What is the General Welfare? Welfare Economic Perspectives on Equity

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2501.08244
• Title: What is the General Welfare? Welfare Economic Perspectives on Equity
• Author: Charles F. Manski (Northwestern University)
• Classification: econ.GN q-fin.EC
• Publication Date: October 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.08244

Abstract

Researchers do not know with certainty the specific intentions of the drafters of the U.S. Constitution when referring to the "general Welfare." Nevertheless, economists can speculate by constructing social welfare functions designed to express public preferences. Economists typically simplify public policy analysis by assuming individuals possess homogeneous, consequentialist, and self-centered preferences. In reality, however, individuals may hold heterogeneous private preferences and distributional preferences. To improve policy analysis, economists should construct social welfare functions capable of expressing the richness and diversity of actual individual preferences. This paper focuses on preferences regarding equity. There is considerable controversy over the interpretation of equity, a term used ambiguously and contradictorily in public discourse. While formally expressing different equity interpretations through social welfare functions will not eliminate disagreement, it should clarify concepts and reduce inconsistencies in verbal communication.

Research Background and Motivation

The Core Problem

The core problem this paper addresses is the ambiguity of the concept of "general Welfare" in the U.S. Constitution and the oversimplification of individual preference assumptions in economics. Specifically:

1. Constitutional Ambiguity: The U.S. Constitution mentions "general Welfare" twice—in the Preamble and in Article I, Section 8—but never provides a clear definition. Congressional legislation and Supreme Court decisions have also failed to clarify its meaning.
2. Limitations of Economic Assumptions: Traditional welfare economics typically assumes individual preferences are homogeneous, consequentialist, and self-centered, an oversimplification that ignores the heterogeneity of actual individual preferences and concerns for distributional fairness.

Significance of the Problem

This problem has important theoretical and practical implications:

1. Theoretical Significance: Provides a more realistic foundation for welfare economics, enabling policy analysis to reflect the true preference structure of individuals.
2. Practical Significance: Helps policymakers understand trade-offs between different equity concepts and provides a better analytical framework for policy choices in democratic societies.

Limitations of Existing Approaches

The author identifies several "avoidance strategies" adopted by twentieth-century economists:

• Hicks's new welfare economics
• Kaldor-Hicks efficiency standards
• Representative agent models in macroeconomics

While these approaches simplify analysis, they cannot address the complexity of preference heterogeneity and distributional concerns.

Core Contributions

1. Conceptual Clarification: Systematically reviews multiple interpretations of equity concepts, including horizontal equity, equality of opportunity, intergenerational equity, and others, while identifying incompatibilities between different types of equity.
2. Theoretical Framework: Proposes individual utility function forms incorporating distributional preferences and formalizes individual preferences for different types of equity.
3. Mathematical Modeling: Constructs social welfare functions expressing equity preferences and analyzes characteristics of optimal policies.
4. Two Important Propositions:
   • Proposition 1: Under monotonic separability and infinitesimal interaction conditions, individual choice behavior remains self-centered despite potential distributional preferences
   • Proposition 2: Between-group equality of opportunity is compatible with any degree of variation in within-group opportunity sets
5. Empirical Research Guidance: Provides direction for future learning of population preferences through stated preference surveys.

Detailed Methodology

Theoretical Framework Construction

Basic Setup

The author considers policy categories that provide each population member with choice sets. Under policy φ, individual j faces choice set C^φ_j and selects action c^φ_j ∈ C^φ_j.

Formalization of Distributional Preferences

Individual utility functions are specified as:

u_j(z^φ) = u_j[c^φ_j, P(x, c^φ, C^φ)]

where P(x, c^φ, C^φ) represents the population distribution of covariates, choices, and choice sets.

Monotonic Separability Assumption

Further assuming utility functions have monotonically separable form:

u_j(z^φ) = f_j[v_j(c^φ_j), P(x, c^φ, C^φ)]

where v_j(·) is the self-centered component and f_j(·) is strictly increasing in v_j(·).

Classification of Equity Concepts

Equality of Opportunity

• Complete Equality of Opportunity: Nearly all population members face identical choice sets
• Between-Group Equality of Opportunity: Different groups face identical distributions of choice sets

Equality of Choice Actions

• Complete Equality of Choice: Nearly all population members make identical choices
• Between-Group Equality of Choice: Different groups have identical choice distributions

Equality of Realized Utility

• Complete Utility Equality: All individuals achieve identical utility levels
• Between-Group Utility Equality: Different groups have identical utility distributions

Utilitarian Social Welfare Function

When individual utility functions are additively separable in opportunity distributions:

u_j(z^φ) = v_j(c^φ_j) + w_j[P(x, C^φ)]

Utilitarian social welfare is:

W[u_j(z^φ), j ∈ J] = E[v(c^φ)] + E{w[P(x, C^φ)]}

Experimental Design

Numerical Example Design

The author provides two concrete policy optimization examples:

Example 1: Complete Equality of Opportunity Preference

• Population observed as homogeneous
• Each individual has default option A, with some able to access option B
• Individuals prefer complete equality of opportunity

Distributional preference form:

w_j[P(x, C^φ)] = α_j φ - β_j φ(1-φ)

Example 2: Between-Group Equality of Opportunity Preference

• Population divided into two observable groups
• Individuals prefer between-group equality of opportunity

Distributional preference form:

w_j[P(x, C^φ)] = γ_j[P(x=0)φ_0 + P(x=1)φ_1] - δ_j(φ_1 - φ_0)²

Computational Methods

The author proposes Monte Carlo methods to approximate optimal utilitarian policies:

1. Draw a random sample J_N of size N from population J
2. For a given policy φ, determine each sample member's choice action
3. Use sample averages to approximate population expectations
4. Search for optimal policy within the feasible policy space

Experimental Results

Theoretical Results

Implications of Proposition 1

Under monotonic separability and infinitesimal interaction assumptions, individual rational choice behavior given a policy is self-centered and unaffected by distributional preferences. However, this does not imply that individuals as social planners would choose policies maximizing self-centered utility.

Significance of Proposition 2

Between-group equality of opportunity is compatible with any degree of variation in within-group opportunity sets. For example, racial equality of opportunity is compatible with extreme inequality within each racial group.

Policy Analysis Results

Complete Equality Preference Case

When E(α) - E(β) ≥ 0, the optimal policy is φ = φ_max. When E(α) - E(β) < 0 and sufficiently negative, the optimal policy may be φ = 0, meaning prohibition of option B provision.

Between-Group Equality Preference Case

Optimal policy requires balancing increased average self-centered utility with maintenance of between-group equality. Strong equality preferences may lead to forgoing certain efficiency gains.

Related Work

Welfare Economics Tradition

• Samuelson (1947): Leaves normative specification of social welfare functions to society rather than economists
• Arrow (1951, 1978): Individual preferences over abstract social states
• Sen (1977): Critique of "welfarism" and advocacy for non-welfarist approaches

Equity Theory

• Rawls (1971): Theory of Justice and the maximin principle
• Harsanyi (1955): Original position argument for utilitarianism
• Atkinson and Stiglitz (1980): Three interpretations of horizontal equity

Application Domains

• Health Equity: Utilitarian versus non-utilitarian equity perspectives in medical decision-making
• Climate Policy: Intergenerational equity and discount rate selection
• Criminal Justice: Different equity standards in racial profiling

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Incompatibility: Different types of equity typically cannot be simultaneously achieved; policymakers must choose among them.
2. Behavior versus Planning: Individual choice behavior may be self-centered, but policy preferences as social planners may reflect concerns for equity.
3. Value of Conceptual Clarification: Formalizing different equity concepts, while not eliminating disagreement, can reduce misunderstanding and logical inconsistency.

Limitations

1. Empirical Gaps: Lack of empirical evidence on actual population distributional preferences
2. Complexity: Real policy environments are far more complex than theoretical models
3. Operationality: Substantial challenges exist in translating theory to actual policy implementation

Future Directions

1. Empirical Research: Learning population distributional preferences through stated preference surveys
2. Planning Under Uncertainty: Policy choice when preference information is incomplete
3. Sensitivity Analysis: Testing policy robustness under different preference assumptions

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Contribution: Provides more realistic microeconomic foundations for welfare economics by acknowledging the existence of individual distributional preferences
2. Conceptual Clarification: Systematically reviews multiple meanings of equity concepts, helping reduce conceptual confusion in policy discussions
3. Mathematical Rigor: Provides a rigorous mathematical framework for analyzing social welfare functions incorporating distributional preferences
4. Interdisciplinary Perspective: Integrates insights from economics, philosophy, law, and public policy

Weaknesses

1. Weak Empirical Foundation: Theoretical framework lacks empirical validation; little is known about actual distributions of distributional preferences
2. Complexity Challenges: While computational methods are provided, operationality in large-scale real-world problems is questionable
3. Missing Political Economy: Insufficient consideration of how political processes influence policy choices
4. Cultural Relativity: Equity concepts may vary across cultures, but the paper is primarily grounded in American context

Impact

1. Academic Value: Provides new research directions for welfare economics and public economics
2. Policy Relevance: Provides analytical tools for policymakers to understand equity trade-offs
3. Methodological Contribution: Demonstrates how to formalize normative concepts into analyzable mathematical models

Applicable Scenarios

1. Public Policy Evaluation: Particularly suitable for analyzing policies involving distributional issues
2. Institutional Design: Provides theoretical guidance for designing fairer institutional arrangements
3. Normative Analysis: Helps clarify meanings and consequences of different equity concepts in specific policies

References

The paper cites extensive literature covering:

• Classical welfare economics works (Arrow, Samuelson, Sen, etc.)
• Equity theory literature (Rawls, Harsanyi, Atkinson & Stiglitz, etc.)
• Applied research (health economics, climate economics, experimental economics, etc.)
• Recent developments (algorithmic fairness, behavioral economics, etc.)

This paper makes important theoretical contributions to welfare economics by formalizing distributional preferences and enriching the traditional social welfare function framework. While further development is needed in empirical applications, it provides valuable analytical tools for understanding and analyzing equity issues in public policy.