What I've been reading, featuring mechanism design and social justice; and "Go Tell It on the Mountain" by James Baldwin

The titular “normative gap” refers to the inexactness with which the mechanism designed by consulting economists actually applies their favored theory of justice, which Hitzig identifies as Arneson’s ‘equal opportunity for welfare’ principle, a more complex normative framework than the notion of simple efficiency upon which microeconomic theory usually hangs its hat. More precisely, Hitzig argues that the deferred acceptance algorithm ultimately advanced by the consultants could not be described as an application of a particular matching theory, but rather as the imposition of a setting that coerces real-life people to role-play as the highly idealized agents the setting demands by assumption. Hitzig describes this as an enactment (as opposed to an application) arising from two idealizing assumptions: strict compliance (e.g. applicants are forced to disclose strict preferences they may not have) and favorable circumstances (e.g. applicants are forced to communicate complete preferences even if they do not have equal access to information on all schools). The language of coercion I use here derives from the implied consequence of non-participation being total exclusion from the BPS. Further, those excluded from the idealized system are typically also excluded from the welfare calculus.

Read More