Demand for retirement products: An analysis of individual welfare

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
An Chen ◽  
Manuel Rach
Keyword(s):  
Individual Welfare

scholarly journals Choice and individual welfare

2012 ◽  
Vol 147 (5) ◽  
pp. 1818-1849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Chambers ◽  
Takashi Hayashi
Keyword(s):  
Individual Welfare

scholarly journals Choice and Individual Welfare

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Chambers ◽  
Takashi Hayashi
Keyword(s):  
Individual Welfare

scholarly journals El bienestar comunal como alternativa al fracaso del concepto neoclásico de bienestar / Community Well-Being as an Alternative to the Failure of the Neoclassical Concept of Well-Being

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Maceri
Keyword(s):  
National Identity ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The Other ◽  
Amartya Sen ◽  
Individual Welfare ◽  
Epistemological Basis

ABSTRACTThe paper proposes the change from the utilitarian-individualist neoclassical paradigm, which leaves out certain communities, to the paradigm of “community welfare”, which includes all types of society. Current researches on the socioeconomy have highlighted need to review the concept of the “utilitarian-individual” welfare. With the epistemological basis of a conciliatory synthesis, Amartya Sen provides the indispensable foundation for the success of the “community welfare” paradigm. In this well-being are essential the informational pluralism, the development of capabilities and preferences not as purely personal but as viable only if they include the other's desire. Furthermore, who the other is, is a matter, which is called “the problem of extensionality of the others”. According to Sen, this implies taking a position on social and national identity. The thesis in favor of multiple and acquired identities are the foundation of the community welfare, which is positioned as the ultimate goal of the economy and the politics. The change from the Neoclassical Paradigm to the ethical economy results not only feasible but also fruitful because of the conception of the “anti-individualistic” social realities.RESUMENLas investigaciones actuales en la socio-economía han puesto de manifiesto la necesidad de rever el concepto de bienestar “utilitarista-individual”. Con base epistemológico-económica, Amartya Sen (1974, 1993, 1995, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2010, 2011) brinda los argumentos indispensables para lograr el éxito del paradigma del “bienestar comunal”. En este bienestar resultan esenciales la racionalidad imperfecta de todo ser humano, su estado de ser no siempre egoísta y las necesidades básicas no satisfechas a la hora de tomar decisiones. Esto implica las preferencias no ya como exclusivamente personales, es decir, individualistas al modo de los neoclásicos, sino como viables únicamente si se contempla el deseo del otro. Ahora bien, quién es el otro es una cuestión que se denomina “el problema de la extensionalidad de los otros”. Según Sen (2001), implica una toma de posición respecto de la identidad social y nacional. Las tesis a favor de las identidades adquiridas y múltiples constituye el fundamento del bienestar comunal, el cual se posiciona como el fin último de la economía y de la política. El cambio del paradigma neoclásico por el de la economía ética resultará, pues, fructífero para la concepción “anti-individualista” de las realidades sociales.

Individual welfare, social deprivation and income taxation

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 843-869 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satya R. Chakravarty ◽  
Patrick Moyes
Keyword(s):  
Social Deprivation ◽  
Income Taxation ◽  
Individual Welfare

The individual welfare function of income

1978 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard M.S. Van Praag ◽  
Arie Kapteyn ◽  
Floor G. Van Herwaareden
Keyword(s):  
Individual Welfare ◽  
The Individual

The Child’s Right to Be Vaccinated

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 897-919
Author(s):  
Katherine Hunt Federle
Keyword(s):  
Public Safety ◽  
The State ◽  
Parental Choice ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Individual Welfare ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Individual

Abstract Vaccine hesitancy highlights a problem within current rights constructs under US law. Refusal to vaccinate is ineluctably cast as a contest between parental choice, to which the law traditionally defers, and state concerns for public safety and the individual welfare of children. But rarely is the discussion cast in terms of the child’s right to be vaccinated because our rights talk revolves around the capacity (or lack thereof) of the rights holder. If, however, we recast rights in terms of empowerment, then we can see that rights flow to the child, not because she has the requisite capacity but because she is less powerful. In this sense, rights exist for children because they are children. The authority of the state to mandate immunisation under US law also may be reconsidered because the state is acting to protect the rights of those less powerful – the children who cannot be vaccinated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document