Suchergebnisse

Theorists of justice have to steer between two rocks. On the one hand, there is the intuition that an individual's morally permitted preferences should be respected: it is not justifiable to intervene with them. On the other hand, such preferences are the result of formation processes, which are notoriously vulnerable to manipulation. Does justice demand respect for preferences that produce or perpetuate injustices, suffered either by the individual herself or by others? In this paper, I will investigate this problem in the context of the ambiguous tenet of neutrality. The field of gender justice has extended Rawlsian theories of justice in order to account for structural factors, such as socialisation. Some theorists have argued that the justice-inhibiting character of some preferences implies that the first intuition should be rejected in favour of the second in some cases, which leads to the conclusion that some preferences are like obstacles standing in the way of justice and should thus be reformed. I will call this the 'Normative Hierarchy View' and argue that it is problematic. It presupposes a certain attitude with respect to those who hold the preferences, which forecloses a politically salient kind of respect. Furthermore, at the

Andreoni and Sprenger (2012a,b) observe that utility functions are distinct for risk and time preferences, and show that their findings are consistent with a preference for certainty. We revisit this question in an enriched experimental setting in which subjects make intertemporal decisions under different risk conditions. The observed choice behavior supports a separation between risk attitude and intertemporal substitution rather than a preference for certainty. We further show that several models, including Epstein and Zin (1989); Chew and Epstein (1990); and Halevy (2008) exhibit such a separation and can account for the overall experimental findings. (JEL C91, D81, D91)

This review concerns political preferences—what they are and where they come from. We begin by documenting the close relationship between processes of preference formation and change. Rather than suddenly appearing, most preferences emerge from interactions between individuals and their environment. This aspect of preference formation poses a concrete challenge: to uncover the mechanics of these interactions in important social contexts. We then describe political science research that meets this challenge. We find an expansive literature that clarifies how phenomena such as parties, campaigns, and the need to act strategically affect preferences. This work provides many widely applicable insights.

This note is devoted to the question: How restrictive is the assumption that preferences be Euclidean in d dimensions. In particular it is proven that a preference profile with I individuals and A alternatives can be represented by Euclidean utilities with d dimensions if and only if d=min(I,A-1). The paper also describes the systems of A points which allow for the representation of any profile over A alternatives, and provides some results when only strict preferences are considered. ; Cette note est consacrée à la question:Quelle restriction impose-t-on en faisant l'hypothèse qu'un profil de préférences est euclidien en dimension d ? En particulier on démontre qu'un profil de préférences sur I individus et A alternatives peut être représenté par des utilités euclidiennes en dimension d si et seulement si d est supérieur ou égal à min(I,A-1). On décrit aussi les systèmes de points qui permettent de représenter tout profil sur A alternatives, et on donne quelques résultats quand seules les préférences strictes sont considérées.

Die Dissertationsschrift nutzt eine theoriegeleitete empirische Analyse, um die divergierenden Handelspositionen der britischen und deutschen Regierung in den Verhandlungen zum EU-Korea-Freihandelsabkommen zu erklären. Durch die Anwendung des "Societal Approach" werden hierbei systematisch sowohl materielle Interessen (Wirtschaftssektoren/Gewerkschaften) als auch wertgestützte Ideen Wähler/NGOs) gegenübergestellt und herausgearbeitet, unter welchen Bedingungen eine der beiden Variablen die Regierungspositionen prägen können. Die Arbeit trägt dazu bei, die Wissenslücke über nationale Handelspolitikformulierung zu schließen und zu verstehen, wie und von wem Handelspositionen von EU-Regierungen geformt werden. Da die EU-Handelspolitik verstärkt angefochten und politisiert wird, bietet ein innerstaatlicher Fokus auf die Variation zwischen Handelspositionen von Regierungen eine aufschlussreiche Perspektive. ; This study employs a theoretically-guided, systematic empirical analysis in order to explain the diverging trade positions of the British and German governments in the EU-Korea FTA negotiations. The societal approach to governmental preference formation is applied to empirically test the independent variables domestic interests (economic sectors/trade unions) and ideas (voters/NGOs), which are employed to explain variation in these governmental trade positions. Additionally, the study focuses on the conditions for the prevalence of either of the independent variables. This study contributes to filling the salient gap in knowledge about national trade policy formulation and understanding of how, and by whom, trade positions of EU governments are formed. As EU trade policy has become increasingly contested and politicised, a domestic focus to account for variation across governmental trade positions offers a timely and relevant point of view.

"Risk Preferences and War" published on by Oxford University Press.