When Not Every Good is Good: Two Dimensions of Social Choice

 
PIIS013216250008810-4-1
DOI10.31857/S013216250008810-4
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Assoc. Prof.
Affiliation: National Research University Higher School of Economics
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Affiliation: National Research University Higher School of Economics
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameSotsiologicheskie issledovaniya
EditionIssue 3
Pages27-39
Abstract

The quantitative approach to the assessment of socially approved structure of socially significant goods is developed and tested on the data of representative survey in Russia. Social choice is considered from two sides – both magnitude and heterogeneity of demand for different types of public and merit goods. The analysis is based on a hypothetical situation on the fair distribution of public funds between social bonds of different destination. It is shown that demand for “humanitarian” goods is greater in comparison both the so-called “protective” (as the basis of ethacratic model of society) and “post-industrial” (playing investment function in the society) goods. Moreover, the vision of development through justice and compassion, rather than through the capitalization of talent and success is dominated in the Russian society when the society is faced with a situation of choice between these alternatives. The next interesting point is that the goods which are aimed at providing the national safety and sovereignty occupy a upper positions in the overall structure of social preferences, while the elements of “superpower” regarded as a public goods are least preferred by the respondents.We have demonstrated cases where high aggregate demand for merit and public goods is accompanied by a high stratification of society in terms of individual demand. Finally, it is demonstrated that the distribution of resources between different types of merit and public goods individually perceived as fair is determined by gender identity, material welfare and by factor of big family. 

Keywordssocial preferences, social choice, merit goods, public goods
Received14.03.2020
Publication date16.03.2020
Number of characters27208
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1644

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Arrow K.J. (1993) The Potentials and Limits of the Market in Resource Allocation. Thesis. 1993. Iss. 2: 53–68. (In Russ.)

2. Boehm F., Oiken V., Grossman-Dert G. (2007) Our Task (The Ordo Manifesto of 1936). In: Nureev R.M. (ed.) (2007) Social Market Economy: Concepts, Practical Experience and Prospects of Application in Russia. Moscow: TEIS: 24–38. (In Russ.)

3. Borodkin F.M., Kudryavtsev А.S. (2003) Human Development and Human Disasters. Mir Rossii [Universe of Russia]. Vol. 12. No. 1: 138–182. (In Russ.)

4. Fabrykant M., Magun V. (2019) Dynamics of National Pride Attitudes in Post-Soviet Russia, 1996–2015. Nationalities Papers. Vol. 47. No. 1: 20–37.

5. Fehr E., Fischbacher U. (2002) Why Social Preferences Matter – The Impact of non-selfish Motives on Competition, Cooperation and Incentives. The Economic Journal. Vol. 112. No. 478: C1–C33.

6. Gorshkov M.K., Krumm R., Tihonova N.E. (eds) (2013) What Russians Dream of: The Ideal and Reality. Moscow: Ves' Mir [Whole World]. (In Russ.)

7. Gorshkov M.K., Sheregi F.E. (2012) Applied Sociology: Methodology and Methods. FGANU “Tsentr sotsiologicheskih issledovaniy”; Institut sotsiologii RAN. (In Russ.).

8. Jasso G. (2008) A New Unified Theory of Sociobehavioural Forces. European Sociological Review. Vol. 24. No. 4: 411–434.

9. Kalinin R.G., Deviatko I.F. (2019) Who Should Pay for a Water Pipe: Social Context of Distributive Justice Perception. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: Ekonomicheskie i social'nye peremeny [Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes]. No. 2: 95–114. (In Russ.)

10. Karacharovskiy V.V, Shkaratan O.I. The Shadow Price of Social Change and Its Evaluation. Mir Rossii [Universe of Russia]. Vol. 26. No. 2: 6–37. (In Russ.)

11. Karacharovskiy V.V. Social Efficiency of Technological Modernization in Russia. Mir Rossii [Universe of Russia]. Vol. 22. No. 2: 52–82. (In Russ.)

12. Kluegel J.R., Mason D.S. (2004) Social Justice and Political Legitimacy in Post-Communist Europe. Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 56. No. 6: 813–834.

13. Kolm S.-Ch. (1996) Moral Public Choice. Public Choice. Vol. 87. No. 1/2: 117–141.

14. Kreps D.M. (1990) A Course in Microeconomic Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

15. Krishnaswamy K.S. (2004) Growth with Social Justice: Reflections on Employment Question. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. 39. No. 11: 1129–1136.

16. Lapin N.I. (2016) Epistemological Characteristics of the Problem Field of Modernization in Russia, Approaches to its Study. Filosofskie nauki [Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences]. No. 4: 46–57. (In Russ.)

17. Markovsky B. (1985) Toward a Multilevel Distributive Justice Theory. American Sociological Review. Vol. 50. No. 6: 822–839.

18. McKee A.F. (1981) What is “Distributive” Justice? Review of Social Economy. Vol. 39. No. 1: 1–17.

19. Nekipelov А.D. (2006) Formation and Functioning of Economic Institutes: from “Robinzonada” to the Market Economy Based on Individual Production, Moscow: Ekonomist. (In Russ.)

20. Rawls J. (1999) Theory of Justice. Revised ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

21. Tihonova N.E. Perception of the Optimal Model of the State in the Mass Consciousness of Russians. In: Gorshkov M.K., Petukhov V.V. (eds) (2018) Twenty-Five Years of Social Transformations in the Assessments and Judgments of Russians: the Experience of Sociological Analysis. Moscow: Ves' Mir: 80–104. (In Russ.)

22. Tihonova N.E., Mareeva S.V. (2009) Middle Class: Theory and Reality. Moscow: Alfa-M. (In Russ.)

23. Tshernysh M.F. Justice of Wages in Russian Context. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 8: 78–89. (In Russ.)

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up