Economics Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Pareto optimum: A Pareto optimum is a state in which no one can be made better off without making someone else worse off. It is a state in which all resources are allocated in the most efficient way possible. See also Efficiency, Strategies._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Amartya Sen on Pareto Optimum - Dictionary of Arguments
Gaus I 106 Pareto optimum/utilitarian liberalism/Sen/Gaus: (...) the Pareto criterion avoids the problem identified by Rawls: sacrificing the welfare of the few to benefit the many is excluded. Thus Paretian welfarism would seem at least consistent with liberalism. >Pareto Optimum/Rawls. SenVs: Amartya Sen, however, has proven this is not necessarily the case. Sen (1970)(1) shows that if rights are understood as conferring individual authority to decide between at least two social states, then if there are two rights holders, liberal rights may conflict with unrestricted Paretian welfarism. Some have contested Sen’s characterization of rights as jurisdictions over the selection of social states (for a discussion, see Mueller, 2003(2): 650–51); recent work on the theory of rights, however, has shown the independent plausibility of such a jurisdictional theory (Mack, 2000(3); Gaus, 1996(4): 199–204). Gaus: Sen’s result is important as it shows that in principle even a very minimal form of welfarism may be inconsistent with liberalism. More generally, Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell (2002)(5) have argued recently that almost any non-welfarist principle can conflict with the Pareto criterion. 1. Sen, Amartya K. (1970) ‘The impossibility of a Paretian liberal’. Journal of Political Economy, 78 (Jan./Feb.): 152–7. 2. Mueller, Dennis C. (2003) Public Choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3. Mack, Eric (2000) ‘In defense of the jurisdiction theory of rights’. The Journal of Ethics, 4: 71–98. 4. Gaus, Gerald F. (1996) Justificatory Liberalism: An Essay in Epistemology and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5. Kaplow, Louis and Steven Shavell (2002) Fairness versus Welfare. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gaus, Gerald F. 2004. „The Diversity of Comprehensive Liberalisms.“ In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
EconSen I Amartya Sen Collective Choice and Social Welfare: Expanded Edition London 2017 Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
||
> Counter arguments against Sen
> Counter arguments in relation to Pareto Optimum
