Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T19:32:59.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Du paradoxe libéral-parétien à un concept de métaclassement des préférences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Herrade Igersheim
Herrade Igersheim*
Affiliation:
CNRS et CEPERC, Universite de Provence, 29 avenue Robert Schuman, 13621 Aix-en-Provenoe Cedex 1, France.
*
(e-mail: [email protected])
Get access

Résumé

Notre contribution défend la thèse selon laquelle le paradoxe libéral-parétien de Sen plaide en faveur de l'élaboration d'un nouveau formalisme en termes de métaclassement des préférences. Il s'agit d'enrichir la structure traditionnelle des préférences par la prise en considération des motivations et des valeurs individuelles comme vise à le prouver l'analyse des tentatives de résolution du conflit Pareto-liberté que nous opérons tout d'abord. Puis, après avoir montré que le fait de tenir compte des motivations individuelles justifie un recours au concept de métaclassement des préférences, nous suggérons une solution au paradoxe libéral-parétien intégrant cette notion.

Summary

Summary

The purpose of our paper is to argue that Sen's liberal paradox compels to choose a new formalism in terms of metaranking of preferences. One should complete the traditional structure of preferences by taking individual motivations into account. We show first that all the endeavours to resolve the impossibility of the Paretian liberal aim at expressing the values and motivations of the individuals. We then argue that the concept of metaranking of preferences is justified by this purpose. Finally, we submit a resolution of the impossibility of the Paretian liberal according to this notion.

Keywords

Paretian liberal paradoxcollective choicemetaranking of preferencesD6D7paradoxe libéral-parétienchoix collectifmétaclassement des préférencesD6D7
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 73 , Issue 2 , 2007 , pp. 173 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2007 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références

Arrow, J., (1951), Social choice and individual values, 1ère édition, New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Blau, J.H., (1975), Liberal values and independence, Review of Economic Studies, 42, pp. 395–401.Google Scholar
Bowles, S., (1998), Endogenous preferences : the cultural consequences of markets and other economic institutions, Journal of Economic Literature, 36, pp. 75–111.Google Scholar
Deb, R., Pattanaik, P. K. et.Razzolini, L. (1997), Game forms, rights, and the efficiency of social outcomes, Journal of Economic Theory, 72, pp. 74–95.Google Scholar
Farrell, M. J., (1976), Liberalism in the theory of social choice, Review of Economic Studies, 43, pp. 3–10.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., Gravel, N. Laslier, J.-F. et Trannoy, A. (1998), Introduction and overview, in Laslier, J.-F. Fleurbaey, M., Gravel, N. et Trannoy, A. (éds), Freedom in economics : new perspectives in normative analysis, Londres, Routledge, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H. G., (1971), Freedom of the will and the concept of a person, Journal of Philosophy, 68, pp. 5–20.Google Scholar
Gaertner, W. et Krüger, L. (1981), Self-supporting preferences and individual rights : the possibility of Paretian libertarianism, Economica, 48, pp. 17–28.Google Scholar
Gaertner, W., Pattanaik, P.K. et Suzumura, K. (1992), Individual rights revisited, Economica, 59, pp. 161–177.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A., (1974), A Pareto-consistent libertarian claim, Journal of Economic Theory, 7, pp. 388–410.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E., (1986), Laundering preferences, in Elster, J. et Hylland, A. (éds), Foundations of social choice theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 75–101.Google Scholar
Gravel, N., Laslier, J.-F. et Trannoy, A. (2000), Consistency between tastes and values : a universalization approach, Social Choice and Welfare, 17, pp. 293–320.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C, (1955), Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility, Journal of Political Economy, 63, pp. 309–321.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C, (1977), Rational behavior and bargaining equilibrium in games and social situations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, F.A., (1960), The constitution of liberty, Londres, Routledge.Google Scholar
Mcpherson, M.S., (1982), Mill’s moral theory and the problem of preference change, Ethics, 92, pp. 252–273.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S., (1859), On liberty, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1947.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S., (1863), Utilitarianism, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1957.Google Scholar
Mongin, P. et d’Aspremont, C. (1998), Utility theory and ethics, in Barbera, S. Hammond, P. J. et Seidl, C. (éds), Handbook of utility theory, vol. 1 : Principles, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 371–481.Google Scholar
Nozick, R., (1974), Anarchy, state and utopia, Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Poulsen, A.U. et Svendsen, G.T. (2005), Social capital and endogenous preferences, Public Choice, 123, pp. 171–196.Google Scholar
Saari, D.G. (1998), Connecting and resolving Sen’s and Arrow’s theorems, Social Choice and Welfare, 15, pp. 239–261.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K., (1970a), Collective choice and social welfare, San Francisco, Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K., (1970b), The impossibility of a Paretian liberal, Journal of Political Economy, 78, pp. 152–157.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K., (1974), Choice, orderings and morality, in Kôrner, S. (éd.), Practical reason, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 54–67.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K., (1976), Liberty, unanimity and rights, Economica, 43, pp. 217–245.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K., (1977), Rational fools : critique of the behavioural foundations of economic theory, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6, pp. 317–344.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K., (1979), Personal utilities and public judgements : or what’s wrong with welfare economics, Economic Journal, 89, pp. 537–558.Google Scholar
Suzumura, K., (1978), On the consistency of libertarian claims, Review of Economic Studies, 45, pp. 329–342.Google Scholar
Van Hees, M., (1999), Liberalism, efficiency, and stability : some possibility results, Journal of Economic Theory, 88, pp. 294–309.Google Scholar