Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Fair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions

Fair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions By JAMES KONOW* Everyone has observed people invoking fairness arguments in defense of their opinions or actions, and it is not uncommon for such arguments to be wielded on both sides of an issue about which views conflict. For example, during a televised debate Representative Charles B. Rangel said, “I think [Affirmative Action] has to involve a search for fairness,” whereas commentator Avi Nelson opined that “you promote more unfairness than fairness when you depart from the basic criterion, which is that individuals should be treated as individuals” (Annenberg/CPB Collection, 1984). On the 1986 tax reform legislation, Senator Robert Packwood stated: “Taxes are about more than money and they’re about more than economics. They’re about fairness, and this bill is fair,” whereas Senator Carl M. Levin argued: “For our econom this is the wrong bill at the wrong time ... making deficit reduction more difficult and less fair” (Los Angeles Times, September 28, 1986 pp. A1, A8). Such cases contribute to the frequent conclusion that justice is merely a plo a vacuous concept used opportunistically by selfinterested and self-serving agents. If fairness arguments were sheer subterfuge, however, it would be difficult to account for their use at all, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Economic Review American Economic Association

Fair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions

Konow, James
American Economic Review , Volume 90 (4) – Sep 1, 2000
Download PDF
21 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-economic-association/fair-shares-accountability-and-cognitive-dissonance-in-allocation-gkL8WXY686

References (66)

Publisher
American Economic Association
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by the American Economic Association
Subject
Shorter Papers
ISSN
0002-8282
DOI
10.1257/aer.90.4.1072
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

By JAMES KONOW* Everyone has observed people invoking fairness arguments in defense of their opinions or actions, and it is not uncommon for such arguments to be wielded on both sides of an issue about which views conflict. For example, during a televised debate Representative Charles B. Rangel said, “I think [Affirmative Action] has to involve a search for fairness,” whereas commentator Avi Nelson opined that “you promote more unfairness than fairness when you depart from the basic criterion, which is that individuals should be treated as individuals” (Annenberg/CPB Collection, 1984). On the 1986 tax reform legislation, Senator Robert Packwood stated: “Taxes are about more than money and they’re about more than economics. They’re about fairness, and this bill is fair,” whereas Senator Carl M. Levin argued: “For our econom this is the wrong bill at the wrong time ... making deficit reduction more difficult and less fair” (Los Angeles Times, September 28, 1986 pp. A1, A8). Such cases contribute to the frequent conclusion that justice is merely a plo a vacuous concept used opportunistically by selfinterested and self-serving agents. If fairness arguments were sheer subterfuge, however, it would be difficult to account for their use at all,

Journal

American Economic Review – American Economic Association

Published: Sep 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.