Welfare,Justice, and Pareto Efficiency

In economic analysis, it is usually assumed that each individuals well-being (mental welfare) depends on her or his own resources (material welfare). A typology is provided of the ways in which one persons well-being may depend on the material resources of other persons. When such dependencies are taken into account, standard Paretian analysis of welfare needs to be modified. Pareto efficiency on the level of material resources need not coincide with Pareto efficiency on the level of well-being. A change in economic conditions that is Pareto efficient in the standard sense, i.e., with respect to material resources, may nevertheless sacrifice one persons well-being to that of another. It is shown that under plausible assumptions, Pareto efficiency on the level of well-being may require the reduction of inequality on the level of material resources.     

Trade‐off ranking method for multi‐criteria decision analysis

Multi‐criteria decision analysis presumes trade‐off between different criteria. As a result, the optimal solution is not unique and can be represented by the Pareto frontier in the objective space. Each Pareto solution is a compromise between different objectives. Despite a limited number of Pareto optimal solutions, the decision‐maker eventually has to choose only one option. Such a choice has to be made with the use of additional preferences not included in the original formulation of the optimization problem. The paper represents a new approach to an automatic ranking that can help the decision‐maker. In contrast to the other methodologies, the proposed method is based on the minimization of trade‐off between different Pareto solutions. To be realized, the approach presumes the existence of a well‐distributed Pareto set representing the entire Pareto frontier. In the paper, such a set is generated with the use of the directed search domain algorithm. The method is applied to a number of test cases and compared against two existing alternative approaches.     

An Early History of Multiple Criteria Decision Making

This historical note is based on a plenary talk ‘A History of Early Developments in Multiple Criteria Decision Making’, presented by Stanley Zionts at the 21st International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making held in Jyväskylä, Finland, June 2011. It draws heavily on our book, Multiple Criteria Decision Making: From Early History to the 21st Century, published by World Scientific, Singapore, 2011. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Foreign Aid and the Moral Value of Freedom

Peter Singer has famously argued that people living in affluent western countries are morally obligated to donate money to famine relief. The central premise in his argument is that, If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do so. The present paper offers an argument to the effect that affluent people ought to support foreign aid projects based on a much weaker ethical premise. The new premise states that, If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of moral importance, we ought, morally, to do so. This premise, supplemented with a notion of final value drawing on Amartya Sen's concept of freedom as capabilities and functionings, is conceived as a special version of a weak, egalitarian Pareto principle.     

Multicriteria Optimization Technique for Optimal Design of Orthotropic Bridges

The design improvement of large‐scale structures such as cable stayed and suspension bridges with large spans is one of the major engineering optimization problems faced by design engineers. In many real‐life engineering design problems, it is necessary to carry out large‐scale experimental physical models for only one prototype to construct the feasible solution set that is too expensive and not practical. For these reasons, an experimental search for optimal solutions is often not carried out at all. This paper presents a technique for multicriteria analysis, which involve the finite element analysis of the prototype in the optimization process. The improvement of the Suez Canal Bridge in Egypt is introduced as a real‐life large‐scale case study. The parameter space investigation method, the visual basic for application programming language, and Femap as finite element analysis software provide an implementation tools to construct the feasible and Pareto solution sets for the studied bridge. An efficient combination between the parameter space investigation method and the finite element programme was successfully investigated to obtain the Pareto solution set. This study shows possibility to apply the multicriteria optimization method for more applications on different large‐scale structural systems in the future. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

海船驾驶员身心素质测评指标的建构

采用主次因素排列图法,确定了海船驾驶员身心素质的主要因素：应用变量()指标)聚类分析,对海船驾驶员身心素质结构的维度进行了研究,建构了海船驾驶员身心素质的10项测评指标;经新旧样本聚类结果比较,其效度符合心理测量学要求。本研究结果为我国海船驾驶员身心素质测评指标的界定提供了理论依据。     

Detecting local convexity on the pareto surface

Recent regain in interest in multi‐criteria optimization approaches to provide a designer with multiple solutions to select from and support decisions has led to various methodologies to generate such solutions and possibly approximate the Pareto set. This paper introduces the notions of H‐ and w‐convexities, and develops a simple method to identify local convexity of Pareto hyper‐surfaces since their shape can dictate the choice of the method to use to obtain Pareto solutions and possibly to build an approximation of that set. The method is based on comparing the results from the weighting method to those of the Tchebycheff method at any point on the Pareto hyper‐surface. If, under some conditions, the points obtained from the two methods are identical or not, a local convexity or its lack can be assumed at that location and in its immediate neighbourhood. A numerical example is included. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Triple Bottomline Many‐Objective‐Based Decision Making for a Land Use Management Problem

A land use many‐objective optimization problem for a 1500‐ha farm with 315 paddocks was formulated with 14 objectives (maximizing sawlog production, pulpwood production, milksolids, beef, sheep meat, wool, carbon sequestration, water production, income and Earnings Before Interest and Tax; and minimizing costs, nitrate leaching, phosphorus loss and sedimentation). This was solved using a modified Reference‐point‐based Non‐dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II augmented by simulated epigenetic operations. The search space had complex variable interactions and was based on economic data and several interoperating simulation models. The solution was an approximation of a Hyperspace Pareto Frontier (HPF), where each non‐dominated trade‐off point represented a set of land‐use management actions taken within a 10‐year period and their related management options, spanning a planning period of 50 years. A trade‐off analysis was achieved using Hyper‐Radial Visualization (HRV) by collapsing the HPF into a 2‐D visualization capability through an interactive virtual reality (VR)‐based method, thereby facilitating intuitive selection of a sound compromise solution dictated by the decision makers' preferences under uncertainty conditions. Four scenarios of the HRV were considered emphasizing economic, sedimentation and nitrate leaching aspects—giving rise to a triple bottomline (i.e. the economic, environmental and social complex, where the social aspect is represented by the preferences of the various stakeholders). Highlights of the proposed approach are the development of an innovative epigenetics‐based multi‐objective optimizer, uncertainty incorporation in the search space data and decision making on a multi‐dimensional space through a VR‐simulation‐based visual steering process controlled at its core by a multi‐criterion decision making‐based process. This approach has widespread applicability to many other ‘wicked’ societal problem‐solving tasks. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Thinking about the Needy: A Reprise

This article discusses Jan Narvesons Welfare and Wealth, Poverty and Justice in Todays World, and Is World Poverty a Moral Problem for the Wealthy? and their relation to my Thinking about the Needy, Justice, and International Organizations. Section 2 points out that Narvesons concerns differ from mine, so that often his claims and mine fail to engage each other. For example, his focus is on the poor, mine the needy, and while many poor are needy, and vice versa, our obligations may differ regarding the poor than regarding the needy. Also, Narveson invokes a narrow conception of morality as those rules that government or society may compel people to follow. Given a broader, more plausible, conception of morality, many of Narvesons claims actually support my substantive views. Section 3 shows that many of Narvesons claims are relevant to the best means of aiding the needy, but do not challenge the validity of that end. This is true, for example, of his claims about the role of poor governments, the importance of freedom, the undesirability of mere handouts, and the effects of bad economic policies. Section 4 defends the importance of my distinction between acting justly and acting for reasons of justice. It illustrates that on several widely shared conceptions of justice there might be agent-neutralreasons of justice to aid the needy, even if from an agent-relative perspective one would not be acting unjustly if one failed to do so. Section 5 contests Narvesons portrayal of egalitarianism as concerned about inequality of wealth, per se, as insensitive to prior wrongs, and as holding that the worse-off have a right to be made better off at the expense of the well-off. In addition, it rejects Narvesons contention that egalitarians violate impartiality, and aim to impose their personal tastes on others. Section 6 challenges a fundamental assumption underlying Narvesons doctrine of mutual advantage. In addition, it denies that egalitarians are irrational merely because equality can conflict with the pareto principle. More generally, by appealing to impersonal ideals, it challenges the widely held view that the pareto principle is a condition of rationality. Section 7 argues that Narvesons meta-ethical assumptions are controversial, internally inconsistent, in tension with his normative views, and ultimately a version of skepticism. In addition, it challenges Narvesons view about the role intuitions play in moral theory. Section 8 clarifies points where Narvesons discussion of my views may be misleading. Finally, the paper notes the role that moral reasons may play in deliberation and action, but emphasizes the philosophical and theoretical nature of my work. My aim is to determine the moral considerations that are relevant to how people should act regarding the needy. Whether people will actually be moved to so act, for those reasons or otherwise, is another matter.     

The Role of Subsidies in Coordination Games with Interconnected Risk

Can subsidies promote Pareto‐optimum coordination? We found that partially subsidizing the cooperative actions for two out of six players in a laboratory coordination game usually produced better coordination and higher total social welfare with both deterministic and stochastic payoffs. Not only were the subsidized players more likely to cooperate (choose the Pareto‐optimum action), but the unsubsidized players increased their expectations on how likely others would cooperate, and they cooperated more frequently themselves. After removal of the subsidy, high levels of coordination continued in most groups with stochastic payoffs but declined in deterministic ones. This carry‐over disparity between the deterministic and stochastic settings was consistent with the economic theories that agents were more likely to keep the status quo option under uncertainty than without uncertainty. Hence, players with stochastic payoffs were more likely to keep the high coordination level (status quo) brought by the subsidy in the previous subsidy session. A post‐game survey also indicated that with stochastic payoffs, players focused on risk reduction. Temporary subsidies promoted lasting coordination because even after subsidy was removed, players still assumed that others players would prefer reduced risks from cooperation. With deterministic payoffs, however, the subsidy might crowd out other rationales for coordination, with many players indicating that the subsidy was the only reason for anyone to cooperate. Hence, the coordination level dropped when the subsidy was removed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.