Implementing (Un)fair Procedures? Favoritism and Process Fairness when Inequality is Inevitable

Robert J. Schmidt, Stefan Trautmann

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

32 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

We study allocation behavior when outcome inequality is inevitable but a fair process is feasible, as in selecting one person from several candidates for a job or award. We show that allocators may be influenced by inappropriate criteria, impeding the implementation of a fair process. We study four interventions to induce process fairness without restricting the allocator’s decisions: Increasing the transparency of the allocation process; providing a private randomization device; allowing the allocator to delegate to a public randomization device; and allowing the allocator to avoid information on inappropriate criteria. All interventions except transparency have positive effects, but differ substantially in their impact.
Original languageEnglish
Place of PublicationTilburg
PublisherCentER, Center for Economic Research
Number of pages32
Volume2019-013
Publication statusPublished - 29 Apr 2019

Publication series

NameCentER Discussion Paper
Volume201-013

Fingerprint

Favoritism
Fairness
Randomization
Transparency

Keywords

  • equality
  • procedural justice
  • discrimination

Cite this

Schmidt, R. J., & Trautmann, S. (2019). Implementing (Un)fair Procedures? Favoritism and Process Fairness when Inequality is Inevitable. (CentER Discussion Paper; Vol. 201-013). Tilburg: CentER, Center for Economic Research.
Schmidt, Robert J. ; Trautmann, Stefan. / Implementing (Un)fair Procedures? Favoritism and Process Fairness when Inequality is Inevitable. Tilburg : CentER, Center for Economic Research, 2019. (CentER Discussion Paper).
@techreport{125472e251a24cf9aab5151900dd6632,
title = "Implementing (Un)fair Procedures? Favoritism and Process Fairness when Inequality is Inevitable",
abstract = "We study allocation behavior when outcome inequality is inevitable but a fair process is feasible, as in selecting one person from several candidates for a job or award. We show that allocators may be influenced by inappropriate criteria, impeding the implementation of a fair process. We study four interventions to induce process fairness without restricting the allocator’s decisions: Increasing the transparency of the allocation process; providing a private randomization device; allowing the allocator to delegate to a public randomization device; and allowing the allocator to avoid information on inappropriate criteria. All interventions except transparency have positive effects, but differ substantially in their impact.",
keywords = "equality, procedural justice, discrimination",
author = "Schmidt, {Robert J.} and Stefan Trautmann",
note = "CentER Discussifon Paper Nr. 2019-013",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "29",
language = "English",
volume = "2019-013",
series = "CentER Discussion Paper",
publisher = "CentER, Center for Economic Research",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "CentER, Center for Economic Research",

}

Schmidt, RJ & Trautmann, S 2019 'Implementing (Un)fair Procedures? Favoritism and Process Fairness when Inequality is Inevitable' CentER Discussion Paper, vol. 201-013, CentER, Center for Economic Research, Tilburg.

Implementing (Un)fair Procedures? Favoritism and Process Fairness when Inequality is Inevitable. / Schmidt, Robert J.; Trautmann, Stefan.

Tilburg : CentER, Center for Economic Research, 2019. (CentER Discussion Paper; Vol. 201-013).

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

TY - UNPB

T1 - Implementing (Un)fair Procedures? Favoritism and Process Fairness when Inequality is Inevitable

AU - Schmidt, Robert J.

AU - Trautmann, Stefan

N1 - CentER Discussifon Paper Nr. 2019-013

PY - 2019/4/29

Y1 - 2019/4/29

N2 - We study allocation behavior when outcome inequality is inevitable but a fair process is feasible, as in selecting one person from several candidates for a job or award. We show that allocators may be influenced by inappropriate criteria, impeding the implementation of a fair process. We study four interventions to induce process fairness without restricting the allocator’s decisions: Increasing the transparency of the allocation process; providing a private randomization device; allowing the allocator to delegate to a public randomization device; and allowing the allocator to avoid information on inappropriate criteria. All interventions except transparency have positive effects, but differ substantially in their impact.

AB - We study allocation behavior when outcome inequality is inevitable but a fair process is feasible, as in selecting one person from several candidates for a job or award. We show that allocators may be influenced by inappropriate criteria, impeding the implementation of a fair process. We study four interventions to induce process fairness without restricting the allocator’s decisions: Increasing the transparency of the allocation process; providing a private randomization device; allowing the allocator to delegate to a public randomization device; and allowing the allocator to avoid information on inappropriate criteria. All interventions except transparency have positive effects, but differ substantially in their impact.

KW - equality

KW - procedural justice

KW - discrimination

M3 - Discussion paper

VL - 2019-013

T3 - CentER Discussion Paper

BT - Implementing (Un)fair Procedures? Favoritism and Process Fairness when Inequality is Inevitable

PB - CentER, Center for Economic Research

CY - Tilburg

ER -

Schmidt RJ, Trautmann S. Implementing (Un)fair Procedures? Favoritism and Process Fairness when Inequality is Inevitable. Tilburg: CentER, Center for Economic Research. 2019 Apr 29. (CentER Discussion Paper).