Implementing (Un)fair Procedures: Containing Favoritism When Unequal Outcomes are Inevitable

R. W. Schmidt, S. Trautmann
{"title":"Implementing (Un)fair Procedures: Containing Favoritism When Unequal Outcomes are Inevitable","authors":"R. W. Schmidt, S. Trautmann","doi":"10.1093/jleo/ewab019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n We study the selection of people when unequal payoffs are inevitable, but fair procedures are feasible, as in selecting one person from several candidates for a job. We show that allocators may be influenced by their similarity with a recipient, leading to favoritism in outcomes. We study four interventions to reduce favoritism and induce fair procedures, without restricting the allocator’s decisions: transparency of the allocation process; a private randomization device; allowing the allocator to delegate to a public randomization device; and allowing the allocator to avoid information about recipients. Making use of beliefs and fairness judgments, we show why some interventions work, while others do not (JEL D63, J16, J7, C92).","PeriodicalId":225808,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewab019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

We study the selection of people when unequal payoffs are inevitable, but fair procedures are feasible, as in selecting one person from several candidates for a job. We show that allocators may be influenced by their similarity with a recipient, leading to favoritism in outcomes. We study four interventions to reduce favoritism and induce fair procedures, without restricting the allocator’s decisions: transparency of the allocation process; a private randomization device; allowing the allocator to delegate to a public randomization device; and allowing the allocator to avoid information about recipients. Making use of beliefs and fairness judgments, we show why some interventions work, while others do not (JEL D63, J16, J7, C92).
实施(不)公平程序:在不平等结果不可避免时遏制偏袒
我们研究了当报酬不平等是不可避免的,但公平程序是可行的情况下的人员选择,例如从几个候选人中为一份工作选择一个人。我们表明,分配者可能会受到他们与接受者的相似性的影响,从而导致结果的偏袒。我们研究了在不限制分配者决策的情况下减少偏袒和诱导公平程序的四种干预措施:分配过程的透明度;私有随机化装置;允许分配器委托给公共随机化设备;并允许分配器避免接收方的信息。利用信念和公平判断,我们展示了为什么一些干预措施有效,而另一些则没有(JEL D63, J16, J7, C92)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信