Justice Under Uncertainty

References

• Adler MD, Sanchirico CW (2006) Inequality and uncertainty: Theory and legal applications. Univ. Pennsylvania Law Rev. 155(2):279–377.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aguiar F, Becker A, Miller L (2010) Whose impartiality? An experimental study of veiled stakeholders, impartial spectators and ideal observers. Jena Econom. Res. Papers 2010:040.Google Scholar
• Andersen S, Harrison GW, Lau MI, Rutström EE (2008) Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica 76(3):583–618.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Babcock L, Loewenstein G (1997) Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases. J. Econom. Perspect. 11(1):109–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Babcock L, Loewenstein G, Issacharoff S, Camerer C (1995) Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining. Amer. Econom. Rev. 85(5):1337–1343.Google Scholar
• Ben-Porath E, Gilboa I, Schmeidler D (1997) On the measurement of inequality under uncertainty. J. Econom. Theory 75(1):194–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birkeland S, Tungodden B (2014) Fairness motivation in bargaining: A matter of principle. Theory Decision 77(1):125–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton G, Ockenfels A (2000) ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(1):166–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brock JM, Lange A, Ozbay EY (2013) Dictating the risk: Experimental evidence on giving in risky environments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(1):415–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Hole AD, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2007) The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(3):818–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Konow J, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2013) Just luck: An experimental study of risk taking and fairness. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(4):1398–1413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cettolin E, Tausch F (2015) Risk taking and risk sharing: Does responsibility matter? J. Risk Uncertainty 50(3):229–248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Childress JF (2001) Putting patients first in organ allocation: An ethical analysis of the U.S. debate. Cambridge Quart. Healthcare Ethics 10(4):365–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dana J, Cain DM, Dawes RM (2006) What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Costly (but quiet) exit in dictator games. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 100(2):193–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dana J, Weber RA, Kuang JX (2007) Exploiting moral wiggle room: Experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Econom. Theory 33(1):67–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deutsch M (1985) Distributive Justice: A Social-Psychological Perspective (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
• Diamond PA (1967) Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparison of utility: Comment. J. Political Econom. 75(5):765–766.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dickinson DL, Tiefenthaler J (2002) What is fair? Experimental evidence. Southern Econom. J. 69(2):414–428.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG (2011) Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 9(3):522–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2008) Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence. Plott C, Smith V, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Vol. 1, Chap. 113 (Elsevier, New York), 1061–1073.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Engelmann D, Strobel M (2004) Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 94(4):857–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faravelli M (2007) How context matters: A survey based experiment on distributive justice. J. Public Econom. 91(7–8):1399–1422.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E and Schmidt K (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart. J. Econom. 114(3):817–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr-Duda H, de Gennaro M, Schubert R (2006) Gender, financial risk, and probability weights. Theory Decision 60(2–3):283–313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) Z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleurbaey M (2010) Assessing risky social situations. J. Political Econom. 118(4):649–680.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Riedl A (2005) Moral property rights in bargaining with infeasible claims. Management Sci. 51(2):249–263.Link, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Riedl A (2006) Dividing justly in bargaining problems with claims: Normative judgments and actual negotiations. Soc. Choice and Welfare 27(3):571–594.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gajdos T, Maurin E (2004) Unequal uncertainties and uncertain inequalities: An axiomatic approach. J. Econom. Theory 116(1):93–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gerber A, Nicklisch A, Voigt S (2014) Strategic choices for redistribution and the veil of ignorance: Theory and experimental evidence. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
• Gill D, Prowse VL (2012) A structural analysis of disappointment aversion in a real effort competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(1):469–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, List JA, Wu G (2006) The uncertainty effect: When a risky prospect is valued less than its worst possible outcome. Quart. J. Econom. 121(4):1283–1309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harsanyi JC (1955) Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. J. Political Econom. 63(4):309–321.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holt C, Laury S (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Knetsch J, Thaler R (1986) Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(4):728–741.Google Scholar
• Karni E, Safra Z (2002) Individual sense of justice: A utility representation. Econometrica 70(1):263–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konow J (1996) A positive theory of economic fairness. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 31(1):13–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konow J (2000) Fair shares: Accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(4):1072–1091.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konow J (2003) Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. J. Econom. Literature 41(4):1188–1239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konow J (2009) Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? An impartial spectator analysis of justice. Soc. Choice Welfare 33(1):101–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krugman P (2009) The politics of spite. New York Times (October 4), http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=0.Google Scholar
• Lamont J, Favor C (2014) Distributive justice. Zalta EN, ed. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2014 ed., http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/justice-distributive/.Google Scholar
• Larry G. Epstein US (1992) Quadratic social welfare functions. J. Political Econom. 100(4):691–712.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore MJ, Viscusi WK (1990) Compensation Mechanisms for Job Risks: Wages, Workers’ Compensation, and Product Liability (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Persad G, Wertheimer A, Emanuel EJ (2009) Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. The Lancet 373(9661):423–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rabin M (1993) Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Amer. Econom. Rev. 83(5):1281–1302.Google Scholar
• Rawls J (1971) A Theory of Justice (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rodriguez-Lara I, Moreno-Garrido L (2012) Self-interest and fairness: Self-serving choices of justice principles. Experiment. Econom. 15(1):158–175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rohde IM, Rohde KI (2011) Risk attitudes in a social context. J. Risk Uncertainty 43(3):205–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saito K (2013) Social preferences under risk: Equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(7):3084–3101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schildberg-Hörisch H (2010) Is the veil of ignorance only a concept about risk? An experiment. J. Public Econom. 94(11–12):1062–1066.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schlag K, van der Weele J (2015) A method to elicit beliefs as most likely intervals. Judgment Decision Making 10(5):456–468.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schokkaert E, Capeau B (1991) Interindividual differences in opinions about distributive justice. Kyklos 44(3):325–515.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schokkaert E, Overlaet B (1989) Moral intuitions and economic models of distributive justice. Soc. Choice and Welfare 6(1):19–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sen AK (1997) On Economic Inequality, Expanded edition with a substantial annexe by James E. Foster and Amartya Sen (Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Simoes E, Mariotti S, Rossi A, Heim A, Lobello F, Mokdad A, Scafato E (2012) The Italian health surveillance (SiVeAS) prioritization approach to reduce chronic disease risk factors. Internat. J. Public Health 57(4):719–733.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tausch F, Potters J, Riedl A (2013) Preferences for redistribution and pensions. What can we learn from experiments? J. Pension Econom. Finance 12(3):298–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• The Economist (2013) On the edge. (September 19), http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21586574-mood-greek-capital-boiling-point-edge.Google Scholar
• Varian HR (1975) Distributive justice, welfare economics, and the theory of fairness. Philosophy Public Affairs 4(3):223–247.Google Scholar
• Wakker PP (2008) Explaining the characteristics of the power (CRRA) utility family. Health Econom. 17(12):1329–1344.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker PP (2010) Prospect Theory for Risk and Ambiguity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yaari ME, Bar-Hillel M (1984) On dividing justly. Soc. Choice and Welfare 1(1):1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Young HP (1995) Equity: In Theory and Practice (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar