Abstract
Chapter 6 reconstructs Rousseau–Rawls’s social contract model by Sen's diversity-based social choice model, which is developed with a critical scrutiny of the universality-based Arrovian social choice model. Sen’s model is characterized by the sequence of the pre-original position, the original position, post-original position, and actual society. The pre-original position is equivalent to Rousseau–Rawls’s “original position,” in which all individuals are symmetrically treated in choosing a social choice procedure in the original position. They are prepared to choose a social choice procedure, which can treat disadvantaged groups preferably in the outcome or in the process, with information that “diversity” is a fact of human society. The “group” here is a normative concept to understand the “positionality” of individuals and to measure their interpersonally comparable capabilities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For example, refer to Hayek’s words, “… [W]hat we perceive can never be unique properties of individual objects but always only properties which the objects have in common with other objects. Perception is thus always an interpretation, the placing of something into one or several classes of objects.” (Hayek 1952/2018, 259 [2018])
- 2.
Note that “subjective experiments” is not on “psychological pain” or “grief” but on actual pain directly experienced by the patients.” This is completely overlapping with the theme of the capability approach.
- 3.
For simplicity, we assume each group is independent but can be extended to a case where an individual participates in more than two groups’ capability assessments and formations of local evaluation. They can enjoy benefit from policies tailored for each disadvantaged group. However, should such policies have a combined production effect, benefit to such individuals may be reduced at the time of provision.
- 4.
Reflexivity requires that “for any x \(\in\) X, \(C_{i} (x)\) is at least as good as \(C_{i} (x)\).” Transitivity requires that “for any x, y, z \(\in\) X, if \(C_{i} (x)\) is at least as good as \(C_{i} (y)\), and if \(C_{i} (y)\) is at least as good as \(C_{i} (z)\), then \(C(x,i)\) is at least as good as \(C_{i} (z)\).” Completeness requires that for any x, y \(\in\) X, either “\(C_{i} (x)\) is at least as good as \(C_{i} (y)\)” or “\(C_{i} (y)\) is at least as good as \(C_{i} (x)\) holds”.
- 5.
Related to footnote 1, individuals who do not have any disadvantage can be included in the disadvantaged group G, if there is a possibility of inter-personal comparison with other members in G.
- 6.
Refer to footnote 2 for logical features of reflexivity, transitivity, and completeness.
- 7.
Non-comparable cases include a case where there are multiple least-advantaged individuals within a disadvantaged group; and while one individual may have equal or more basic capabilities, because other individuals do not, it is non-comparable as a whole.
- 8.
Gotoh and Yoshihara (2018).
- 9.
Gotoh and Yoshihara (2018) proved this using a more general model.
- 10.
Refer to Gotoh and Yoshihara (2018) for a proof of the theorem that a procedure that fulfills both inter-group non-negative response and capability-based Pareto condition exists.
- 11.
If a social evaluation satisfies reflexivity and acyclicity (a weaker condition than transitivity), a maximal set always becomes non-empty. Refer to Sen (1995/2002a, 183 [2002a]).
- 12.
Sen (2017, 55).
- 13.
Refer to Sen (1999b, 287) for the phrase “patent injustice”.
- 14.
Refer to “I shall also assume that, if we grow up under a framework of reasonable and just political and social institutions, we shall affirm those institutions when we in our turn come of age, and they will endure over time” (Rawls 1999a, 7).
- 15.
Refer to the last chapter of Sen and Gotoh (2008) for details.
- 16.
Inequality of vectors is defined as follows. For all x, y \(\in {\mathbb{R}}_{ + }^{k} ,\) x ≥ y ⇔ (x–y)\(\in {\mathbb{R}}_{ + }^{k}\); x > y ⇔ [x ≠ y and x ≥ y]; x ≫ y ⇔ (x-y) \(\in {\mathbb{R}}_{ + + }^{k}\).
- 17.
Continuous utility function exists when preferences have completeness, reflexivity, and transitivity as well as continuous and strong monotonicity.
- 18.
Attention to social evaluation by individuals is related to Sen’s following words. “But it is important to distinguish between a person’s preferences as they actually are and what he thinks he would accept as a basis of public policy given the preferences of others and given his values on collective choice procedures.” (Sen 1970a, 66)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 IER Hitotsubashi University
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gotoh, R. (2021). From Rawls’s Social Contract to Sen’s Social Choice. In: The Ethics and Economics of the Capability Approach. Hitotsubashi University IER Economic Research Series, vol 46. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5140-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5140-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-5139-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-5140-6
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)