Flipping and ex post aggregation

We show that Bayesian ex post aggregation is unstable with respect to refinements. Suppose a group of Bayesians use ex post aggregation. Since it is a joint problem, each agent's problem is captured by the same model, but probabilities and utilities may vary. If they analyze the same situation in more detail, their refined analysis should preserve their preferences among acts. However, ex post aggregation could bring about a preference reversal on the group level. Ex post aggregation thus depends on how much information is used and may keep oscillating (“flipping”) as one keeps adding more information. Received: 16 April 2002/Accepted: 27 May 2002     

A Multidimensional Dynamic Measure of Child Disadvantage: A Methodological Tool for Policymakers

This paper demonstrates the applicability of an innovative approach towards examining child disadvantage, using a holistic, dynamic measure that not only accounts for multiple sources of disadvantage but also for the recurrence and persistence of disadvantage throughout a child’s life. We analyse child disadvantage using two longitudinal surveys of the Australian child population, one of which is specific to Indigenous children, who experience notably higher rates of disadvantage. Among Australian children, we detect that poor body weight and bullying—representative of the broad dimensions of health and emotional wellbeing—should be of significant concern to policymakers. Among Indigenous children, housing conditions, schooling and exposure to risky behaviours stand out as areas of concern. By identifying the dimensions in which rates of child disadvantage are most severe, this methodological approach can help steer targeted policy actions.     

Why the count de Borda cannot beat the Marquis de Condorcet

Although championed by the Marquis the Condorcet and many others, majority rule has often been rejected as indeterminate, incoherent, or implausible. Majority rule's arch competitor is the Borda count, proposed by the Count de Borda, and there has long been a dispute between the two approaches. In several publications, Donald Saari has recently presented what is arguably the most vigorous and systematic defense of Borda ever developed, a project Saari has supplemented with equally vigorous objections to majority rule. In this article I argue that both Saari's objections to majority rule and his positive case for the Borda count fail. I hold the view that defenders of Condorcet cannot muster arguments to convince supporters of Borda, and vice versa, but here I am only concerned to show that the Count de Borda cannot beat the Marquis de Condorcet. Saari's approach displays what I take to be widespread fallacies in reasoning about social choice worthy of closer analysis. This debate bears on important questions in the philosophy of social choice theory.     

‘…And one for the country’ The effect of the baby bonus on Australian women’s childbearing intentions

In 2004, at a time when the nation was experiencing the lowest fertility trends in its history, the Australian Federal Government introduced the offer of a cash payment of 3,000 to all women on the birth of a new baby. The maternity payment, commonly known as the baby bonus, was increased to3,000 to all women on the birth of a new baby. The maternity payment, commonly known as the baby bonus, was increased to 4,000 in 2006 and to $5,000 in 2008. While not explicitly declared a pronatalist policy at the time of its introduction, the baby bonus was later credited with helping to halt the decline of the nation’s aggregate birth rates. This paper examines the effect of this policy on Australian women’s childbearing intentions from 2001 to 2008, using panel data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics (HILDA) Survey. The results indicate that the introduction of the baby bonus coincided with a statistically significant increase in women’s childbearing intentions. More specifically, the strongest increase occurred among women from lower-income households, potentially implying that the policy had the strongest effect on women who, given their current characteristics, are relatively likely to be reliant on welfare assistance to raise their children over the long term. The inferences drawn from the paper’s findings raise concern over the capacity of the baby bonus policy to reduce aggregate dependency rates.     

What to Make of the Liberal Paradox?

Sen's Liberal Paradox has received a good deal of attention in the literature. However, it is worth re-opening the discussion since the solutions offered so far have serious problems and since there is more to say about the nature of the problem displayed by the Liberal Paradox. I propose a new solution to the paradox in the following sense: First, I argue that its range of applicability is not very broad. Second, there is nothing paradoxical about a conflict of the principles involved in the Liberal Paradox. (Nagel's thesis of the ``fragmentation of value' is important to make this point.) Third, I make a recommendation about how to remove conflicts when they occur in a restricted class of cases. For the other cases, no recommendation of similar appeal is available. But in the light of the first point, the availability of a generally applicable recommendation was not to be expected.