Social welfare function

Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

A social welfare function is a mathematical construct in welfare economics that aggregates the utilities or well-being levels of individuals in a society to produce a scalar measure or ordering of alternative social states, resource allocations, or policy outcomes.^[1] It provides a framework for evaluating whether one economic arrangement is preferable to another from a societal perspective, often incorporating ethical judgments about equity and efficiency.^[1] Prominent examples include the utilitarian form, which maximizes the sum of individual utilities to achieve the greatest total happiness, and the Rawlsian maximin approach, which seeks to maximize the utility of the least advantaged individual to address inequality.^[1] However, Kenneth Arrow's impossibility theorem reveals a fundamental challenge: no social welfare function can satisfy basic axioms—such as Pareto efficiency, independence of irrelevant alternatives, unrestricted domain, and the absence of a dictator—when aggregating ordinal preferences over three or more alternatives, underscoring the tension between individual freedoms and collective decision-making.^[2] This result has shaped social choice theory, prompting ongoing debates about the feasibility of deriving coherent social preferences from diverse individual ones without violating intuitive fairness criteria.^[2] Despite these limitations, social welfare functions remain essential tools for analyzing public policy, cost-benefit assessments, and optimal taxation, though their normative underpinnings invite scrutiny regarding interpersonal utility comparisons and the empirical validity of underlying assumptions.^[3]

Definition and Historical Development

Formal Definition and Terminology

A social welfare function (SWF) in welfare economics is a mapping from the utilities of individual members of society to a single scalar value representing aggregate social welfare. Formally, it takes the form W = W(u_1, u_2, \dots, u_n), where u_i denotes the utility attained by individual i for i = 1, \dots, n, and the function W is assumed to be increasing in each argument to reflect that higher individual utilities contribute positively to social welfare.^[1]^[4] This structure presupposes interpersonal comparability of utility, allowing direct aggregation across persons, though the specific form of W (e.g., sum, product, or minimum) encodes normative judgments about equity and efficiency trade-offs.^[1] The Bergson-Samuelson social welfare function, named after Abram Bergson who introduced the concept in 1938 and Paul Samuelson who further developed it in 1947, specifies an individualistic ordinal ranking of social states based solely on the utility profile (u_1, \dots, u_n), independent of the underlying consumption allocations that generate those utilities.^[5]^[4] Bergson's original formulation in "A Reformulation of Certain Aspects of Welfare Economics" emphasized that social welfare contours—iso-welfare curves in utility space—are ethical judgments separate from positive economic analysis of individual preferences.^[5] Samuelson clarified its role in deriving conditions for Pareto optimality, linking it to the tangency of social indifference curves with the utility possibility frontier.^[4] Terminologically, the SWF differs from a social choice function: the former yields a complete weak ordering (transitive, reflexive binary relation) over all possible social states for a given profile of individual utilities or preferences, while the latter selects a single optimal alternative from a restricted feasible set, often without requiring full comparability.^[6]^[7] In social choice theory, SWFs are sometimes extended to ordinal preference profiles without cardinal utilities, but the Bergson-Samuelson variant remains rooted in cardinal, comparable utilities for normative welfare evaluations.^[7] Properties such as anonymity (invariance to individual labels), separability (additive decomposability), and continuity are often imposed on W to ensure ethical consistency, though these are not inherent to the core definition.^[4]

Origins in Welfare Economics

The field of welfare economics emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as economists sought criteria to assess whether resource allocations improved societal well-being, building on classical utilitarianism but grappling with interpersonal utility comparisons. Arthur Pigou's The Economics of Welfare (1920) advanced "old" welfare economics by advocating government interventions to correct market failures, relying on cardinal utility measurements and assumptions that utilities could be compared across individuals to maximize total welfare, though such comparisons lacked empirical grounding and invited subjective ethical inputs.^[8] Vilfredo Pareto's Manual of Political Economy (1906, expanded 1927) shifted focus to efficiency, defining Pareto optimality where no individual could be made better off without harming another, but this criterion proved incomplete for policy as it could not rank mutually exclusive efficient allocations without additional value judgments.^[9] Abram Bergson's 1938 article, "A Reformulation of Certain Aspects of Welfare Economics," published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, introduced the social welfare function (SWF) as a formal device to address these limitations. Bergson proposed the SWF as an arbitrary, continuous function W = f(u_1, u_2, \dots, u_n), where u_i represents individual ordinal utility levels derived from indifference curves, explicitly incorporating ethical or normative judgments to order Pareto-efficient states.^[10] ^[5] This ordinalist approach avoided cardinal interpersonal comparisons, aligning with the Paretian framework while enabling welfare rankings beyond mere efficiency, though it required transparent admission of the function's dependence on unprovable value premises.^[11] Paul Samuelson further refined the concept in Foundations of Economic Analysis (1947), integrating the Bergson SWF into general equilibrium theory and emphasizing its role in deriving optimality conditions via variational methods, such as the condition that marginal rates of substitution equal marginal rates of transformation across individuals.^[12] Samuelson's treatment underscored the SWF's neutrality as a mathematical construct, capable of representing diverse ethical views—from utilitarian summation to egalitarian priorities—but vulnerable to Arrow's later impossibility results showing no non-dictatorial aggregation of ordinal preferences satisfies basic fairness axioms.^[13] This development marked the SWF's transition from ad hoc welfare propositions to a cornerstone of "new" welfare economics, prioritizing positive analysis of efficiency while deferring normative choices to the function's specification.

Key Contributors and Evolution

Abram Bergson introduced the formal concept of the social welfare function in his 1938 paper "A Reformulation of Certain Aspects of Welfare Economics," positing it as an ordinal function W(u_1, u_2, \dots, u_n) that aggregates individual utility levels u_i into a measure of social welfare, explicitly requiring an ethical value judgment beyond Paretian efficiency to resolve interpersonal comparisons.^[14] Bergson's formulation addressed limitations in earlier welfare economics, such as those by Arthur Pigou, by emphasizing that social optima could not be derived solely from individual preferences without normative assumptions, marking a shift from purely positive to explicitly normative analysis in evaluating resource allocations.^[15] Paul Samuelson advanced this framework in his 1947 book Foundations of Economic Analysis, integrating the Bergson function into general equilibrium theory and demonstrating its role in deriving welfare maxima subject to production possibility frontiers, thereby operationalizing it for policy analysis under the assumption of a given ethical ordering.^[14] Samuelson's treatment highlighted the function's flexibility for various ethical weights, influencing subsequent applications in cost-benefit analysis and optimal taxation, though it presupposed resolvability of utility comparisons that empirical data often challenge.^[3] Kenneth Arrow's 1951 impossibility theorem critiqued the aggregation process underlying such functions, proving that no non-dictatorial method satisfies basic fairness axioms (unrestricted domain, Pareto efficiency, independence of irrelevant alternatives) when deriving social orderings from ordinal individual preferences, prompting a reevaluation of SWFs as inherently value-laden rather than mechanically derivable.^[10] In response, John Harsanyi developed theorems in 1955 justifying utilitarian SWFs under axioms of impartiality and risk neutrality, arguing that expected utility maximization over veil-of-ignorance lotteries yields sum-of-utilities forms, countering Arrow by permitting cardinal interpersonal comparisons via von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities.^[1] Amartya Sen extended the evolution in the 1970s and beyond, critiquing utilitarian and Rawlsian variants for neglecting freedoms and capabilities, proposing inequality-adjusted measures like the Gini-based SWF W_{\text{Gini}} = \bar{Y}(1 - G), where \bar{Y} is mean income and G the Gini coefficient, to incorporate distributive concerns empirically grounded in observed deprivations rather than abstract utilities.^[16] Sen's work, building on axiomatic refinements, underscored causal links between inequality metrics and welfare outcomes, influencing development economics while highlighting academia's occasional overreliance on egalitarian priors that undervalue growth incentives.^[13] Subsequent contributions, such as those in optimal policy models, have refined SWFs for discounting future generations and risk aversion, with parameters like inequality aversion \eta in isoelastic forms \frac{c^{1-\eta} - 1}{1-\eta}, reflecting ongoing debates over empirical calibration versus philosophical priors.^[17]

Theoretical Foundations

Ordinal and Cardinal Approaches

The cardinal approach assumes individual utilities are interpersonally comparable on an absolute scale, enabling numerical aggregation into social welfare. Abram Bergson introduced the social welfare function in 1938 as W = f(u_1, u_2, \dots, u_n), where u_i denotes individual cardinal utilities and f reflects ethical valuations, allowing forms like the utilitarian sum W = \sum u_i.^[18] Paul Samuelson advanced this in his 1947 Foundations of Economic Analysis, embedding it in general equilibrium but noting it requires explicit ethical inputs rather than deriving solely from ordinal preferences.^[15] This framework supports policy evaluations assuming utility differences hold meaning across persons, as in cost-benefit analysis deriving from marginal utilities.^[19] Cardinal social welfare functions accommodate egalitarian variants, such as the Rawlsian maximin W = \min(u_i), prioritizing the worst-off individual's utility under comparability assumptions. Empirical justifications for cardinality draw from von Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility theory, where risk choices reveal cardinal intensities, though critics argue such measures remain ethically contentious without direct observability.^[19] The ordinal approach, dominant post-1930s ordinalist revolution, treats utilities as rankings without comparable intensities, precluding summation or weighting by magnitude. Kenneth Arrow's 1951 impossibility theorem proves no non-dictatorial function can map profiles of individual ordinal orderings to a transitive social ordering satisfying universality, Pareto unanimity, and independence of irrelevant alternatives.^[19] This ordinal aggregation fails to guarantee coherent social choices, shifting welfare economics toward partial criteria like Pareto efficiency and revealing reliance on unstated value judgments in cardinal methods. Samuelson, an ordinalist advocate, viewed cardinal additions as adding "literally nothing" to positive analysis, reinforcing ordinal limits on interpersonal welfare claims.^[15] Ordinal frameworks underpin social choice theory, exposing dictatorial or cyclical risks in voting-like mechanisms, as Arrow's result generalizes Condorcet paradoxes to arbitrary preference domains. While avoiding strong comparability assumptions, ordinalism constrains normative SWFs to ethical overlays, prompting defenses of cardinality for practical policy where revealed preferences under uncertainty imply measurable welfare trade-offs.^[19]

Axiomatic Frameworks

Axiomatic frameworks provide a rigorous method for characterizing social welfare functions (SWFs) by specifying conditions that any acceptable aggregation of individual preferences or utilities must satisfy, often revealing tensions or impossibilities in achieving desirable properties simultaneously.^[20] In ordinal approaches, Kenneth Arrow's 1951 framework posits four key axioms for a SWF that aggregates individual ordinal rankings into a social ordering: unrestricted domain (applicable to any consistent individual preference profiles), weak Pareto principle (if all individuals prefer one alternative to another, society does the same), independence of irrelevant alternatives (social ranking between two options depends only on individual rankings of those two), and non-dictatorship (no single individual determines all social choices).^[20] Arrow's impossibility theorem proves that no such SWF exists for three or more alternatives without violating at least one axiom, except in dictatorial cases, highlighting fundamental aggregation challenges under ordinal assumptions.^[20] Cardinal utility frameworks relax ordinal restrictions by allowing interpersonal comparisons of utility levels or intensities, enabling axiomatic derivations of specific SWF forms. John Harsanyi's 1955 aggregation theorem, under axioms including Pareto indifference (social indifference if all individuals are indifferent and utilities sum equally), equiprobability (treating individuals symmetrically as if behind a "veil of ignorance"), and continuity, yields a utilitarian SWF as the unweighted sum of individual expected utilities, assuming von Neumann-Morgenstern utility.^[21] Harsanyi's later refinements, such as in his 1976 impartiality postulate, extend this to weighted sums where weights reflect ethical valuations of equality, but critics note that the axioms presuppose cardinal measurability and interpersonal comparability, which empirical evidence struggles to validate due to utilities' subjectivity.^[22] Amartya Sen's extensions in the 1970s introduce social welfare functionals that map utility vectors to social orderings, incorporating axioms like welfarism (social rankings depend only on utilities, not broader information), anonymity (symmetric treatment of individuals), and strong equity (utility transfers improving equality without reducing total welfare are socially preferred).^[23] Sen's framework reveals trade-offs, such as his liberal paradox, where minimal rights axioms conflict with Pareto efficiency in Paretian liberal SWFs, underscoring that no SWF can universally satisfy efficiency, equity, and liberty without compromises.^[24] These axiomatic structures, while theoretically elegant, often rely on idealized assumptions critiqued for overlooking real-world incentive effects and preference formation, as empirical studies show behavioral deviations from axiom compliance, such as context-dependent choices violating independence.^[24]

Harsanyi's Theorems and Utilitarian Justification

John Harsanyi developed axiomatic theorems in the mid-1950s that derive utilitarian social welfare functions from foundational assumptions in decision theory and ethics.^[25] In his 1955 paper "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Harsanyi demonstrated that if individual and social preferences over lotteries satisfy the von Neumann-Morgenstern axioms for expected utility maximization, and social preferences respect unanimous individual indifference (Pareto indifference), then the social utility function must be an affine transformation of the sum of individual utility functions.^[25] ^[21] This aggregation theorem implies a utilitarian structure, where social welfare W is expressed as W = ∑ w_i u_i, with u_i denoting individual i's utility and positive weights w_i.^[21] The theorem's proof relies on representing preferences via lotteries to handle interpersonal utility comparisons, modeling ethical judgments under uncertainty about personal identity or circumstances.^[25] Harsanyi argued that this setup enables cardinal measurement of utilities, as vNM axioms yield unique (up to affine transformation) utility scales that are interpersonally comparable when aggregated consistently.^[25] Without such comparability, non-utilitarian aggregations would violate the axioms, as deviations introduce inconsistencies in expected utility rankings over probabilistic outcomes.^[26] To justify equal weighting in utilitarianism, Harsanyi invoked an ethical principle of impartiality, akin to a veil of ignorance: the ethical observer evaluates outcomes without knowing their own position in society, treating all individuals symmetrically.^[25] This yields equal weights w_i = 1/n, reducing the social welfare function to the average utility W = (1/n) ∑ u_i, maximizing total welfare impartially.^[21] ^[26] Harsanyi's framework thus grounds utilitarianism not in ad hoc equity concerns but in rational choice under uncertainty and individualistic ethics, where social preferences derive from personal utilities without paternalistic overrides.^[25] Empirical applications in welfare economics, such as cost-benefit analysis, often adopt this form for its consistency with observed risk attitudes and Pareto efficiency.^[27]

Types and Examples

Utilitarian social welfare functions aggregate individual utilities into a measure of societal welfare by summing them directly, expressed as W = \sum_{i=1}^n u_i, where u_i denotes the utility of individual i. This form assumes cardinal measurability of utility and the possibility of interpersonal comparisons, allowing direct addition across persons.^[28]^[1] The approach prioritizes total welfare maximization, indifferent to distribution as long as the aggregate increases, such as preferring outcomes where gains to some outweigh losses to others under compensation principles like Kaldor-Hicks efficiency.^[29] Originating in classical utilitarianism, this framework traces to Jeremy Bentham's 1789 principle that actions should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number, quantifying welfare as net pleasure summed across individuals.^[30] Bentham's hedonistic calculus treated pleasures and pains as commensurable units, implying an additive social evaluation without weights differentiating individuals.^[31] John Stuart Mill refined this in 1863, emphasizing higher-quality pleasures, but retained the aggregative structure underlying utilitarian functions in economics. In modern welfare economics, the utilitarian form represents a specific case of the Bergson-Samuelson social welfare function, which generally maps utility profiles to a scalar without specifying additivity.^[13] Bergson introduced the general SWF in 1938, and Samuelson formalized it in 1947 as W = f(u_1, \dots, u_n), where the utilitarian variant sets f to summation, often assuming equal weights for impartiality.^[5] This enables policy evaluations like cost-benefit analysis, where projects are approved if they raise total utility, though empirical utility measurement remains contentious. John Harsanyi's 1955 theorems provide axiomatic support, demonstrating that under Pareto optimality, independence of irrelevant alternatives, and an impartial "extended sympathy" principle—treating all individuals equally behind a veil of ignorance—the social welfare function must be a weighted sum of individual vNM utilities, converging to utilitarianism with equal weights.^[32]^[26] These results rely on expected utility theory and assume risk neutrality in social choices, yielding classical utilitarianism for deterministic settings or average utilitarianism in variable populations. Critics note the theorems' sensitivity to axioms like separability, but they substantiate additive aggregation as derived from basic equity and efficiency postulates.^[33]

Egalitarian and Rawlsian Variants

Egalitarian social welfare functions emphasize the equal distribution of resources and utilities, assigning higher marginal value to gains by disadvantaged individuals compared to utilitarian aggregation. These functions typically exhibit strict inequality aversion, often modeled through concave transformations of individual utilities or explicit prioritization of the worst-off. For instance, in resource allocation problems, egalitarian criteria maximize the welfare of the society's weakest member before considering aggregate gains.^[34] The Rawlsian variant, known as the maximin rule, defines social welfare strictly as the utility of the least advantaged individual: W = \min_i u_i, where u_i represents the utility of individual i. This approach originates from John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971), where it operationalizes the difference principle: social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they maximally benefit the worst-off group in society.^[35] Rawls derived this through the original position thought experiment, where rational agents behind a veil of ignorance select principles maximizing their minimum expected outcome. In axiomatic terms, the Rawlsian function satisfies anonymity (permutation invariance), weak Pareto efficiency, and separability, but rejects utilitarian additivity in favor of lexical priority for the minimum. Empirical applications, such as in public economics, use it to justify policies like targeted transfers that elevate baseline welfare levels, though it implies zero tolerance for inequality once the minimum is fixed. Extensions include the leximin ordering, which refines maximin by sequentially maximizing the second-worst utility after securing the minimum, addressing ties in pure maximin scenarios.^[36]^[37]

Non-Utilitarian and Weighted Forms

Non-utilitarian social welfare functions incorporate distributional concerns through non-linear aggregations or priority weightings that deviate from equal summation of utilities, often to address diminishing marginal utility or ethical preferences for equity. These forms evaluate allocations not solely by total utility but by how utilities are distributed, typically via concave transformations that reduce welfare for unequal outcomes. For instance, Anthony B. Atkinson's 1970 framework derives inequality measures from a social evaluation function assuming constant relative inequality aversion \epsilon \geq 0, where individual welfare is u_i = \frac{y_i^{1-\epsilon}}{1-\epsilon} for income y_i, yielding aggregate welfare W = \sum_{i=1}^n u_i.^[38] As \epsilon increases, the function places progressively greater relative weight on lower incomes, with \epsilon = 0 reverting to utilitarian summation and limits approaching egalitarian priorities.^[38] Weighted social welfare functions assign differential coefficients to individual utilities, formalized as W = \sum_{i=1}^n w_i u_i with w_i > 0 varying by individual traits, income levels, or policy context to reflect aversion to inequality or group-specific priorities.^[39] In optimal taxation, these weights—termed social marginal welfare weights—guide marginal tax rates, decreasing with income to favor redistribution when w_i rises for lower earners, calibrated via ethical parameters or empirical Pareto efficiency tests.^[39] ^[40] Such weighting characterizes competitive equilibria in incomplete markets, where w_i corresponds to agents' wealth shares or bargaining strengths, ensuring allocations maximize the weighted sum subject to resource constraints.^[41] These approaches contrast with strict utilitarianism by embedding normative judgments on interpersonal comparisons, though critics like John Harsanyi argue non-uniform or transformed aggregations imply inconsistencies under risk, as they may endorse lotteries rejected unanimously by individuals assuming rational expected utility. Empirical applications in cost-benefit analysis use weights derived from inequality aversion surveys or sufficient statistics, enhancing policy relevance beyond unweighted totals, as in environmental or health equity assessments where lower-income groups receive amplified consideration.^[42]

Criticisms and Philosophical Challenges

Impossibility Theorems and Aggregation Problems

Kenneth Arrow's impossibility theorem, published in 1951, establishes that no social welfare function can aggregate individual ordinal preferences into a complete, transitive social ordering while satisfying four axioms: unrestricted domain (admitting all possible individual preference profiles), Pareto efficiency (if every individual prefers alternative A to B, society ranks A above B), independence of irrelevant alternatives (the social ranking between A and B depends solely on individual rankings between those two), and non-dictatorship (no single individual's preferences unilaterally determine the social ordering), assuming at least three alternatives.^[43]^[44] This result, derived through proof by contradiction showing that the axioms imply the existence of a dictator, reveals inherent tensions in constructing non-arbitrary collective choices from diverse individual rankings.^[45] The theorem underscores aggregation problems in social choice, where individual preferences often lead to intransitive or cyclic social outcomes, as illustrated by the Condorcet paradox: with three voters and alternatives, majority preferences can cycle (A beats B, B beats C, C beats A) despite each voter's transitive ordering.^[24] Such cycles demonstrate that simple pairwise majority voting fails to produce a rational social welfare ranking, complicating the derivation of consistent policy recommendations from voter or consumer preferences.^[46] Extensions like the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem (1973, 1977) compound these issues by proving that any non-dictatorial voting procedure satisfying strategy-proofness (truthful voting is dominant), onto-ness (every alternative can win under some profile), and Pareto efficiency is manipulable—voters can benefit by misrepresenting preferences.^[47] These impossibilities highlight causal challenges in welfare aggregation: without cardinal utilities or interpersonal comparisons (which introduce their own unverifiable assumptions), ordinal methods inevitably sacrifice rationality, efficiency, or fairness, often resulting in arbitrary or incentive-distorted outcomes in practice.^[48] Empirical voting data, such as U.S. election analyses, frequently exhibit these violations, with majority cycles occurring in up to 20-30% of simulated profiles under uniform assumptions.^[49]

Interpersonal Utility Comparisons

Interpersonal utility comparisons (IUC) involve assessing the relative intensities, units, or welfare levels of utilities across distinct individuals, a prerequisite for aggregating individual utilities into a social welfare function beyond purely ordinal or Paretian frameworks. Such comparisons underpin cardinal social welfare functions, like utilitarianism, by enabling summation or averaging of utilities, but they encounter profound methodological hurdles since utilities derive from subjective preferences without interpersonally observable metrics. Economists generally regard utilities as ordinal rankings revealed through choices, rendering cardinal interpersonal scaling empirically unverifiable and prone to arbitrary assumptions.^[50] Lionel Robbins formalized the critique in his 1932 Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, asserting that IUC transcend scientific economics by invoking non-testable ethical or psychological judgments rather than factual predictions about choice behavior. Robbins argued that economics, as a positive science, delineates means-ends relationships under scarcity but cannot validate redistributive policies premised on unsubstantiated claims that one person's marginal utility gain equals another's loss, as no objective yardstick—such as observable psychic intensities—exists to equate subjective experiences across minds. This view shifted welfare economics toward ordinalism and the Pareto criterion, limiting interpersonal evaluations to unanimous consent scenarios and deeming IUC-laden functions unscientific.^[51]^[52] John Harsanyi countered in his 1955 paper, defending IUC through rational choice under uncertainty: individuals, when impartial, maximize expected utility by averaging over possible personal identities, implicitly equating utility units across selves as if comparable. Harsanyi posited this yields a utilitarian social welfare function as the unweighted sum of individual utilities, grounded in axioms of expected utility theory and Pareto optimality, though he acknowledged units remain arbitrary up to affine transformations. Critics, including Robbins' successors, rebut that this relies on a veil-of-ignorance idealization unproven in practice and vulnerable to risk aversion asymmetries, where empathetic judgments or hypothetical impartiality fail to yield consistent, observable calibrations.^[53]^[54] Empirical attempts to ground IUC, such as via neuroscientific proxies for pleasure or income elasticity of marginal utility, remain contested; for instance, studies estimating diminishing marginal utility from consumption data assume comparability without resolving ordinal-cardinal gaps or cultural variances in hedonic scaling. Philosophically, proponents invoke empathy or shared human physiology for rough equivalence, yet detractors highlight incommensurability: one cannot verify if a billionaire's dollar loss equals a pauper's gain without begging the interpersonal question. Absent robust IUC, social welfare functions risk paternalistic impositions, favoring Paretian efficiency or rights-based alternatives that sidestep aggregation altogether.^[55]^[56]

Incentive Distortions and Paternalism Risks

Policies derived from social welfare functions (SWFs), particularly those with egalitarian or utilitarian weights favoring redistribution, often necessitate fiscal instruments like progressive taxation and transfer payments, which distort individual incentives and generate efficiency losses. Progressive taxes reduce after-tax returns to labor and capital, prompting agents to substitute away from productive activities toward leisure or less taxed alternatives; for example, empirical analysis of U.S. data from 1997 to 2006 shows that a 10 percentage point increase in marginal tax rates correlates with about 80 fewer annual work hours per individual, consistent with a labor supply elasticity of approximately 0.4.^[57] This elasticity implies a marginal deadweight loss of $0.44 per dollar of revenue raised through distortionary taxation, escalating with higher elasticities (e.g., to $1.00 at elasticity 1.0) as the gap between private and social optima widens.^[57] Such distortions undermine the SWF's intended aggregation of utilities, as the first-best allocation assuming no behavioral responses proves unattainable, requiring second-best mechanisms that approximate but compromise the function's efficiency.^[58] Transfer programs motivated by SWFs emphasizing the welfare of low-income groups introduce moral hazard, where recipients anticipate benefits and reduce precautionary effort, such as job search or skill investment, leading to persistent dependency and lower aggregate output. Randomized evaluations of cash transfer experiments reveal adverse incentive effects on labor participation, fertility, and family formation among aid recipients, as predicted by search-theoretic models where transfers weaken the shadow value of work.^[59] In optimal taxation frameworks aligned with utilitarian SWFs, these incentive costs necessitate balancing marginal utility gains for beneficiaries against broader efficiency reductions, yet real-world implementations often overlook dynamic effects like reduced innovation or capital accumulation.^[57] Egalitarian SWFs amplify these risks by prioritizing equality over incentive preservation, potentially eroding the productive base that funds redistribution.^[60] The paternalistic hazards of SWFs stem from their dependence on a centralized evaluator—typically a government planner—who aggregates heterogeneous utilities to dictate outcomes, presuming superior insight into individual well-being over decentralized choices. This framework justifies interventions overriding revealed preferences, such as mandatory behaviors or nudges, under the guise of maximizing social welfare, but risks disrespecting autonomy and imposing the planner's values, especially when behavioral deviations from rationality are invoked to rationalize coercion.^[61] For instance, welfare reforms incorporating work requirements or behavioral conditions, as in the U.S. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, aim to align recipient actions with presumed long-term utility but invite charges of bias against "undeserving" groups and moral hazard in screening mechanisms.^[62] Critics contend that SWFs, by conflating average effects in a statistical aggregate with individual optima, foster expanding paternalism, particularly when integrated with behavioral economics, as the planner's "tyranny of utility" supplants market signals and personal responsibility.^[63] Even with incentive-compatible designs, the informational demands of accurate utility aggregation exceed planners' capabilities, amplifying errors in paternalistic directives.^[64]

Applications and Empirical Considerations

Role in Policy Analysis

Social welfare functions (SWFs) provide a normative framework for evaluating policy alternatives by aggregating individual utilities into a measure of overall societal well-being, enabling analysts to rank outcomes based on ethical preferences for efficiency, equity, or other criteria.^[65] In this approach, policies are assessed by their effects on vectors of interpersonally comparable utilities, with the SWF then applied to derive a scalar value for comparison; for instance, a policy increasing total utility under a utilitarian SWF would be preferred over one that does not, even if the latter reduces inequality.^[66] This method extends beyond aggregate metrics like GDP by explicitly incorporating distributional concerns, such as weighting gains to the disadvantaged more heavily in prioritarian or Rawlsian variants.^[3] In regulatory and health policy analysis, SWFs facilitate the integration of both efficiency and equity, contrasting with traditional cost-benefit analysis (CBA), which often implicitly relies on a utilitarian SWF by summing willingness-to-pay values that assume constant marginal utility of income.^[67] For example, utilitarian SWFs underpin CBA in environmental regulations by maximizing net benefits across society, but they can undervalue benefits to low-income groups if income elasticities are ignored, prompting calls for distributional weights derived from SWF parameters like inequality aversion. Rawlsian SWFs, prioritizing the utility of the worst-off individual, shift policy toward interventions that maximize minimum welfare levels, such as progressive taxation or targeted social transfers, which may sacrifice total efficiency for greater equity in outcomes like poverty reduction.^[68] Empirical applications, such as in COVID-19 vaccine allocation, use SWFs to balance health gains against economic costs while accounting for heterogeneous impacts on vulnerable populations.^[69] The choice of SWF parameters influences policy recommendations; for instance, higher concavity in the transformation function (reflecting greater aversion to inequality) favors redistributive policies, as seen in optimal taxation models where utilitarian SWFs yield flatter tax schedules than Rawlsian ones.^[70] Sensitivity analyses with varying SWF forms—utilitarian, max-min, or isoelastic—allow policymakers to test robustness, though real-world implementation requires cardinal utility estimates from surveys or revealed preferences, often challenged by data limitations.^[71] In intergenerational policy, such as climate or pension reforms, SWFs incorporate discounting and equity weights to weigh current versus future utilities, with Rawlsian variants emphasizing sustained welfare floors across generations.^[72] Overall, SWFs enhance policy analysis by formalizing trade-offs but demand transparent specification of ethical assumptions to avoid conflating positive economic impacts with normative judgments.^[73]

Limitations in Real-World Implementation

The implementation of social welfare functions in policy-making is hindered by insurmountable informational constraints, as individual utilities are subjective, dispersed, and not fully articulable or observable by central authorities. F.A. Hayek's 1945 analysis underscores that economic knowledge required for optimal aggregation exists tacitly among decentralized actors, rendering comprehensive utility assessment for large-scale SWF maximization practically impossible and incompatible with democratic processes.^[74] This knowledge problem manifests in real-world approximations, such as cost-benefit analyses, where incomplete data on preferences leads to misallocated resources and unintended distortions. Empirical challenges further compound these issues, including the inability to perform reliable interpersonal utility comparisons, which undermines objective SWF evaluation.^[75] For instance, utilitarian SWFs demand cardinal utility measurement, yet surveys and revealed preference methods yield ordinal rankings at best, prone to biases from framing effects or hypothetical scenarios, as documented in behavioral economics experiments since the 1970s. Rawlsian variants exacerbate this by prioritizing the worst-off's utility, but identifying and verifying such positions requires intrusive data collection that invades privacy and incentivizes strategic misrepresentation, evident in targeting errors within conditional cash transfer programs like Brazil's Bolsa Família, where leakage rates reached 20-30% in early implementations due to imperfect eligibility verification. Political and fiscal realities impose additional barriers, with no consensus on SWF form leading to ideologically driven selections that prioritize short-term equity over long-term efficiency. The Second Welfare Theorem posits that any Pareto-efficient allocation can achieve a desired welfare distribution via lump-sum transfers, but real-world frictions—such as asymmetric information and transaction costs—prevent feasible implementation, often resulting in distortionary taxes that reduce aggregate output by 1-2% of GDP in high-welfare states per OECD estimates from 2020-2023.^[76] Moreover, countercyclical welfare demands strain fixed budgets, as seen in U.S. state programs during recessions, where caseloads surged 50% in 2008-2009 without corresponding revenue, forcing cuts or debt accumulation.^[77] These dynamics reveal how SWF-inspired policies, while theoretically appealing, frequently engender dependency traps and fiscal unsustainability amid demographic shifts like aging populations projected to double welfare ratios in OECD countries by 2050.^[78]

Alternatives from Market and Rights-Based Perspectives

From market-oriented perspectives, competitive free markets serve as an alternative mechanism for evaluating societal welfare by achieving efficient resource allocation through voluntary exchanges and decentralized decision-making, rather than relying on a centralized social welfare function (SWF) to aggregate utilities. Proponents argue that market prices effectively signal individual preferences, scarcities, and technological possibilities, enabling Pareto-efficient outcomes where no one can be made better off without harming another, without the interpersonal utility comparisons inherent in SWFs.^[79] This approach aligns with ordinalist welfare economics, emphasizing revealed preferences via market behavior over cardinal utility assumptions. Empirical studies indicate that economies with higher degrees of marketization exhibit stronger growth; for instance, panel data from 26 transition economies show a positive correlation between market reforms and GDP growth rates averaging 2-5% annually post-liberalization, contrasting with stagnation in persistently planned systems.^[80] Friedrich Hayek critiqued SWF-based planning for presupposing a synoptic knowledge that central authorities lack, as individual-specific information—such as local conditions and tacit skills—is dispersed and incommunicable, rendering utilitarian aggregation impractical and leading to misallocations.^[81] In The Road to Serfdom (1944), Hayek contended that attempts to impose SWF-derived goals erode the price mechanism's coordinating role, fostering inefficiency and coercive interventions, as evidenced by the Soviet Union's chronic shortages despite planners' utility-maximizing intents.^[82] Cross-country comparisons reinforce this: between 1950 and 1989, West Germany's market-driven "economic miracle" yielded per capita GDP growth of over 5% annually and poverty rates below 1%, while East Germany's planned economy lagged with 2-3% growth and widespread material deprivation.^[83] Such outcomes suggest markets dynamically adapt to changing circumstances, promoting innovation and welfare gains—like the 800 million lifted from extreme poverty in China and India via post-1978 market reforms—beyond what SWFs can prescribe.^[84] Rights-based alternatives prioritize deontological constraints on actions, viewing individual entitlements—particularly to property and self-ownership—as non-negotiable limits that supersede aggregate utility calculations in SWFs. Robert Nozick's entitlement theory of justice, outlined in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), posits that just holdings arise from legitimate acquisition (e.g., homesteading unowned resources) and voluntary transfer, rejecting patterned distributions like those implied by utilitarian or egalitarian SWFs as violations of rights.^[85] For Nozick, redistributive policies justified by SWF maximization equate to forcing individuals into labor for others' benefit, akin to partial slavery, since taxation seizes entitlements without consent.^[86] This framework evaluates societal arrangements by historical compliance with justice principles, not end-state welfare metrics; empirical support includes the voluntary charity sector's efficiency, where U.S. private giving exceeded $500 billion in 2023, often targeting aid more effectively than state programs due to accountability via donor oversight.^[87] Critics of SWFs from rights perspectives, including libertarians, argue that utility aggregation ignores non-welfarist values like autonomy and consent, permitting paternalistic overrides—such as progressive taxation funding transfers—that distort incentives and erode personal responsibility. Nozick illustrated this with the "Wilt Chamberlain argument": even if starting from equality, fans' voluntary payments to Chamberlain for basketball games generate inequality, which any SWF seeking to reverse would unjustly infringe transfers.^[88] While academic discourse, often skewed toward welfarist models, downplays these critiques, real-world evidence from low-regulation jurisdictions like Hong Kong (pre-1997) shows sustained prosperity—GDP per capita rising from $600 in 1960 to $25,000 by 1997—via rights-respecting markets minimizing coercive redistribution.^[89] Thus, rights-based views advocate minimal states enforcing contracts and property, positing that true welfare emerges from protected liberties enabling self-directed pursuits over engineered outcomes.^[90]

References

[1]
Social Welfare Function - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
The social welfare function is defined as a method of aggregating individual utilities within a society, which can follow strict utilitarianism by summing ...
[2]
Arrow's Impossibility Theorem - Corporate Finance Institute
Arrow's impossibility theorem is a social choice theory that studies the combining of preferences, welfares, and opinions from individuals to reach asocial ...
[3]
The Social Welfare Function: A New Tool for Regulatory Policy ...
The social welfare function (SWF) framework is a methodology for assessing governmental policies that originates in theoretical welfare economics.
[4]
[PDF] Social Welfare Functions - AccessEcon.com
An individualistic Bergson–Samuelson social welfare function is defined for a fixed profile of utility functions U. The social ranking of A must be un- affected ...
[5]
[PDF] Social Welfare function
social welfare will be achieve if income is distributed in such a way that the marginal utility of income is equal for all individuals in the society. It means ...
[6]
[PDF] Notes on Social Choice Theory 1 Notation you should be ...
The social welfare function spits out the ranking: x У y ~ z. • A social choice function takes a profile of voter preferences and produces a winner. This is ...
[7]
[PDF] 13 Social choice
A social welfare functional aggregates the preferences of the I individuals. It takes each prefer- ence profile and assigns to it a binary relation over X.
[8]
Short History of Welfare Economics - Socrethics
Bentham and Pigou already defined social welfare functions (chapter 2.2 and 3.2), but these functions were cardinal and restricted to the consumption of goods ...
[9]
[PDF] The origins of the New Welfare Economics
The idea that a social welfare function could represent the ethics of an egoist, a misanthrope, a benevolent despot, or God, Samuelson was expressing a position ...
[10]
Abram Bergson - The History of Economic Thought Website
Burk" - his famous 1938 QJE paper proposing the construction of social welfare functions as a method of ranking different Pareto-optimal allocations.
[11]
Investigating the origin of social welfare functions in Bergson ...
Old welfare economics and Pareto's welfare economics believed the ordering was derived from utility and individual preferences; but Bergson–Samuelson's approach ...
[12]
Bergson social welfare functions in applied welfare analysis
A Short History of the Bergson–Samuelson Social Welfare Function. Chapter ... Bergson A (1938) a reformulation of certain aspects of welfare economics.
[13]
https://www.accessecon.com/pubs/VUECON/VUECON-13-00018.pdf
[14]
A Short History of the Bergson–Samuelson Social Welfare Function
The so-called Bergson–Samuelson social welfare function was first introduced in 1938 by Abram Bergson, and subsequently developed by Paul Samuelson in his ...<|separator|>
[15]
[PDF] Samuelson's welfare economics, 1932-1947
Instead it explores the origins of. Samuelson's ideas about welfare which led him to an approach in which social welfare did not necessarily rest on individuals ...
[16]
[PDF] Revisiting the history of welfare economics - HAL-SHS
Sep 14, 2020 · Containing chapters on some of the leading twentieth-century economists, including Walras, Marshall, Pigou, Pareto, Samuelson, Musgrave, Hicks, ...
[17]
The Role of Social Welfare Functions in Economic Analysis
Feb 25, 2025 · Growth theory, optimal tax models, climate policy evaluation, and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) all rely on some notion of social welfare. Whereas ...
[18]
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2225709
[19]
How mathematical impossibility changed welfare economics
The distinction between a cardinalist and an ordinalist approach to welfare economics was to become a central element of Arrow's reformulation of the ...
[20]
Arrow's Theorem - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Oct 13, 2014 · Informally speaking, this means that the output of the social welfare function must always be a ranking of the alternatives from better to worse ...
[21]
[PDF] Harsanyi's Utilitarian Theorem: A Simpler Proof and Some Ethical ...
Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem states that the social welfare function is the weighted sum of individuals' utility functions if: (i) society maximizes ...
[22]
[PDF] A Welfarist Version of Harsanyi's Aggregation Theorem
The Aggregation Theorem is one of the main arguments used by Harsanyi in support of utili- tarian ethics. It was first presented in his 1955 article and ...
[23]
[PDF] Axioms for Social Welfare Orderings
Axioms for social welfare orderings determine the welfare interpretation of social choice theory, where social judgment is based on individual utility.
[24]
Social Choice Theory - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Dec 18, 2013 · Social choice theory is the study of collective decision procedures and mechanisms. It is not a single theory, but a cluster of models and results.
[25]
Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal ...
Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility. John C. Harsanyi. John C. Harsanyi.
[26]
Harsanyi's simple “proof” of utilitarianism — EA Forum
Feb 20, 2020 · In 1955, John Harsanyi published a paper demonstrating that anyone who follows certain reasonable assumptions must be a total utilitarian.Background · Theorem · Example · Conclusion
[27]
Utilitarian Social Choice and Distributional Welfare Analysis - arXiv
Nov 2, 2024 · In Section 3 we formally present Harsanyi's characterization of utilitarian social preferences, and then introduce our notion of utilitarian ...
[28]
Utilitarian social welfare function - Vocab, Definition, Explanations
A utilitarian social welfare function is a framework used to evaluate the overall well-being of a society by summing individual utilities.
[29]
[PDF] Welfare Economics and Ethics - AEDE
Figure 1: Utilitarian. ▫ Utilitarian or Benthamite social welfare function W defined over H households, each household h being treated with equal weight ...
[30]
Jeremy Bentham (1748—1832) - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The principle of utility presupposes that “one man is worth just the same as another man” and so there is a guarantee that in calculating the greatest happiness ...
[31]
The History of Utilitarianism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
that is, consider the good of others as well as ...
[32]
Utilitarianism - Wikipedia
Utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the affected individuals.Utilitarianism (book) · Negative utilitarianism · Rule utilitarianism · Act utilitarianism<|control11|><|separator|>
[33]
(PDF) Harsanyi's Utilitarian Theorem: A Simpler Proof and Some ...
Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem states that the social welfare function is the weighted sum of individuals' utility functions if: (i) society maximizes expected ...
[34]
[PDF] RESEARCH e ECONOMETRICS - John A. Weymark
Harsanyi has advanced three arguments in defence of utilitarianism. One defence is based on the separability of the social-welfare function.
[35]
[PDF] Resource Allocation in Egalitarian Agent Societies
The first objective of an egalitarian society should be to maximise the welfare of its weakest member. ▷ This motivates the egalitarian social welfare function ...
[36]
[PDF] Rawlsian Justice - University of Warwick
called the maximin, or the Rawlsian, social welfare function – to differentiate it from. Rawls' own principle. Maximin is the social welfare function that ...<|separator|>
[37]
[PDF] An Economics-Based Rationale for the Rawlsian Social Welfare ...
by the Rawlsian social welfare function. In policy formation, public choice, and public economics there is a menu of social welfare functions to choose from ...
[38]
[PDF] Measuring social welfare in the National Accounts Dale W ...
The egalitarian social welfare function gives maxi- mum weight to equity considerations, while the utilitarian social welfare functions gives maximum weight to ...
[39]
[PDF] On the Measurement of Inequality - ANTHONY B. ATKINSON
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC THEORY 2, 244–263 (1970). On the Measurement of Inequality. ANTHONY B. ATKINSON. Faculty of Economics and Politics, University of Cambridge ...
[40]
[PDF] Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights for Optimal Tax Theory
One advantage of the standard approach relative to ours is that local optima (if they are multiple) can be ranked using the primitive social welfare function.
[41]
[PDF] Efficient Welfare Weights - Harvard University
The weights provide an empirical welfare framework that relies on the Pareto principle and causal effects, instead of a social welfare function. 1 Introduction.
[42]
[PDF] A social welfare function characterizing competitive equilibria of ...
Abstract. A classic characterization of competitive equilibria views them as feasible allocations maximizing a weighted sum of utilities.
[43]
Social welfare function - Wikipedia
Social welfare functions are studied by economists as a way to identify socially-optimal decisions, giving a procedure to rigorously define which of two ...Terminology and equivalence · Ordinal welfare · Cardinal welfare · Non-utilitarian
[44]
[PDF] Distributionally-Weighted Cost Benefit Analysis: Welfare Economics ...
All social welfare functions, however, reflect some degree of concern about the distribution of income or wealth. Adopting efficient and only efficient policies ...
[45]
[PDF] arrow's theorem - terence tao - UCLA Mathematics
Arrow's theorem: If there are at least three candidates, then the above six axioms are inconsistent. This is a serious obstacle to constructing a "perfect" ...
[46]
[PDF] Arrow's Impossibility Theorem - GMU
Mar 4, 2015 · Arrow's impossibility theorem says that the six axioms, 1) Universal Domain, 2) Completeness and Transitivity, 3) Positive Association, 4) ...
[47]
[PDF] THREE BRIEF PROOFS OF ARROW<S IMPOSSIBILITY THEOREM
ARROW*S THEOREM: Any constitution that respects transitivity, independence of irrelevant alternatives, and unanimity is a dictatorship. FIRST PROOF: Let ...<|separator|>
[48]
The Problem of Social Choice (in 700 Words) - Econlib
Dec 22, 2023 · The problem of social choice is how to transform individual preferences into collective choices, as any social choice is necessarily ...
[49]
Arrow's and Gibbard-Satterthwaite's Impossibility Theorems Revisited
Arrow's and Gibbard-Satterthwaite's Impossibility Theorems Revisited ... Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet. Download file PDF.
[50]
Impossibility Theorems For Social Welfare Functionals
May 23, 2017 · In this paper we provide Impossibility Theorems for social welfare functionals. We adapt the method of proving the inevitability of dictatorial Bergson- ...Missing: peer | Show results with:peer
[51]
[PDF] Arrow's Impossibility Theorem: Two Simple Single-Profile Version
In this paper we provide two simple new versions of Arrow's impossibility theorem, in a model with only one preference profile.
[52]
Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility - Econlib
Feb 1, 2022 · Interpersonal comparisons of utility (that is, of preferred positions on an individual's preference scale) are known to be scientifically impossible in ...Missing: Harsanyi | Show results with:Harsanyi
[53]
[PDF] An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science
This essay is an attempt to remedy this deficiency—to make clear what it is that economists discuss and what may legitimately be expected as a result of their ...
[54]
[PDF] Interpretation of Interpersonal Utility Comparisons
Significance of Economic Science (1937) Robbins criticizes the cardinalist law of diminishing marginal utility, particularly in its application to income ...
[55]
[PDF] Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal ...
Final- ly, I shall turn to the problem of inter- personal comparisons of utility, which gains new interest by the revival of an additive cardinal welfare ...
[56]
[PDF] INTERPERSONAL COMPARISONS OF UTILITY - Stanford University
A satisfactory complete normative criterion for individualistic ethical decision- making under uncertainty such as Harsanyi's (Journal of Political Economy, ...
[57]
[PDF] Interpersonal comparison of utility - UCL Discovery
I think John Harsanyi's [15] theory of interpersonal comparisons of utility defuses all these concerns by providing a clear and relatively uncontroversial ...
[58]
Welfare Economics and Interpersonal Utility Comparisons
Important parts of economics (including parts of welfare economics) do not rely on interpersonal comparisons of cardinal utility, such as 'positively' deriving ...
[59]
[PDF] Social Welfare, Redistribution, and the Tradeoff between Efficiency ...
Redistribution could be achieved by taxing labor income and consumption (e.g., through a value-added tax), which distort the incentive to work and earn income, ...
[60]
[PDF] A SECOND-BEST APPROACH TO INCENTIVE COMPATIBILITY
In this chapter we explore a very special type of second-best problem where a second-best optimum is obtained by approximating the social welfare function of in ...
[61]
The Incentive Effects of Cash Transfers to the Poor | Cato Institute
Oct 28, 2020 · We use a basic search model to make predictions about how the cash transfers affect marriage, fertility, and work decisions of recipients.
[62]
Egalitarianism and Incentives - ScienceDirect.com
Specifically, in a setting with many agents, we wish to examine the connection between the extent of egalitarianism embodied in the social welfare function, and ...
[63]
The welfare state and the rise of paternalism | Gilles Saint-Paul
A critique against state paternalism and the politics of welfare.Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
[64]
[PDF] Welfare and Paternalism - Princeton University
Mar 2, 2010 · Paternalism in welfare involves promoting behaviors like work and marriage, requiring conditions for aid, and is controversial, seen by some as ...
[65]
From Utilitarianism to Paternalism: When Behavioral Economics ...
I suggest that the behavioral economists' defense of paternalism can be understood as an attempt to maximize a social welfare function taking into account the ...
[66]
[PDF] The Implementation of Social Choice Rules: Some General Results ...
Oct 31, 2007 · This task of implementing social choice rules is what has come to be called the problem of " incentive compatibility ", a term due to Hurwicz ( ...
[67]
Social Welfare Functions and Health Policy: A New Approach
May 27, 2024 · The social welfare function (SWF) framework converts the possible outcomes of governmental policy choice into vectors (lists) of interpersonally comparable ...
[68]
Social Welfare Functions and Health Policy
Jun 12, 2023 · Social welfare functions (SWFs) allow policy evaluations to account explicitly for the distribution of well-being effects in the population.
[69]
Cost-Benefit Analysis and Social Welfare Functions
Sep 19, 2016 · The social welfare function methodology relies on an interpersonally comparable utility function. A given outcome (a possible consequence of policy choice) is ...
[70]
What is Rawlsian social welfare function? | Definition & Examples
Jun 14, 2024 · The Rawlsian social welfare function is a framework for evaluating economic and social policies based on the principles of justice and fairness.
[71]
Social welfare function: An advanced approach to assess COVID-19 ...
Aug 11, 2021 · This social welfare function (SWF) analysis method measures an intervention's joint health and non-health effects on individual well-being.
[72]
[PDF] Distributionally-Weighted Cost Benefit Analysis: Welfare Economics ...
For example, W might be the sum of utilities in which case the social welfare function is known as a utilitarian social welfare function. Utilities of different ...
[73]
What is the General Welfare? Welfare Economic Perspectives on ...
Jun 27, 2025 · To enhance policy analysis, I argue that economists should specify social welfare functions that express the richness and variety of actual ...
[74]
[PDF] The Social Evaluation of Intergenerational Policies and Its ...
The first is to do sensitivity analysis with respect to the parameters of the social welfare function. The second is to directly present the. 2. The B.E. ...
[75]
"A Better Calculus for Regulators: From Cost-Benefit Analysis to the ...
Feb 28, 2017 · The “social welfare function” (SWF) is a powerful tool that originates in theoretical welfare economics and has wide application in economic ...
[76]
[PDF] Hayek, Arrow, and the Problems of Democratic Decision-Making
Both Hayek and Arrow provide arguments about the inability of the vote process to yield a coherent social choice. Hayek demonstrated that planning is.
[77]
Welfare Economics: Theory, Key Assumptions, and Critical Analysis
Welfare economics studies how the distribution of resources impacts social welfare and economic efficiency. It guides public policy through utility theory ...What Is Welfare Economics? · Social Welfare Maximization · Elements Influencing...<|separator|>
[78]
7.4 Market failures and the Second Welfare Theorem - Fiveable
This separates efficiency and equity considerations in policy-making, but has practical limitations in real-world implementation. Market failures and their ...
[79]
Welfare and the Economy - Brookings Institution
A key problem with fixed funding is that public assistance demand is countercyclical, that is, it rises in periods of economic need. Thus, states generally will ...
[80]
Welfare systems without economic growth: A review of the ...
Welfare systems across the OECD face many combined challenges, with rising inequality, demographic changes and environmental crises likely to drive up welfare ...Welfare Systems Without... · 2. Welfare Systems In The... · 3. The Problem With Welfare...
[81]
Free Market or Socialism: Have Economists Really Anything to Say?
Jan 16, 2020 · A central tenet of partisans of a free-market system is that it uniquely provides economic agents with the incentives that secure an optimal economic outcome.
[82]
Does marketization promote economic growth?—Empirical ... - Nature
May 29, 2025 · This paper empirically analyses the relationship between the level of marketization and economic growth via panel data of 26 transition countries over the ...
[83]
They Didn't Listen: The Reality of Hayek's Bestseller | Mises Institute
Jul 26, 2023 · Then, one by one, Hayek broke the arguments for socialism into pieces. He critiques central planning, exhibits his famous work on knowledge ...
[84]
Hayek vs. Beveridge on the Welfare State: Introduction
Jun 13, 2019 · In the summer of 1942, Friedrich Hayek finished the first draft of The Road to Serfdom, a sharp critique of the idea of the welfare state and ...
[85]
[PDF] Free Markets and Civil Peace: Some Theory and Empirical Evidence
This article will first briefly argue why economic governance in a broader sense matters more than simple arguments about feasibility and demonstrate empir-.<|control11|><|separator|>
[86]
Free-Market, Perfect Market and Welfare State Perspectives on ...
May 20, 2021 · This study explores the relationship between human development and market institutions and tests the performance of three alternative economic perspectives.
[87]
Robert Nozick's Political Philosophy.
Nozick attempted to demonstrate the intuition that only free market exchanges respect persons as equals. To do this Nozick developed his “entitlement theory of ...
[88]
The Right to Be Rich or Poor | Peter Singer
Mar 6, 1975 · In contrast to all patterned theories, Nozick proposes the “entitlement theory ... Both the strengths and the weaknesses of the entitlement theory ...<|separator|>
[89]
What alternatives do Republicans propose to existing social welfare ...
Nov 10, 2015 · The Republican alternative to government-run social welfare is private social welfare, aka charities that people voluntarily donate to.
[90]
Distributive Justice - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Sep 22, 1996 · The statement of the Entitlement Theory includes reference to the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer. ... Nozick's entitlement ...
[91]
The Welfare State with Private Alternatives
Private alternatives to the public provision of welfare state services and benefits have expanded in almost all OECD countries over the past decades.Empirical Estimation · Results · Study I: Pensions Versus...
[92]
Utilitarian Marginalism (Nozick, Rawls, Justice, and Welfare) - jstor
on human satisfactions. Nozick's theory of entitlement justifies the distribution reached in a free exchange economy, presuming that all factors are ...