Social Randomization: Can Lotteries be a General-Purpose Device to Deal with Societal Issues?
Аннотация
The article explores the extended version of the idea that intentional randomization (of which lotteries are a special case), can be a useful tool for dealing with various social and political problems that go beyond minor issues. It contributes to the discussion of lotteries in social and political affairs in three ways. First, it argues that randomization is applicable to various types of tasks, not limited to the choice between discrete alternatives, as it is usually perceived. This broadens the scope of its possible applications to include, for example, tasks related to evaluation or policy-making. Second, it describes the variety of possible reasons and rationales for using social randomization, thus further extending the applicability of lotteries to societal issues. While normative reasons for lotteries such as equality, fairness and epistemic rationality are often cited in philosophical discussions, there are many pragmatic reasons to use them for socially meaningful purposes. Third, based on this variety of use, the article proposes the heuristic Default Randomization Principle claiming that randomization can be a general approach to social and political affairs used as a default option. By considering randomization as a general-purpose device, it is easier to recognize and realize the potential of social randomization and to resolve some common arguments against the use of random choice in public affairs.Скачивания
Литература
Alekseeva T.A., Loshkariov I.D., Parenkov D.A. (2018) Is it time for lottery-based authorities? Polis. Political Studies, no 6, pp. 142-154. (In Russian)
Amar A.R. (1984) Choosing Representatives by Lottery Voting. The Yale Law Journal, vol. 93, no 1018, pp. 1283-1308. https://doi.org/10.2307/796258
Charness G., Masclet D., Villeval M.C. (2014) The dark side of competition for status. Management Science, vol. 60, no 1, pp. 38-55. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1747
Chu J.S.G., Evans J.A. (2021) Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. PNAS, vol. 118, no 41, Article e2021636118.
Cinelli M., Morales G.de F., Galeazzi A., Quattrociocchi W., Starnini M. (2021) The echo chamber effect on social media. PNAS, vol. 118, no 9, article e2023301118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
Delgado J.C., Pestaña J.L.M. (2020) Democracy and Sortition. Arguments in favor of randomness. Routledge Handbook of Contemporary European Social Movements: Protest in Turbulent Times (ed. C.F. Fominaya, R.A. Feenstra), London; New York: Routledge, pp. 100-111. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351025188-8
Douglas M. (1986) How institutions think, New York: Syracuse University Press.
Dowlen O. (2008) The Political Potential of Sortition: A Study of the Random Selection of Citizens for Public Office, Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Eisenberg T., Fisher T., Rozen-Zvi I. (2012) Does the judge matter? Exploiting random assignment on a Court of Last Resort to assess judge and case selection effects. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, vol. 9, no 2, pp. 246-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2012.01253.x
Elster J. (1989) Solomonic Judgements: Studies in the Limitations of Rationality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/002071592x00095
Epstein G.S., Nitzan S. (2006) The politics of randomness. Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27, pp. 423-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-006-0125-z
Fienberg S.E. (1971) Randomization and social affairs: The 1970 Draft Lottery. Science, vol. 171, pp. 255-261. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3968.255
Fishburn P.C. (1972) Even-chance lotteries in social choice theory. Theory and Decision, vol. 3, pp. 18-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00139351
Fishkin J.S. (2009) When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199604432.001.0001
Frankish K. (2010) Dual-process and dual-system theories of reasoning. Philosophy Compass, vol. 5, no 10, pp. 914-926. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00330.x
Gatto J., Dambrun M., Kerbrat C., De Oliveira P. (2010) Prejudice in the police: On the processes underlying the effects of selection and group socialization. European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 40, no 2, pp. 252-269. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.617
Gilbert P., McEwan K., Bellew R., Mills A., Gale C. (2009) The dark side of competition: How competitive behaviour and striving to avoid inferiority are linked to depression, anxiety, stress and self‐harm. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, vol. 82, no 2, pp. 123-136. https://doi.org/10.1348/147608308x379806
Gillies D. (2014) Selecting application for funding: why random choice is better than peer review. RT. A Journal on Research Policy & Evaluation, vol. 2.
Goldman A.Y. (1977) Justice and hiring by competence. American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 14, no 1, pp. 17-28.
Goodwin B. (1984) Justice and the lottery. Political Studies, vol. XXXII, pp. 190-202.
Gueron J. (2008) The politics of random assignment: implementing studies and impacting policy. Journal of Children’s Services, vol. 3, no 1, pp. 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/17466660200800003
Hall M. (2010) Randomness reconsidered: modelling random judicial assignment in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, vol. 7, no 3, pp. 574-589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01189.x
Henning T. (2015) From choice to chance? – Saving people, fairness, and lotteries. Philosophical Review, vol. 124, no 2, pp. 169-206. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2842176
Jauch M., Rudert S.C., Greifeneder R. (2022) Social pain by non-social agents: exclusion hurts and provokes punishment even if the excluding source is a computer. Acta Psychologica, vol. 230, no 103753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103753
Kätsyri I., Hari R., Ravaja N., Nummenmaa L. (2013) The opponent matters: elevated fMRI reward responses to winning against a human versus a computer opponent during interactive video game playing. Cerebral Cortex, vol. 23, pp. 2829-2839. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs259
Keren G., Teigen K.H. (2010) Decisions by coin toss: inappropriate but fair. Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5, no 2, pp. 83-101. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500000942
Landemore H. (2013) Deliberation, cognitive diversity, and democratic inclusiveness: an epistemic argument for the random selection of representatives. Synthese, vol. 190, no 7, pp. 1209-1231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0062-6
Lizardo O., Mowry R., Sepulvado B., Stoltz D.S., Taylor M.A., Van Ness M.A., Wood M. (2016) What are dual process models? Implications for cultural analysis in sociology. Sociological Theory, vol. 34, no 4, pp. 287-310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275116675900
López-Guerra C. (2011) The enfranchisement lottery. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, vol. 10, no 2, pp. 211-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594x09372206
López-Guerra C. (2020) Democrats, epistocrats, and the enfranchisement lottery. Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 18, pp. 773-786.
Manis J.G., Meltzer B.N. (1994) Chance in human affairs. Sociological Theory, vol. 12, no 1, pp. 45-56. https://doi.org/10.2307/202034
Merton R.K. (1968) The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, vol. 159, no 3810, pp. 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
Ni D. (2022) Want to buy a house in a big Chinese city? Try winning the lottery first. Sixth Tone, Jan 27, 2022. Available at: https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1009555/want-to-buy-a-house-in-a-big-chinese-city%3F-try-winning-the-lottery-first (accessed 11 November 2023).
Oberholzer-Gee F., Bohnet I., Frey B.S. (1997) Fairness and competence in democratic decisions. Public Choice, vol. 91, no 1, pp. 89-105. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1004933219501
Osterloh M., Frey B.S. (2019) Dealing with randomness. Management Revue, vol. 30, no 4, pp. 331-345. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2019-4-331
Paluck E.L., Porat R., Clark C.S., Green D.P. (2021) Prejudice reduction: progress and challenges. Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 72, pp. 14.1-14.28. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619
Persad G., Wertheimer A., Emanuel E.J. (2009) Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet, vol. 373, pp. 423-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60137-9
Pratto F., Sidanius J., Stallworth L.M., Malle B.F. (1994) Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 67, no 4, pp. 741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Rawls J. (1999) A theory of justice. Revised edition, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rigney D. (2010) The Matthew effect: How advantage begets further advantage, Columbia University Press.
Roumbanis L. (2019) Peer review or lottery? A critical analysis of two different forms of decision-making mechanisms for allocation of research grants. Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol. 44, no 6, pp. 994-1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918822744
Saunders B. (2008) The equality of lotteries. Philosophy, vol. 83, pp. 359-372.
Saunders B. (2010) Democracy, political equality, and majority rule. Ethics, vol. 121, no 1, pp. 148-177. https://doi.org/10.1086/656474
Saunders B. (2012) Combining lotteries and voting. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, vol. 11, no 4, pp. 347-351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594x11416783
Sharma R., Sparber C. (2020) Buying lottery tickets for foreign workers: search cost externalities induced by H-1B policy. IZA Discussion Papers, no 13892, Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3734760
Sherman J. W., Gawronski B., Trope Y. (eds.) (2014) Dual Process Theories of Social Mind, New York: The Guilford Press.
Sher G. (1980) What makes a lottery fair? Noûs, vol. 14, no 2, pp. 203-216. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214861
Shkurko A.V. (2018) How many knowledge claims are there in a scientific text? A study of three neuroscientific articles’ content as reflected in the citing publications. Sociology of Science and Technology, vol. 9, pp. 71-85.
Sönmez T., Ünver M.U. (2011) Matching, allocation, and exchange of discrete resources. The Handbook of Social Economics (eds. J. Benhabib, A. Bisin, M. Jackson V.), vol. 1A, North-Holland, pp. 781-852. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-53187-2.00017-6
Sonnert G. (2020) Give chance a chance: an alternative process for selecting U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, vol. 45, no 1, pp. 33-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375419901220
Stone P. (2007) Why lotteries are just. The Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 15, no 3, pp. 276-295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00274.x
Turchin P., Currie T.E., Whitehouse H., Francois P. et al. (2018) Quantitative historical analysis uncovers a single dimension of complexity that structures global variation in human social organization. PNAS, vol. 115, no 2, pp. E144-E151.
Waxman W., McCulloch A. (2022) The Democracy Manifesto: A Dialogue on Why Elections Need to be Replaced with Sortition, Lanham: Lexington Books. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781978726628
Wolfle D. (1970). Chance, or human judgment? Science, vol. 167, no 3922, pp. 1201. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.167.3922.1201
