Abstract
I make a key point that social welfare functions that only rely on individual utility still may reflect what people typically think of as a non-welfarist approach by critiquing Kaplow and Shavell (Journal of Political Economy, 2001) who propose and “prove” a proposition asserting that “Any non-welfarist method of policy assessment violates the Pareto principle.” The fundamental mistake made by Kaplow and Shavell is that their definition of welfarism equates welfarist methods and social welfare functions that only rely on individual utility. As a result, their definition of (non-)welfarism does not always coincide with common interpretations of (non-)welfarist methods.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
