n 

microeconomics, freedom of choice is the freedom of economic agents to allocate

their resources as they see fit, among the options (such as goods, services, or assets) that are
available to them.[10][11] It includes the freedom to engage in employment available to them.[12]
Ratner et al., in 2008, cited the literature on 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.[13]
However, 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 quality of a product or a service and advertisement. In the event that a monopoly exists, the
consumer no longer has the freedom to choose to buy from a different producer. As Friedrich
Hayek pointed out:
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.

— Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, "Can planning free us from care?"[14]

As exemplified in the above quote, libertarian thinkers are often strong advocates for increasing
freedom of choice. One example of this is Milton Friedman's 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, the Heritage Foundation's 2011 Index of Economic
Freedom report showed a strong correlation between its Index of Economic Freedom and happiness
in a country.[15]

Measuring freedom of choice[edit]

The axiomatic-deductive approach found in game theory has been used to address the issue of
measuring the amount of freedom of choice (FoC) an individual enjoys.[16] In a 1990 paper,[17]
[18]
 Prasanta K. Pattanaik and Yongsheng Xu presented three conditions that a measurement of FoC
should satisfy:

1. Indifference between no-choice situations. Having only one option amounts to the
same FoC, no matter what the option is.
2. Strict monotonicity. Having two distinct options x and y amounts to more FoC than
having only the option x.
3. 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 is the only measurement that satisfies these axioms, what 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 preferences,[19][20][21] or rejecting the third axiom.[22]