Procedural Utility in the Work Place, Evidence from Mexico

André Vargas

Department of Economy, Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico.

DOI: 10.4236/tel.[phone]                

Abstract

The concept of Utility usually refers to the satisfaction a person acquires by consuming, in general under circumstances bonded to income, and the price of goods. In a psychological vision of personal well-being, happiness and its components, consider the fact that people can value anything. This notion has led to the study of Procedural Utility, that means people not only value the outcome of something, but also values the process and conditions in which the outcome is achieved. Procedural Utility can be obtained from various economic procedures in which individuals are part of, e.g. Work and consumption among others. Evidence has been found that in the work place the fact of being attached to hierarchy generates negative Procedural Utility because it disrupts psychological precepts that determine happiness, well-being, or utility [1]. In other cases it has been found that the process on how a wage cut is done must be considered [2]. In the light of this phenomena, I’ll discuss the concept of Procedural Utility and analyze empirical evidence for the Mexican case with “Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografía” INEGI’s self-reported well-being survey (BIARE), with the finality to give suggestions on possible applications of processes to improve the worker’s satisfaction.

Keywords

Procedural Utility, Labor Satisfaction, Procedural Fairness

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Schneck, S. (2012) Revisiting Procedural Utility: Evidence from European Survey Data. Econstor, 1-6.
[2]	Geenberg, J. (1990) Employee Theft as a Reaction to Underpayment Inequity: The Hidden Cost of Pay Cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.561
[3]	Frey, B.S. and Stutzer, A. (2007) Economics and Psychology: A Promising New Cross-Disciplinary Field. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts.
[4]	Savage, L.J. (1954) The Foundations of Statistics. John Wiley, New York.
[5]	Frey, B.S. and Stutzer, A. (1999) Measuring Preferences by Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 155, 755-788.
[6]	Benz, M. and Stutzer, A. (2003) Do Workers Enjoy Procedural Utility? Applied Economics Quarterly, 49, 1-32.
[7]	Kimball, M. and Willis, R. (2006) Utility and Happiness. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1-67.
[8]	Kahneman, D. and Thaler, R. (2006) Anomalies: Utility Maximization and Experienced Utility. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 221-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/089533006776526076
[9]	Kahneman, D. and Varey, C. (1991) Notes on the Psychology of Utility: Interpersonal Comparison of Well-Being: Studies in Rationality and Social Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[10]	Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Richard, T. (1986) Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics. Journal of Business, Part 2: The Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory, 59, 1-16. http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/keith.chen/negot.%20papers/KahnKnetThal_FairEcon86.pdf
[11]	Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. and Sarin, R. (1997) Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 375-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003355397555235
[12]	Van Praag, B. (1971) The Welfare Function of Income in Belgium: An Empirical Investigation. European Economic Review, 2, 337-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(71)90045-6
[13]	Van Praag, B.M. (1989) The Relativity of the Welfare Concept. World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University, Clarence Press, Oxford, 1-47.
[14]	Van Praag, B. and Frijiters, P. (1999) The Measurement of Welfare and Well-Being: The Leyden Approach. Russell Sage Foundation, Manhattan, 1-44.
[15]	Easterlin, R. (2003) Building a Better Theory of Well-Being. Conference on Paradoxes of Happiness in Economics, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, 21-23 March 2003, 1-58.
[16]	Easterlin, R. (2001) Income and Happiness: Towards a Unified Theory. Economic Journal, 111, 465-484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00646
[17]	Easterlin, R. (1995) Does the Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence. Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essay in Honour of Moses Abramowitz, Academic Press, New York, 89-125.
[18]	Kahneman, D. (1999) Experienced Utility and Objective Happiness: A Moment-Based Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1-26.
[19]	Elster, J. (1998) Emotions and Economic Theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 47-74.
[20]	Loewenstein, G. (1999) Because It Is There: The Challenge of Mountaineering... for Utility Theory. Kyklos, 52, 315-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1999.tb00221.x
[21]	Osterloh, M. and Frey, B.S. (2000) Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational Forms. Organization Science, 11, 538-550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.5.538.15204
[22]	Schwarze, J. and Winkelmann, R. (2005) What Can Happiness Research Tell Us about Altruism? Evidence from the German Socio-Economic Panel. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1487, 1-31.
[23]	Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. (2002) Altruistic Punishment in Humans. Nature, 415, 137-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/415137a
[24]	Akerlof, G.A. and Kranton, R.E. (2005) Identity and the Economics of Organizations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 9-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/0895330053147930
[25]	Frey, B., Benz, M. and Stutzer, A. (2004) Introducing Procedural Utility: Not Only What, but also How Matters. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 160, 377-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1628/0932456041960560
[26]	Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000) The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. University of Rochester, Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
[27]	Frey, B. and Benz, M. (2003) Being Independent Is a Great Thing: Subjective Evaluations of Self-Employment and Hierarchy. Center for Economic Studies & Ifo Institute for Economic Research, 1-36.
[28]	Benz, M. (2005) The Relevance of Procedural Utility for Economics. Institute for Empirical Research in Economics University of Zurich Working Paper Series, No. 256, Zurich, 1-32.
[29]	“Procedural Fairness Home.” Procedural Fairness Home. http://proceduralfairness.org/
[30]	Aghion, P. and Tirole, J. (1997) Formal and Real Authority in Organizations. Journal of Political Economy, 105, 1-29.http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/262063
[31]	INEGI (2011) Sistema nacional de clasificación de ocupaciones 2011: SINCO. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, México City.
[32]	Ingham, G. (1970) Size of Industrial Organization and Worker Behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[33]	Newby, H. (1983) The Sociology of Agriculture: Toward a New Rural Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 67-81.
[34]	Gross, E. and Bendix, R. (1956) Work and Authority in Industry. American Sociological Review.
[35]	De la Garza, E. (2000) Tratado latinoamericano de sociologia del trabajo. COLMEX, CFE, FLCS, UAM, Mexico City.
[36]	Edwards, P.K. and Scullion, H. (1982) La organización social del conflicto laboral. Basil Blackwell Publisher, Oxford.
[37]	Cassar, L. (2010) Job Protection versus Independence: The Importance of Employment Characteristics in Determining Job Satisfaction in Chile. ETH-Zurich, Zurich, 1-25.
[38]	Cassar, L. (2010) Quality of Employment and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Chile. ETH-Zurich, Zurich, 1-19.
[39]	Cordeiro, W.P. (1999) Can We Learn Management Techniques from the Japanese Ringi Process? Business Forum, 1-7.