Eliciting and estimating valid subjective probabilities: An experimental investigation of the Exchangeability Method.

Using a laboratory experiment, we investigate whether incentive compatibility affects subjective probabilities elicited via the exchangeability method (EM), an elicitation technique consisting of several chained questions. We hypothesize that subjects who are aware of the chaining strategically behave and provide invalid subjective probabilities, while subjects who are not aware of the chaining state their real beliefs and provide valid subjective probabilities. The validity of subjective probabilities is investigated using de Finetti's notion of coherence, under which probability estimates are valid if and only if they obey all axioms of probability theory.
Four experimental treatments are designed and implemented. Subjects are divided into two initial treatment groups: in the first, they are provided with real monetary incentives, and in the second, they are not. Each group is further sub-divided into two treatment groups, in the first, the chained structure of the experimental design is made clear to the subjects, while, in the second, the chained structure is hidden by randomizing the elicitation questions.
Our results suggest that subjects provided with monetary incentives and randomized questions provide valid subjective probabilities because they are not aware of the chaining which undermines the incentive compatibility of the exchangeability method.

The obligation to provide information where valid consent is not needed

Accounts of consent in medical ethics typically assume that consent plays the same role irrespective of the type of treatment. In this paper I argue that this assumption is false. Because of this, obligations to provide information to patients that stem from the need for consent to be valid will not apply to all types of treatment. This does not mean that there are no reasons to provide such information. The second part of the paper maps out what these reasons are and argues that they are grounded in the obligation of beneficence and a duty to warn, not in considerations of respect for autonomy.

Parallel Time Series Analysis and Income Inequality: A New Approach to Comparative Case Studies

This case study deals with the role of time series analysis in sociology, and its relationship with the wider literature and methodology of comparative case study research. Time series analysis is now well-represented in top-ranked sociology journals, often in the form of ‘pooled time series’ research designs. These studies typically pool multiple countries together into a pooled time series cross-section panel, in order to provide a larger sample for more robust and comprehensive analysis. This approach is well suited to exploring trans-national phenomena, and for elaborating useful macro-level theories specific to social structures, national policies, and long-term historical processes. It is less suited however, to understanding how these global social processes work in different countries. As such, the complexities of individual countries - which often display very different or contradictory dynamics than those suggested in pooled studies – are subsumed. Meanwhile, a robust literature on comparative case-based methods exists in the social sciences, where researchers focus on differences between cases, and the complex ways in which they co-evolve or diverge over time. A good example of this is the inequality literature, where although panel studies suggest a general trend of rising inequality driven by the weakening power of labour, marketisation of welfare, and the rising power of capital, some countries have still managed to remain resilient. This case study takes a closer look at what can be learned by applying the insights of case-based comparative research to the method of time series analysis. Taking international income inequality as its point of departure, it argues that we have much to learn about the viability of different combinations of policy options by examining how they work in different countries over time. By taking representative cases from different welfare systems (liberal, social democratic, corporatist, or antipodean), we can better sharpen our theories of how policies can be more specifically engineered to offset rising inequality. This involves a fundamental realignment of the strategy of time series analysis, grounding it instead in a qualitative appreciation of the historical context of cases, as a basis for comparing effects between different countries.