Can preferences for catastrophe avoidance reconcile social discounting with intergenerational equity?

A social welfare function treating all generations equally is derived from a set of axioms that allow for preferences for catastrophe avoidance or risk equity. Implications for the case where there is a risk of world extinction are studied. We show that substantial time discounting can arise from the planner’s taste for catastrophe avoidance, even if the probability of the world ending is infinitesimally small. We wish to thank Marc Fleurbaey, Thibault Gajdos, two anonymous referees and an associate editor for many valuable comments.     

Choice and circumstance: Qualitative insights into contemporary childlessness in Australia

Using data from in-depth interviews with 115 women, men and couples in eastern Australia for whom family formation was a recent, current or imminent future issue, this article explores contemporary childlessness among those physically able to have children. It differentiates between those childless by choice and by circumstance, and among other themes highlights (i) the role preservation of lifestyle appears to play as a motive for deliberate childlessness following development of a life course through early adulthood that both generates lifestyle aspirations and often places parenthood on the backburner until after age 30, and (ii) the roles difficulty forming suitable relationships, women’s desire for meaningful careers, and male involvement in family formation decisions play in bringing about childlessness by circumstance.     

Everytime we say Goodbye: Forced Termination Revisited,a Commentary

The topic of forced termination has received relatively little attention, particularly student interns’ experiences of termination. In this commentary, I will explore some theories that help illuminate the process of ending. Using a case vignette, the worker’s subjectivity and the way that it impacts termination responses is explored. Cathy Siebold, DSW is Training Analyst, Supervisor and Faculty at The Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Study Center and The New Jersey Training Institute for Psychoanalysis and Faculty at Massachusetts Institute of Psychoanalysis. She is an adjunct Faculty, New York University School of Social Work on the Editorial Board of CSWJ, and Education Chair of the National Membership Committee on Psychoanalysis. Author of a Book on the Hospice Movement and articles about termination, object relations theory and attachment theory     

Social Work Education and Clinical Learning

In response to a growing diversity of opinion regarding educational models and essential content in clinical social work education, this paper offers a perspective concerning graduate clinical curricula. Part I, the foundational piece of the paper, discusses the definition of clinical social work, social work’s core orientation and values, and influential contextual issues. The interrelated core orientations guiding knowledge and skill development are identified as the person-in-situation perspective and the concept of relationship. Based on this foundation, Part II identifies elements of a contemporary biopsychosocial knowledge base and essential clinical skills. This paper is intended to stimulate dialogue about a topic of importance to the profession and the clients it serves.     

Dynamic Measures of Individual Deprivation

We introduce a one-parameter class of individual deprivation measures. Motivated by a suggestion of Runciman, we modify Yitzhaki’s index by multiplying it by a function that is interpreted as measuring the part of deprivation generated by an agent’s observation that others in his reference group move on to a higher level of income than himself. The parameter reflects the relative weight given to these dynamic considerations, and the standard Yitzhaki index is obtained as a special case. In addition, we characterize more general classes of measures that pay attention to this important dynamic aspect of deprivation.     

Psychology Implies Paternalism? Bounded Rationality may Reduce the Rationale to Regulate Risk-Taking

Behavioral economists increasingly argue that violations of rationality axioms provide a new rationale for paternalism – to “de-bias” individuals who exhibit errors, biases and other allegedly pathological psychological regularities associated with Tversky and Kahneman’s (in Science 185:1124–1131, 1974) heuristics-and-biases program. The argument is flawed, however, in neglecting to distinguish aggregate from individual rationality. The aggregate consequences of departures from normative decision-making axioms may be Pareto-inferior or superior. Without a well-specified theory of aggregation, individual-level biases do not necessarily imply losses in efficiency. This paper considers the problem of using a social-welfare function to decide whether to regulate risk-taking behavior in a population whose individual-level behavior may or may not be consistent with expected utility maximization. According to the social-welfare objective, unregulated aggregate risk distributions resulting from non-maximizing behavior are often more acceptable (i.e., lead to a weaker rationale for paternalism) than population distributions generated by behavior that conforms to the standard axioms. Thus, psychological theories that depart from axiomatic decision-making norms do not necessarily strengthen the case for paternalism, and conformity with such norms is generally not an appropriate policy-making objective in itself.     

Equality of Opportunity versus Equality of Opportunity Sets

We characterize two different approaches to the idea of equality of opportunity. Roemer’s social ordering is motivated by a concern to compensate for the effects of certain (non-responsibility) factors on outcomes. Van de gaer’s social ordering is concerned with the equalization of the opportunity sets to which people have access. We show how different invariance axioms open the possibility to go beyond the simple additive specification implied by both rules. This offers scope for a broader interpretation of responsibility-sensitive egalitarianism.