Abstract
AbstractAfter demonstrating that institutional design based on the rational choice approach is hardly ever applicable, we suggest a procedural alternative and demonstrate its applicability with a focus on the supply side of public authorities, i.e., on the “productive state.” Whereas the former approach, based on unrealistic common knowledge assumptions, is consequentialistic, procedural fairness relies on appealing requirements of non-arbitrariness and equal treatment. In our view, game theoretic mechanism design is useful to explore the consequentialistic – e.g., welfaristic – potential but is, except for specific situations, not implementable. Compared to this, procedural fairness is in line with actually used procedures and legal traditions. Although game theoretic mechanism design can be informative, its unrealistic assumptions justify the procedural approach, which can be rigorously defined by intuitive fairness requirements.
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.
