nach oben

Public Choice

Erschienen in:

07.04.2018

Weak rationalizability and Arrovian impossibility theorems for responsive social choice

verfasst von: John Duggan

Erschienen in: Public Choice | Ausgabe 1-2/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper provides representation theorems for choice functions satisfying weak rationality conditions: a choice function satisfies \(\alpha\) if and only if it can be expressed as the union of intersections of maximal sets of a fixed collection of acyclic relations, and a choice function satisfies \(\gamma\) if and only if it consists of the maximal elements of a relation that can depend on the feasible set in a particular, well-behaved way. Other rationality conditions are investigated, and these results are applied to deduce impossibility theorems for social choice functions satisfying weak rationality conditions along with positive responsiveness conditions. For example, under standard assumptions on the set of alternatives and domain of preferences, if a social choice function satisfies Pareto optimality, independence of irrelevant alternatives, a positive responsiveness condition for revealed social preferences, and a new rationality condition \(\delta ^{*}\) (a strengthening of \(\gamma\)), then some individual must have near dictatorial power.

Vorheriger Artikel Introduction to a special issue in honor of Kenneth Arrow

Nächster Artikel Social welfare with net utilities

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Equivalently, B is a linear order if \(R_{B}\) is transitive and anti-symmetric; it is a weak order if \(R_{B}\) is transitive; it is a quasiorder if \(R_{B}\) is negatively transitive; and it is a suborder if \(R_{B}\) is negatively acyclic, in the sense that there do not exist a natural number k and alternatives \(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{k} \in X\) such that \(\lnot x_{j} R_{B} x_{j+1}\) for all \(j <k\) and \(\lnot x_{k}R_{B}x_{1}\).

See Duggan (2013) for a review of the related literature and for general results on the uncovered set.

The result is also shown in Theorem 1 of Schwartz (1976). He assumes the collection of feasible sets consists of the nonempty, finite subsets of alternatives, and he defines a condition W1 that is equivalent to the conjunction of \(\alpha\) and \(\gamma\).

The axiom of Aizerman and Malishevski (1981) requires the opposite inclusion as well, so that \(C(Y)=C(Z)\), but this holds in the presence of \(\alpha\). Condition W5 of Schwartz (1976) suffers from a typo: \(\not \subseteq\) should be \(\subseteq\). See Weymark (1983) for a discussion of why condition \(\phi\) must be applied with some restriction on the size of feasible sets.

To verify that \(\beta '\) implies \(\beta\), consider \(Y,Z \in {\mathcal {X}}\) and assume \(Y \subseteq Z\) and \(C(Y) \cap C(Z) \ne \emptyset\). In particular, \(C(Z) \cap Y \ne \emptyset\), so \(\beta '\) implies \(C(Y) \subseteq C(Y \cup Z)=C(Z)\), as required.

Sen’s (1971) Theorem T.8 shows that the conjunction of \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\) is equivalent to the weak congruence axiom, which is equivalent to rationalizability by a weak order, which is equivalent to ACA; see Proposition 3.

The term “pseudo-relation” is not my own: it appears in the overhead slides of a seminar at Caltech, collected in Aizerman et al. (1991). The term “pseudo-rationalizability” is used differently than by Moulin (1985).

Mas-Colell and Sonnenschein (1972) assume that if some individual is indifferent between x and y and then this becomes a strict preference, then this is sufficient to break a social tie, and if some individual has a strict preference and then this becomes indifference, again a social tie is broken. In contrast, the antecedent of r-Tie break condition requires a strict preference reversal, making the axiom considerably weaker.

Aizerman, M., & Malishevski, A. (1981). General theory of best variants choice: Some aspects. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 26, 1030–1040.CrossRef

Aizerman, M., Vol’skiy, V., & Litvakov, M. (1991). Notes about theory of pseudo-criteria and binary pseudo-relations and their application to the theory of choice and voting. Caltech working paper #766.

Arrow, K. (1959). Rational choice functions and orderings. Economica, 26, 121–127.CrossRef

Arrow, K. (1963). Social choice and individual values (2nd ed.). New Haven: Cowles Foundation.

Blair, D., Bordes, G., Kelly, J., & Suzumura, K. (1976). Impossibility theorems without collective rationality. Journal of Economic Theory, 13, 361–379.CrossRef

Bordes, G. (1983). On the possibility of reasonable consistent majoritarian choice: Some positive results. Journal of Economic Theory, 31, 122–132.CrossRef

Chernoff, H. (1954) Rational selection of decision functions. Econometrica, 22, 422–443.CrossRef

Denicolò, V. (1985). Independent social choice correspondences are dictatorial. Economics Letters, 19, 9–12.CrossRef

Duggan, J. (2007). A systematic approach to the construction of non-empty choice sets. Social Choice and Welfare, 28, 491–506.CrossRef

Duggan, J. (2013). Uncovered sets. Social Choice and Welfare, 41, 489–535.CrossRef

Duggan, J. (2016). Limits of acyclic voting. Journal of Economic Theory, 163, 658–683.CrossRef

Fishburn, P. (1975). Semiorders and choice functions. Econometrica, 43, 5–6.

Gibbard, A. (1969). Social choice and the arrow conditions. Discussion paper, Department of Philosophy, University of Michigan.

Gibbard, A. (2014). Social choice and the arrow conditions. Economics and Philosophy, 30, 269–284.CrossRef

Gillies, D. (1959). Solutions to general non-zero-sum games. In A. Tucker, & R. Luce (Eds.), Contributions to the theory of games IV, Annals of mathematical studies (Vol. 40). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hansson, B. (1969). Voting and group decision functions. Synthese, 20, 526–537.CrossRef

Horan, S., Osborne, M., & Sanver, R. (2017). Positively responsive collective choice rules and majority rule: A generalization of May’s theorem to many alternatives. Unpublished paper.

Houthakker, H. (1950). Revealed preference and the utility function. Economica, 17, 159–174.CrossRef

Jamison, D., & Lau, L. (1973). Semiorders and the theory of choice. Econometrica, 41, 901–912.CrossRef

Mas-Colell, A., & Sonnenschein, H. (1972). General possibility theorems for group decisions. Review of Economic Studies, 39, 185–192.CrossRef

May, K. (1952). A set of independent necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision. Econometrica, 20, 680–684.CrossRef

McKelvey, R. (1986). Covering, dominance, and institution-free properties of social choice. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 283–314.CrossRef

Moulin, H. (1985). Choice functions over a finite set: A summary. Social Choice and Welfare, 2, 147–160.CrossRef

Plott, C. (1973). Path independence, rationality, and social choice. Econometrica, 41, 1075–1091.CrossRef

Samuelson, P. (1938). A note on the pure theory of consumer’s behavior. Economica, 5, 61–71.CrossRef

Schwartz, T. (1976). Choice functions, ‘rationality’ conditions, and variations on the weak axiom of revealed preference. Journal of Economic Theory, 13, 414–427.CrossRef

Schwartz, T. (1986). The logic of collective choice. New York: Columbia.

Sen, A. (1971) Choice functions and revealed preference. The Review of Economic Studies, 38, 307–317.CrossRef

Weymark, J. (1983). Quasitransitive rationalization and the superset property. Mathematical Social Sciences, 6, 105–108.CrossRef

Titel: Weak rationalizability and Arrovian impossibility theorems for responsive social choice
verfasst von: John Duggan
Publikationsdatum: 07.04.2018
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Public Choice / Ausgabe 1-2/2019
Print ISSN: 0048-5829
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-018-0528-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1-2/2019

Social welfare with net utilities

Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem stretching to other fields

Why Arrow’s theorem matters for political theory even if preference cycles never occur

Introduction to a special issue in honor of Kenneth Arrow

Exploring the effects of national and regional popular vote Interstate compact on a toy symmetric version of the Electoral College: an electoral engineering perspective

A defense of Arrow’s independence of irrelevant alternatives

Premium Partner