View source for Social:Freedom of choice

{{Short description|Political and social concept}}
'''Freedom of choice''' describes an individual's opportunity and [[Autonomy|autonomy]] to perform an action selected from at least two available options, unconstrained by external parties.<ref>{{Cite report|chapter-url=http://www.heritage.org/index/download|title=Index of Economic Freedom |first1=Sebastiano |last1= Bavetta |first2=Pietro |last2=Navarra|date=2011|publisher=[[Organization:The Heritage Foundation|The Heritage Foundation]]|page=65|quote=As noted, there are two aspects of free choice: opportunity to choose and autonomy to choose.|access-date=February 12, 2013|chapter=Chapter 5}}</ref>

== In politics ==
In the abortion debate, for example, the term "freedom of choice" may emerge in defense of the position that a woman has a right to determine whether she will proceed with or terminate a [[Medicine:Pregnancy|pregnancy]].<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/for_1.shtml|title= BBC – Arguments in favour of abortion|quote= This leads some people to claim is that it is unethical to ban abortion because doing so denies freedom of choice to women and forces 'the unwilling to bear the unwanted'. |access-date= February 12, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.1964:|title= Freedom of Choice Act – H.R.1964|quote= Freedom of Choice Act – Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.|access-date= February 13, 2013|archive-date= January 25, 2016|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160125172018/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.1964:|url-status= dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-smalley/eggs-and-abortion-freedom_b_80202.html|publisher= Huffington Post  |title= Eggs And Abortion: Freedom Of Choice|author= Susan Smalley|access-date= February 13, 2013|date= January 10, 2008}}</ref> Similarly, other topics such as euthanasia,<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Euthanasiaandassistedsuicide/Pages/Arguments.aspx|title= Euthanasia and assisted suicide – Arguments|publisher= NHS|access-date= February 12, 2013}}</ref> vaccination, contraception,<ref>{{Cite journal| doi = 10.3109/13625189909071344| last1 = Serfaty | first1 = D.| title = Guaranteeing freedom of choice in matters of contraception and abortion in Europe: Some personal remarks| journal = The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care| volume = 4| issue = 4| pages = 237–245| year = 1999| pmid = 10817094}}</ref> and [[Social:Same-sex marriage|same-sex marriage]]<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/menachem-rosensaft/even-same-sex-marriage-is_b_158069.html|publisher= Huffington Post  |title= Even Same-Sex Marriage Is a Basic Civil Right|author= Menachem Rosensaft|access-date= February 12, 2013|date= January 15, 2009}}</ref> are sometimes discussed in terms of an assumed individual right of "freedom of choice". Some social issues, for example the New York "Soda Ban" have been both defended<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-hunter/new-york-soda-ban_b_1904920.html|publisher= Huffington Post |title= Soda "Ban" May Actually Increase Freedom of Choice|author1= Lauren Hunter |author2= Kristin Van Busum |access-date= February 12, 2013|date= September 21, 2012}}</ref> and opposed,<ref>{{cite web |url= http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/21/fizzy-math |title= The Fizzy Math Behind Bloomberg's Soda Ban |publisher= reason.com|author= Baylen Linnekin |date= 21 July 2012 |quote= First, the ban would restrict food freedom of choice. |access-date= February 12, 2013}}</ref> with reference to "freedom of choice".

== In economics ==
[[File:Soft drink shelf 2.jpg|thumb| upright 0.75 |The freedom of choice on which brand and flavor of soda to buy is related to [[Finance:Competition (economics)|market competition]]]]
In [[Finance:Microeconomics|microeconomics]], freedom of choice is the freedom of [[Philosophy:Agent (economics)|economic agents]] to allocate their resources (such as goods, services, or assets) as they see fit, among the options that are available to them.<ref>{{cite book |last1= Hall |first1=Robert E. |last2=Lieberman |first2=Marc |title=Microeconomics: Principles & Applications |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XR9uvGmChp8C |access-date= February 11, 2013 |year=2009 |publisher=Cengage Learning |isbn=978-1439038970 |page= 42 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Pagoso|first1=Cristobal M. |last2=Dinio |first2= Rosemary P. |last3=Villasis |first3=George A.|title=Introductory Microeconomics |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=P8Der6qyzaUC |access-date=February 11, 2013 |year=1994 |publisher=Rex Bookstore, Inc. |isbn=978-9712315404 |page=15 }}</ref> It includes the freedom to engage in employment available to them.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://quizlet.com/3805244/microeconomics-chapter-04-the-market-system-flash-cards/ |title=Quizlet Microeconomics, Chapter 04 – The Market System |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |access-date=February 11, 2013}}</ref>

Ratner et al., in 2008, cite the literature on [[Philosophy:Libertarian paternalism|libertarian paternalism]] which states that consumers do not always act in their own best interests. They attribute this phenomenon to factors such as emotion, cognitive limitations and biases, and incomplete information - which they state may be remedied by various proposed interventions.  They discuss providing consumers with information and decision tools, organizing and restricting their market options, and tapping emotions and managing expectations. Each of these, they state, could improve consumers' ability to choose.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Ratner | first1 = R. K. | last2 = Soman | first2 = D. | last3 = Zauberman | first3 = G. | last4 = Ariely | first4 = D. | last5 = Carmon | first5 = Z. | last6 = Keller | first6 = P. A. | last7 = Kim | first7 = B. K. | last8 = Lin | first8 = F. | last9 = Malkoc | first9 = S. | last10 = Small | doi = 10.1007/s11002-008-9044-3 | first10 = D. A. | last11 = Wertenbroch | first11 = K. | title = How behavioral decision research can enhance consumer welfare: From freedom of choice to paternalistic intervention | journal = Marketing Letters | volume = 19 | issue = 3–4 | page = 383 | year = 2008 | s2cid = 5880506 }}</ref>

However, [[Philosophy:Economic freedom|economic freedom]] to choose ultimately depends upon market competition, since buyers' available options are usually the result of various factors controlled by sellers, such as overall [[Finance:Quality (business)|quality]] of a product or a service and [[Finance:Advertising|advertisement]]. In the event that a [[Monopoly|monopoly]] exists, the consumer no longer has the freedom to choose to buy from a different producer. As [[Biography:Friedrich Hayek|Friedrich Hayek]] pointed out:
{{quote|text=Our freedom of choice in a competitive society rests on the fact that, if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes, we can turn to another. But if we face a monopolist we are at his absolute mercy.|sign=[[Biography:Friedrich Hayek|Friedrich Hayek]]|source=''[[Social:The Road to Serfdom|The Road to Serfdom]]'', "Can planning free us from care?"<ref>{{cite book |last=Hayek|first=Friedrich|title=The Road to Serfdom|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1QyQwvLDLycC|access-date=February 15, 2013|year=1994|publisher=University of Chicago Press|isbn=978-0226320618}}</ref>}}

As exemplified in the above quote, [[Philosophy:Libertarianism|libertarian]] thinkers are often strong advocates for increasing freedom of choice. One example of this is [[Biography:Milton Friedman|Milton Friedman]]'s ''[[Finance:Free to Choose|Free to Choose]]'' book and TV series.

There is no consensus as to whether an increase in economic freedom of choice leads to an increase in happiness. In one study, [[Organization:The Heritage Foundation|the Heritage Foundation]]'s 2011 [[Finance:Index of Economic Freedom|Index of Economic Freedom]] report showed a strong correlation between its [[Finance:Index of Economic Freedom|Index of Economic Freedom]] and happiness in a country.<ref>{{Cite report |author1=Sebastiano Bavetta |author2=Pietro Navarra |date=2011|title=Index of Economic Freedom|chapter-url=http://www.heritage.org/index/download|publisher=[[Organization:The Heritage Foundation|The Heritage Foundation]]|pages=61–68|chapter=5|access-date=February 12, 2013}}</ref>


== In history ==
Suzanne K. Becking sees "the freedom to choose" as a fundamental basis of colonisation and national development in North America.<ref>
{{cite book
 |last1                = Becking
 |first1               = Suzanne K.
 |editor-last1         = Coleman
 |editor-first1        = Marilyn J.
 |editor-last2         = Ganong
 |editor-first2        = Lawrence H.
 |date                 = 2 September 2014
 |chapter              = Christianity
 |title                = The Social History of the American Family: An Encyclopedia
 |url                  = https://books.google.com/books?id=R3VpBAAAQBAJ
 |volume               = 1
 |edition              = revised
 |publication-place    = Los Angeles
 |publisher            = SAGE Publications
 |page                 = 233
 |isbn                 = 9781452286150
 |access-date          = 5 January 2024
 |quote                = It is commonly believed that the early settlers came to America to experience freedom from religious persecution, and although that proved true for many groups, what brought the early explorers to America was a combination of spreading the Gospel and finding spices, gold, and an opportunity for trade. England began sending settlers to clear the land and make way for an expanded English empire. However, the settlers moved in a different direction, and a new nation was born, With a few notable exceptions, the settlers were free to live and worship as they pleased, thus paving the way for a nation based on the freedom to choose.
}} 
</ref>

== Measuring freedom of choice ==
The [[Axiomatic system|axiomatic]]-[[Deductive reasoning|deductive]] approach found in [[Game theory|game theory]] has been used to address the issue of measuring the amount of freedom of choice (FoC) an individual enjoys.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Dowding|first1=Keith|last2=van Hees|first2=Martin|author-link2=Martin van Hees|title=Oxford Handbook of Individual and Social Choice|chapter-url= http://www.rug.nl/staff/martin.van.hees/2009handb.pdf|access-date=February 15, 2013|year=2009|publisher=Oxford: Oxford University Press|chapter=Chapter 15 – Freedom of Choice|pages=374–392|archive-date=December 22, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121222125652/http://www.rug.nl/staff/martin.van.hees/2009handb.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> In a 1990 paper,<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Pattanaik | first1 = Prasanta K. | last2 = Xu | first2 = Yongsheng | author-link1 = Prasanta Pattanaik | title = On ranking opportunity sets in terms of freedom of choice | journal = Recherches Économiques de Louvain / Louvain Economic Review | volume = 56 | issue = 3–4 | pages = 383–390 | publisher = Department of Economics, Universite Catholique de Louvain via JSTOR | jstor = 40723933 | date = 1990 | doi = 10.1017/S0770451800043955 | s2cid = 153418558 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | last = Xu | first = Yongsheng | title = On ranking linear budget sets in terms of freedom of choice | journal = Social Choice and Welfare | volume = 22 | issue = 1 | pages = 281–289 | doi = 10.1007/s00355-003-0287-x | date = February 2004 | s2cid = 26796101 }}</ref> [[Biography:Prasanta Pattanaik|Prasanta K. Pattanaik]] and Yongsheng Xu presented three conditions that a measurement of FoC should satisfy:
# ''Indifference between no-choice situations''. Having only one option amounts to the same FoC, no matter what the option is.
# ''Strict monotonicity''. Having two distinct options x and y amounts to more FoC than having only the option x.
# ''Independence''. If a situation A has more FoC than B, by adding a new option x to both (not contained in A or B), A will still have more FoC than B.
They proved that the [[Cardinality|cardinality]] is the only measurement that satisfies these axioms, which they observed to be counter-intuitive and suggestive that one or more axioms should be reformulated. They illustrated this with the example of the option set "to travel by train" or "to travel by car", that should yield more FoC than the option set "to travel by red car" or "to travel by blue car". Some suggestions have been made to solve this problem, by reformulating the axioms, usually including concepts of [[Preference|preference]]s,<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Sen | first1 = Amartya |  title = Welfare, preference and freedom | journal = Journal of Econometrics | volume = 50 | issue = 1–2 | pages = 15–29 | doi = 10.1016/0304-4076(91)90087-T | date = October 1991 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Pattanaik | first1 = Prasanta K. | last2 = Xu | first2 = Yongsheng | author-link1 = Prasanta Pattanaik | title = On preference and freedom | journal = Theory and Decision | volume = 44 | issue = 2 | pages = 173–198 | doi = 10.1023/A:1004924211553 | date = April 1998 | s2cid = 117801220 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | last = Sugden | first = Robert | title = The metric of opportunity | journal = Economics and Philosophy | volume = 14 | issue = 2 | pages = 307–337 | doi = 10.1017/S0266267100003874 | date = October 1998 | s2cid = 154300347 }}</ref> or rejecting the third axiom.<ref>{{Cite journal | last = Carter | first = Ian | title = Choice, freedom, and freedom of choice | journal = Social Choice and Welfare | volume = 22 | issue = 1 | pages = 61–81 | doi = 10.1007/s00355-003-0277-z | date = February 2004 | s2cid = 32673348 | quote = an explication of freedom of choice should reject the third axiom [...] A person has freedom of choice [[If and only if|iff]] she lacks constraints on the reasoned selection and performance of one or more of the items on an action-menu." and "(...) where a selection is necessarily made from a set of items greater than one }}
</ref>

== Relationship with happiness ==
A 2006 study by Simona Botti and Ann L. McGill showed that, when subjects were presented with differentiated options and had the freedom to choose between them, their choice enhanced their satisfaction with positive and dissatisfaction with negative outcomes, relative to nonchoosers.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Botti|first1=Simona|last2=McGill|first2=Ann L.|year=2006|title=When Choosing is Not Deciding: The Effect Of Perceived Responsibility on Satisfaction|journal= Journal of Consumer Research|volume=33|issue=2|ssrn=1516287|doi=10.1086/506302|pages=211–219|s2cid=145266845}}</ref>

A 2010 study by Hazel Rose Markus and Barry Schwartz compiled a list of experiments about freedom of choice and argued that "too much choice can produce a paralyzing uncertainty, depression, and selfishness".<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Markus | first1 = H. R. | last2 = Schwartz | first2 = B. | doi = 10.1086/651242 | title = Does Choice Mean Freedom and Well‐Being? | journal = Journal of Consumer Research | volume = 37 | issue = 2 | page = 344 | year = 2010 | s2cid = 15205215 | url = https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-psychology/5 }}</ref> Schwartz argues that people frequently experience regret due to [[Finance:Opportunity cost|opportunity cost]]s for not making an optimal decision and that, in some scenarios, people's overall satisfaction are sometimes higher when a difficult decision is made by another person rather than by themselves, even when the other person's choice is worse. Schwartz had written a book and given speeches criticizing the excess of options in modern society, though acknowledging that "some choice is better than none".<ref>{{cite book|last=Schwartz|first=Barry|title=The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less|year=2005|publisher=Harper Perennial|isbn=978-0060005696|page=[https://archive.org/details/paradoxofchoice00barr/page/304 304]|url=https://archive.org/details/paradoxofchoice00barr/page/304}} S.a. [[The Paradox of Choice]]</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html|title=The paradox of choice|last1=Schwartz|first1=Barry|date=July 2005|work=Talk|publisher=TED|access-date=February 12, 2013}}</ref>

== See also ==
{{div col}}
* {{Annotated link |Choice#Choice and evaluability in economics|Choice § Evaluability in economics}}
* {{Annotated link |Consumer Bill of Rights#The right to choose|Consumer Bill of Rights § The right to choose}}
* {{Annotated link |Consumer choice}}
* {{Annotated link |Consumer sovereignty}}
* {{Annotated link |Equal opportunity}}
* {{Annotated link |Externality}}
* ''[[Finance:Free to Choose|Free to Choose]]'', a book and TV series by [[Biography:Milton Friedman|Milton Friedman]] and Rose Friedman
* {{Annotated link |Free-rider problem}}
* {{Annotated link |Free will}}
* {{Annotated link |My body, my choice}}
* {{Annotated link |Parasitism (social offense)}}
* {{Annotated link |Right to die}}
* {{Annotated link |Right to silence}}
* {{Annotated link |Self-ownership}}
* {{Annotated link |Tragedy of the commons}}
* {{Annotated link |Tyranny of small decisions}}
{{div col end}}

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Political concepts]]
[[Category:Social concepts]]
[[Category:Libertarian theory]]

{{Sourceattribution|Freedom of choice}}