Decision Aiding
Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00369-2Get rights and content

Abstract

In order to address contemporary issues economics and decision sciences need to expand their empirical relevance by introducing more and more realistic (thus more complex) assumptions in their models. One of the most interesting research directions in the field of public economics is the attempt to introduce political constraints, interest groups and collusion effects explicitly (J.J. Laffont, Incentives and Political Economy, 2000). The main argument developed here is the proposal of the concept of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) as a possible useful framework for the application of social choice to the difficult policy problems of our millennium, where, as stated by Funtowicz and Ravetz, “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”. This paper starts from the following main questions:

  • 1.

    Why “social” multi-criteria evaluation?

  • 2.

    How should such an approach be developed?

The foundations of SMCE are set up by referring to concepts from complex system theory and philosophy, such as reflexive complexity, post-normal science and incommensurability.

To give some operational guidelines on the application of SMCE basic questions to be answered are

  • 1.

    How is it possible to deal with technical incommensurability?

  • 2.

    How can we deal with the issue of social incommensurability?

To answer these questions, using theoretical considerations and lessons learned from real-world case studies, is the main objective of the present article.

Section snippets

Methodological foundations of social multi-criteria evaluation: Complexity, post-normal science and incommensurability

The world is characterized by deep complexity. This obvious observation has important implications on the manner policy problems are represented and decision-making is framed. As a consequence, one may decide to adopt a reductionistic approach trying to tackle one of the many possible dimensions or simply to deal with real-world complexity. This second approach is the one adopted in the present article. My firm conviction is that any representation of a complex system reflects only a sub-set of

Technical incommensurability and multi/inter-disciplinarity

An effective policy exercise should consider not merely the measurable and contrastable dimensions of the simple parts of the system, that even if complicated may be technically simulated (technical incommensurability). To be realistic it should also deal with the higher dimensions of the system. Those dimensions in which power relations, hidden interests, social participation, cultural constraints, and other “soft” values, become relevant, and unavoidable variables that heavily, but not

Social incommensurability: Public participation, ethics and transparency

At this point in the discussion, one question arises, who is making the decisions? Some critics of multi-criteria evaluation say that in principle, in cost-benefit analysis, votes expressed on the market by the whole population can be taken into account (of course with the condition that the distribution of income is accepted as a means to allocate votes).

Conclusion: Social multi-criteria evaluation as a framework for applied social choice

The pioneering research developed by Arrow and Raynaud (1986) showed that the relationships between multi-criteria decision theory and social choice are clear and relevant. In my opinion, the main directions of cross-fertilization between these research fields are two:

  • 1.

    Multi-criteria decision theory can be an adequate framework for applied social choice.

  • 2.

    Social choice can supply interesting theoretical results for assuring the axiomatic consistency needed by multi-criterion aggregation

Acknowledgments

Comments by the anonymous referees are gratefully acknowledged. This research has been partly financed by the European Commission, research project: Development and Application of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Software Tool for Renewable Energy Sources (MCDA_RES)

References (51)

  • J.C Vansnick

    On the problem of weights in multiple criteria decision making (the non-compensatory approach)

    European Journal of Operational Research

    (1986)
  • K.J Arrow et al.

    Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision Making

    (1986)
  • C.A Bana e Costa

    An additive value function technique with a fuzzy outranking relation for dealing with poor intercriteria preference information

  • C Banville et al.

    A stakeholder approach to MCDA

    Systems Research and Behavioral Science

    (1998)
  • D Bouyssou et al.

    Noncompensatory and generalized noncompensatory preference structures

    Theory and Decision

    (1986)
  • D Bouyssou

    Building criteria: A prerequisite for MCDA

  • Clı́maco, J.C.N., 2000. Uma reflexao critica da decisao óptima. Abertura Solene das Aulas na Universidade de Coimbra,...
  • Corral-Quintana, S.A., 2001. Una metodologı́a integrada de exploración y comprensión de los procesos de elaboración de...
  • Corral-Quintana, S., De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S., Gallopı́n, G., Guimarães-Pereira, Â., Maltoni, B., 2001. The Visions...
  • De Marchi, B., Ravetz, J., 2001. Participatory approaches to environmental policy. Concerted Action EVE, Policy...
  • S.O Funtowicz et al.

    A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues

  • Funtowicz, S., Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., Ravetz, J., 1999. Information tools for environmental policy under...
  • M Giampietro et al.

    Multiple-scale integrated assessment of societal metabolism: Introducing the approach

    Population and Environment

    (2000)
  • M Giampietro et al.

    Multiple-scale integrated assessment of societal metabolism: Integrating biophysical and economic representations across scales

    Population and Environment

    (2000)
  • Cited by (557)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text