A defence of informed preference-based approaches to welfare evaluations in public policy

This article defends informed preference-based approaches to welfare evaluations in public policy against four influential objections based on central democratic and liberal values, namely: the objection from respect; the objection from anti-paternalism; the objection from liberal neutrality; and the objection from socio-economic justice. The article argues for two main claims of wide interest to economists, philosophers and policymakers. First, the proffered objections impose plausible adequacy constraints on existing approaches to welfare evaluations in public policy. And second, the proponents of informed preference-based approaches can successfully address those objections and thereby provide economists, philosophers and policymakers with convincing reasons to rely on such approaches.