Talk:Social welfare function

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid	rated as mid-importance on the importance scale

Taken from the text:

Often choice of such a function is considered part of political economy. The choice may be a matter of tolerances versus preferences, or some broader political or ethical issue that may be resolveable within economics at all.

A related issue is the need of individual capital for rest and recreation, which prevents anyone from actually maximimizing their total income. This renders moot many of the balanced growth assumptions of macro-economics: Unless a uniform social welfare function is chosen across an entire society, growth is not balanced. Due in part to this concern, more direct means of measuring well-being than "total incomes" or GDP are required by modern human development theory.

Amartya Sen makes the point more directly:

:"What is the relation between our wealth, and our ability to live as we would like?"

Without answering this question, income and welfare are only indirectly related.

These paragraphs seem like a complete non sequitir from the previous material, which is comprehensible. It does not aid me, nor I imagine anybody else, in understanding what a social welfare function is.

That is not the sole concern of the article. This is not a textbook, so the nature of what "is" is is up for debate. While the above text is weak I think, the question of how one selects such a social welfare function, whether "income" is actually a valid indicator of welfare, and the ability of the society to optimize such a function at all (given need for rest, recreation, etc.) must be in there. As it is, the article has a POV problem in assuming that incomes are in fact indicators of general welfare, as the article claims this is the purpose of a social welfare function, and that idea is unchallenged in the text now. While the text provided for balance was weak, it had some merits: notably, it cited Amartya Sen who is the foremost welfare economics guru, it asked the question about the relation between wealth and "living as we would like" very directly, it mentioned the other issues. It should be rewritten and the existing claim that social welfare functions actually do what the intro says they do should be qualified. If you wish to write a textbook, go write one at this address. Else, accomodate the views of a wider range of people, some of whom seem not to believe in this "function" or offer valid challenges to its usefulness. EofT

[edit] Talk:Social Choice and Individual Values

Announcement: The above is the discussion tab for a new article Social Choice and Individual Values. Input is welcome through the article, the Talk page, or to me. The plan is to gather comment, corrections, or suggestions for probably at least a couple of weeks, make final changes, then go from there. Links to related articles (including the present one) would come after revision. Thanks for your help.

Thomasmeeks 22:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's up with those boxes?

Are they necessary? radek 21:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

They might at least be handy for different uses and readers, including:

• examples or digressions that might be interesting in themselves but unboxed might interrupt the flow for some readers
• material more detailed than a typical footnote which might otherwise be overlooked to the disadvantage of the reader
• more technical stuff, like an appendix of an article, except more accessible. --Thomasmeeks 09:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)