event, but also seeks to make sense of attitudinal dynamics on the basis of the qualitative material by pointing towards the role of information, reasoning, and group processes.     

Public support for the social rights and social obligations of the unemployed: Two sides of the same coin?

In light of the ever‐growing shift towards activation in European welfare states, the present article examines the relationship between citizens’ welfare generosity (i.e., support for social rights) and welfare conditionality (i.e., support for social obligations) with regard to the unemployed. Using data from the 2014 Belgian National Elections Study, we found that generosity and conditionality appear to be two sides of the same coin. The two factors are negatively correlated, and most of their respective attitudinal drivers are quite similar in strength, yet opposite in direction. In addition to self‐interest and conventionally recognised ideational beliefs, such as egalitarianism and individualism, beliefs about welfare deservingness – an explanatory factor that has remained understudied in the field – are particularly influential in shaping people’s welfare preferences. A stronger emphasis on criteria of deservingness such as control, attitude and reciprocity considerably lowers support for social rights and strengthens support for social duties.     

From Subsidiarity to 'Free Choice': Child- and Elder-care Policy Reforms in France, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands

This article analyses the patterns of reform in care policies in Bismarckian welfare systems since the early 1980s. Based on a comparison of France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, the article shows that these reforms share similar logics and trajectories, which can be explained by the shared conservative and corporatist traits of Bismarckian labour markets and welfare state institutions and their impact on labour market adjustment possibilities and preferences. Indeed, we argue that care policy reforms have been very closely linked to specific employment strategies, and the politics of welfare without work and subsequent attempts to shift away from such a labour-shedding strategy go a long way in explaining both the nature and the timing of child- and elder-care policy reforms in Bismarckian welfare systems. The article also shows how a focus on promoting ‘free choice’ in all four countries has justified the introduction of measures that have simultaneously reinforced social stratification in terms of access to the labour market – meaning that some women have much more ‘free choice’ than others – and weakened certain labour market rigidities. To conclude, we argue that care policy reforms have provided a backdoor for the introduction of labour-cheapening measures and for increasing employment flexibility in otherwise very rigid labour markets.     

Punishment as retribution

The article is concerned with punishment as retribution. A number of reasonable assumptions concerning the punishment of criminals as well as the punishment of innocent individuals are made. These assumptions are consistent and from them a comprehensive justice map is drawn. Several implications concerning justice are derived and there is an analysis as to where slack in the pursuit of justice is most likely to occur. It is then shown that all of the assumptions and consequently all the results can be derived from a simple utility maximization model. Throughout the paper, behavior consistent with the concept of retribution is presented and there is some comparison to other theories of punishment. More generally, the article can be seen as a building of a social welfare function. In contrast to other work on social welfare functions which begin with just methods of aggregating preferences, this article begins with just preferences.I would like to thank David Kaun and Richard Posner for their comments.     

Preferences and the price of stability in matching markets

This paper studies welfare tradeoffs in two-sided, one-to-one matching markets. We begin by providing theoretical upper bounds on a utilitarian price of stability, and show that these bounds vary with the composition of participants’ ordinal preference lists. We then turn to simulation experiments to describe how changes in basic characteristics of agents’ preferences can increase or decrease the average price of stability as measured by both utilitarian and Rawlsian welfare criteria. Our results indicate that markets featuring moderate degrees of correlation and positive intercorrelation in the preferences of participants exhibit the steepest tradeoffs between stability and utilitarian welfare and between stability and Rawlsian welfare.     

Welfare consequences of the Swedish disability service system

It has been frequently discussed whether the Swedish disability service system is efficient and whether it meets the demands of equity. The costs of the system for support and service were recently estimated to be USD 11 billion. This article describes the welfare situation for disabled people compared with the general population in Sweden. The Swedish disability service system has managed to provide disabled people with a disposable income over the subsistence minimum in Sweden, but also in the same range as for the general population. In other welfare parameters, disabled people appear to have great welfare losses compared with the general population. Evaluations of handicap technologies (such as service and support) aiming to reduce or compensate for these welfare losses have to meet the requirements of equity and efficiency of the Swedish disability service system.     

Presenting a new defamilization and familization framework for investigating the residualization of old‐age income security measures—The case study of Hong Kong

Familization and defamilization studies are increasingly seen as an important component of welfare research. They are concerned with the threats to the welfare of individuals caused by involuntary participation in the unwanted family relationship. Moreover, they address the idea that governments have the potential to reduce these threats through the provision of welfare measures. This article contributes to the familization and defamilizaion studies with the focus on the link between these studies and the studies of residualization strategies. It carries out three analytical tasks. The first is to present a new defamilization and familization framework. The second is to demonstrate the usefulness of this framework in analyzing the problem of employing the residualization strategies to reform the old‐age income security system. Our focus is particularly on the insufficient sensitivity of these strategies to women's (and men's) diverse preferences relating to ways of organizing their family life. The third is to demonstrate the empirical significance of this framework. To meet this objective, we apply the framework to the investigation of two old‐age income security measures in Hong Kong—the Mandatory Provident Fund and the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance scheme.     

Individual fairness in Harsanyi’s utilitarianism: operationalizing all-inclusive utility

Fairness can be incorporated into Harsanyi’s utilitarianism through all-inclusive utility. This retains the normative assumptions of expected utility and Pareto-efficiency, and relates fairness to individual preferences. It makes utilitarianism unfalsifiable, however, if agents’ all-inclusive utilities are not explicitly specified. This note proposes a two-stage model to make utilitarian welfare analysis falsifiable by specifying all-inclusive utilities explicitly through models of individual fairness preferences. The approach is applied to include fairness in widely discussed allocation examples.     

Metrizing social preference

In his Introduction to Value Theory N. Rescher suggests a procedure by which individual valuations can be combined to yield meaningful and accurate social valuation measures. A social valuation is the effective average m ^* of individual valuations, such that: $$m^ * = m - \tfrac{1}{2}\sigma $$ , where m is the mean of individual valuations and σ the standard deviation of individual valuations from m. Rescher's employment of this concept of effective average has the following unacceptable features: (1) the effective average is undefined for the situation by which Rescher chooses to introduce the concept; (2) negative effective averages, which are calculable for many situations, are given no interpretation by Rescher; (3) some effective averages are lower than each individual valuation which figures in their computation, and as a consequence use of the concept of effective average to pinpoint social valuations favors conformity of individual valuations to an unjustifiable extent. Rescher doubts whether a conception of social welfare (or value) can be distilled from individual preferences (or valuations). His doubts are justified, for such a move would require a prior weighting of individual preferences in such a manner that social welfare measures could be arrived at solely by attending to the preferences of qualified individuals, making computation of a welfare measure from the set of individuals' preferences gratuitous.     

The poor “sociological imagination” of the rich: Explaining attitudinal divergence towards welfare,inequality, and redistribution

Quantitative research has tended to explain attitudinal divergence towards welfare and redistribution through self‐interested rationalities. However, such an approach risks abstracting individuals from the structural determinants of resource allocation and biographical experience. With that in mind, this article draws on a qualitative study of 50 individuals experiencing relative deprivation and affluence in the United Kingdom and New Zealand to examine how lived experiences of inequality affect attitude formation towards welfare and redistribution. Scenario‐driven vignettes were used to stimulate an applied discussion of abstract principles pertaining to welfare and inequality. Use of this methodological device proffered novel insight into the phenomenological effects of material position on public attitudes and policy preferences in a comparative context. The findings suggest that affluent individuals are less likely to acknowledge systemic features shaping socioeconomic life. As a result, they exhibit a poor sociological imagination that is deployed in distinct and patterned ways to make sense of, and at times justify, economic restructuring. By contrast, those living in relative deprivation are more likely to advance accounts of intergroup relations and social location that emphasize the structuration of (dis‐)advantage. Based on the findings, policy and political implications are considered for welfare and redistribution amidst rising structural inequality.     

A characterization of the maximin rule in the context of voting

In a voting context, when the preferences of voters are described by linear orderings over a finite set of alternatives, the Maximin rule orders the alternatives according to their minimal rank in the voters’ preferences. It is equivalent to the Fallback bargaining process described by Brams and Kilgour (Group Decision and Negotiation 10:287–316, 2001). This article proposes a characterization of the Maximin rule as a social welfare function (SWF) based upon five conditions: Neutrality, Duplication, Unanimity, Top Invariance, and Weak Separability. In a similar way, we obtain a characterization for the Maximax SWF by using Bottom Invariance instead of Top Invariance. Then, these results are compared to the axiomatic characterizations of two famous scoring rules, the Plurality rule and the Antiplurality rule.     

Ethnicity and Clients' Social Worker Preference: The Israeli Experience

Correspondence to Prof. E. D. Jaffe, Paul Baerwald School of Social Work, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel 91905. Summary Israel's society contains three large ethnic subgroups, oneof Western (Ashkenazi) origin, another from Middle-Eastern (Sephardi)background, and an Arab population group. Social stratificationalong ethnic lines is still common, particularly in the socialservices and human services professions. This article describes an empirical research study of how ethnicstereotypes among Ashkenazi and Sephardi Israeli welfare clientsaffect their preference for Ashkenazi or Sephardi social workhelpers, and compares their responses with other Israeli populationgroups. Using a projective test based on passport photos, itwas found that very clear ethnic preferences exist among bothAshkenazi and Sephardi respondents, and that Sephardi respondents,including Sephardi welfare clients, most often prefer to betreated by Ashkenazi social workers. The cross-cultural, cross-nationalimplications of these findings for ethnic relations, the socialservices and the social work profession are discussed.     

Making social trade-offs among lives,disabilities, and cost

Applying cost/benefit techniques to issues of life and death generally requires a single index, comparable to gross domestic product, describing the welfare of any community in terms of the health, quality of life, wealth, and longevity of its population. While such indices, based on economic and multiattribute utility theory, do exist, they generally require detailed information on the preferences of the affected individuals. Since gathering such detailed information is often prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, this article derives a simpler index of community welfare. Our index evaluates any proposed government project using a weighted geometric average of the project's anticipated impact on

?per capita wealth less the weighted proportion of individuals with various disabilities, and

?per capita life expectancy adjusted to discount future years of life.

Since the criterion measures the overall utility of society, it can also be used to compare quality of life in various countries.     

Anti-Poverty Effectiveness of Taxes and Income Transfers in Welfare States

This study aims to compare the anti-poverty effectiveness of taxes and income transfers among western welfare states. It is shown that countries' poverty outcome can be decomposed into the level of market-generated poverty, the overall level of welfare efforts, and the poverty reduction efficiency of taxes and transfers. Using the LIS microdata, the decomposition analysis suggests that welfare states differ widely with respect to the anti-poverty effectiveness of taxes and transfers and that cross-national variation in such effectiveness is mainly attributable to differences in the level of welfare efforts rather than in poverty reduction efficiency.     

Targets and Taxes: Explaining the Welfare Orientations of the Australian Public

Australia's welfare model – targeted payments alongside low but progressive taxation – exemplifies the targeted approach, prioritizing the needs of poorer citizens within the constraints of low taxation. But does this approach match the welfare orientations of Australia's voters? Does the public hold other views about welfare, emerging out of competing interests in welfare debates? We consider results of two questions included in the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes 2005. The first question asks respondents about four welfare goals that outline competing welfare orientations: targeting poverty, expanding health and education, enforcing the welfare rules and reducing welfare. The second question asks about four taxation goals drawing on similar orientations as established for welfare: targeting tax cuts, taxing for welfare, enforcing tax rules and reducing overall tax. Asking about both enables us to tell whether voters approach tax and welfare ‘consistently’ and to see whether, in Australia's case, there is a preference for Australia's targeting model. We reach three conclusions: (1) voters hold diverse preferences about welfare and taxes, but the targeted model has a relatively strong voter base; (2) voters hold ‘pro‐welfare’ orientations, choosing poverty reduction and expanding public services over both paternalism and cutting welfare, and (3) multivariate analysis indicates a level of consistency in welfare and tax orientations among voters.     

The limitations of the Arrovian consistency of domains with a fixed preference

Theory and Decision - In this paper I investigate the properties of social welfare functions defined on domains where the preferences of one agent remain fixed. Such a domain is a degenerate case...     

Taking social policy personally: How does neuroticism affect welfare state attitudes?

The role of the “Big Five” personality traits in driving welfare state attitudes has received scant attention in social policy research. Yet neuroticism in particular—a disposition to stress, worry, and get nervous easily—is theoretically likely to be an important driver of welfare attitudes precisely because welfare states deliver social “security” and “safety” nets. Using cross-sectional data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, we study three distinct attitude types (dissatisfaction with the social security system, feelings of personal financial insecurity, and preferences for state provision) and multiple social need contexts (including unemployment, ill health, old age, and nursing care). Controlling for established explanations such as self-interest, partisanship, and socialization, neuroticism does not systematically affect support for state provision. But it robustly increases general dissatisfaction with social security, as well as financial insecurity across various need contexts. Neurotic people are thus less happy with welfare state programmes across the board, yet they also appear to need these programmes more. This trait may be an important deeper layer driving other social attitudes.