The paper compares use of willingness to pay values with multi-attribute utility as ways of modelling social choice problems in the environment. A number of reasons for moving away from willingness to pay are reviewed. The view proposed is that social choice is about the integration of competing claim types (utilities, rights, social contracts and beliefs about due process). However, willingness to pay is only indirectly related to the first of these and assumes an Arrovian approach, namely one in which social choice is regarded as the aggregation of people's preferences.
AnandP.1999. ‘QALYs and the Integration of Incommensurable Claims’, Health Care Analysis,7: 239–53.
2.
AnandP.1993. Foundations of Rational Choice Under Risk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
AnandP.WailooA.2000. ‘Utilities vs. Rights to Publicly Provided Goods: Arguments and Evidence from Health-Care Rationing’, Economica (forthcoming).
4.
ArrowK. J.1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.
5.
AumannR.1962. ‘Utility Theory with the Completeness Axiom’, Econometrica,30: 445–62.
6.
CoveyJ.Lones-LeeM.W.LoomesG.RobinsonA.1998. ‘Valuing the Prevention of Food-Borne Illness: some Limitations of Consumers’ “Willingness to Pay”’, Risk Decision and Policy, 3(3): 245–60.
7.
DavidsonD.1980. Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
8.
DouglasM.IsherwoodB.1980. The World of Goods. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
9.
FishburnP. C.1988. Non-Linear Preference and Utility Theory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
10.
HarsanyiJ.1955. ‘Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility’, Journal of Political Economy,63: 309–21.
