Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Pareto Versus Welfare, Robert C. Hockett
Pareto Versus Welfare, Robert C. Hockett
Robert C. Hockett
Many normatively oriented economists, legal academics and other policy analysts appear to be "welfarist" and Paretian to at least moderate degree: They deem positive responsiveness to individual preferences, and satisfaction of one or more of the familiar Pareto criteria, to be reasonably undemanding and desirable attributes of any social welfare function (SWF) employed to formulate social evaluations. Some theorists and analysts go further than moderate welfarism or Paretianism, however: They argue that "the Pareto principle" requires the SWF be responsive to individual preferences alone - a position I label "strict" welfarism - and conclude that all social evaluation should in …
Minding The Gaps: Fairness, Welfare, And The Constitutive Structure Of Distributive Assessment, Robert C. Hockett
Minding The Gaps: Fairness, Welfare, And The Constitutive Structure Of Distributive Assessment, Robert C. Hockett
Robert C. Hockett
Despite over a century’s disputation and attendant opportunity for clarification, the field of inquiry now loosely labeled “welfare economics” (WE) remains surprisingly prone to foundational confusions. The same holds of work done by many practitioners of WE’s influential offshoot, normative “law and economics” (LE). A conspicuous contemporary case of confusion turns up in recent discussion concerning “fairness versus welfare.” The very naming of this putative dispute signals a crude category error. “Welfare” denotes a proposed object of distribution. “Fairness” describes and appropriate pattern of distribution. Welfare itself is distributed fairly or unfairly. “Fairness versus welfare” is analytically on all fours …
Institutional Fixes Versus Fixed Institutions, Robert C. Hockett
Institutional Fixes Versus Fixed Institutions, Robert C. Hockett
Robert C. Hockett
A number of philosophers, policy thinkers and activists have despaired over the prospect that global institutions can bring progressive change to the international order. They advocate that those who would change things should place their hopes in global social movements rather than global institutions. This essay humbly suggests that we ought to do both. Global institutions require an active global civil society that includes social movements if they would not lose their senses of mission and purpose. Global social movements for their part require global institutions to serve as focal points for their efforts, which are otherwise threatened with diffusion …