Rational choice and revealed preference without binariness

 This paper attempts to provide a unified account of the rationalization of possibly non-binary choice-functions by “Extended Preference Relations” (relations between sets and elements). The analysis focuses on transitive EPRs for which three choice-functional characterizations are given, two of them based on novel axioms. Transitive EPRs are shown to be rationalizable by sets of orderings that are “closed under compromise”; this novel requirement is argued to be the key to establish a canonical relationship between sets of orderings and choice-functions. The traditional assumption of “binariness” on preference relations or choice functions is shown to be analytically unhelpful and normatively unfounded; non-binariness may arise from “unresolvedness of preference”, a previously unrecognized aspect of preference incompleteness. Received: 28 August 1995/Accepted: 14 February 1996     

The C1 topology on the space of smooth preference profiles

This paper defines a fine C ¹-topology for smooth preferences on a “policy space”, W, and shows that the set of convex preference profiles contains open sets in this topology.  It follows that if the dimension(W)≤v(?)−2 (where v(?) is the Nakamura number of the voting rule, ?), then the core of ? cannot be generically empty. For higher dimensions, an “extension” of the voting core, called the heart of ?, is proposed. The heart is a generalization of the “uncovered set”. It is shown to be non-empty and closed in general. On the C ¹-space of convex preference profiles, the heart is Paretian. Moreover, the heart correspondence is lower hemi-continuous and admits a continuous selection. Thus the heart converges to the core when the latter exists. Using this, an aggregator, compatible with ?, can be defined and shown to be continuous on the C ¹-space of smooth convex preference profiles. Received: 3 April 1995/Accepted: 8 April 1998     

A generalised model of judgment aggregation

The new field of judgment aggregation aims to merge many individual sets of judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a single collective set of judgments on these propositions. Judgment aggregation has commonly been studied using classical propositional logic, with a limited expressive power and a problematic representation of conditional statements (“if P then Q ”) as material conditionals. In this methodological paper, I present a simple unified model of judgment aggregation in general logics. I show how many realistic decision problems can be represented in it. This includes decision problems expressed in languages of standard propositional logic, predicate logic (e.g. preference aggregation problems), modal or conditional logics, and some multi-valued or fuzzy logics. I provide a list of simple tools for working with general logics, and I prove impossibility results that generalise earlier theorems.     

On the manipulation of social choice correspondences

Duggan and Schwartz (Soc Choice and Welfare 17: 85–93, 2000) have proposed a generalization of the Gibbard–Satterthwaite Theorem to multivalued social choice rules. They show that only dictatorial rules are strategy-proof and satisfy citizens sovereignty and residual resoluteness. Citizens sovereignty requires that each alternative is chosen at some preference profile. Residual resoluteness compels the election to be single-valued when the preferences of the voters are “similar”. We propose an alternative proof to the Duggan and Schwartz’s Theorem. Our proof highlights the crucial role of residual resoluteness. In addition, we prove that every strategy-proof and onto social choice correspondence concentrates the social decision power in the hands of an arbitrary group of voters. Finally, we show that this result still holds in a more general framework in which voters report their preferences over sets of alternatives.     

The structure of fuzzy preferences: Social choice implications

It has been shown that, with an alternative factorization of fuzzy weak preferences into symmetric and antisymmetric components, one can prove a fuzzy analogue of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem even when the transitivity requirements on individual and social preferences are very weak. It is demonstrated here that the use of this specification of strict preference, however, requires preferences to also be strongly connected. In the absence of strong connectedness, another factorization of fuzzy weak preferences is indicated, for which nondictatorial fuzzy aggregation rules satisfying the weak transitivity requirement can still be found. On the other hand, if strong connectedness is assumed, the fuzzy version of Arrow's Theorem still holds for a variety of weak preference factorizations, even if the transitivity condition is weakened to its absolute minimum. Since Arrow's Impossibility Theorem appeared nearly half a century ago, researchers have been attempting to avoid Arrow's negative result by relaxing various of his original assumptions. One approach has been to allow preferences – those of individuals and society or just those of society alone – to be “fuzzy.” In particular, Dutta [4] has shown that, to a limited extent, one can avoid the impossibility result (or, more precisely, the dictatorship result) by using fuzzy preferences, employing a particularly weak version of transitivity among the many plausible (but still distinct) definitions of transitivity that are available for fuzzy preferences. Another aspect of exact preferences for which the extension to the more general realm of fuzzy preferences is ambiguous is the factorization of a weak preference relation into a symmetric component (indifference) and an antisymmetric component (strict preference). There are several ways to do this for fuzzy weak preferences, all of them equivalent to the traditional factorization in the special case when preferences are exact, but quite different from each other when preferences are fuzzy (see, for example, [3]). A recent paper in this journal [1], by A. Banerjee, argues that the choice of definitions for indifference and strict preference, given a fuzzy weak preference, can also have “Arrovian” implications. In particular, [1] claims that Dutta's version of strict preference presents certain intuitive difficulties and recommends a different version, with its own axiomatic derivation, for which the dictatorship results reappear even with Dutta's weak version of transitivity. However, the conditions used to derive [1]'s version of strict preference imply a restriction on how fuzzy the original weak preference can be, namely, that the fuzzy weak preference relation must be strongly connected. Without this restriction, I will show that the rest of [1]'s conditions imply yet a third version of strict preference, for which Dutta's possibility result under weak transitivity still holds. On the other hand, if one accepts the strong connectedness required in order for it to be valid, I show that [1]'s dictatorship theorem can in fact be strengthened to cover any version of transitivity for fuzzy preferences, no matter how weak, and further, that this dictatorship result holds for any “regular” formulation of strict preference, including the one originally used by Dutta. Received: 13 May 1996 / Accepted: 13 January 1997     

Ranking opportunity sets on the basis of their freedom of choice and their ability to satisfy preferences: A difficulty

This paper examines a possibility of enlarging the domain of definition of individual preferences suggested by the recent literature on freedom of choice. More specifically, the possibility for an individual to have preferences that depend upon both the opportunity set that she faces and the particular alternative that she chooses from that set is considered. Even more specifically, the possibility for these preferences to value freedom of choice, as defined by the set theoretic relation of inclusion, while being consistent, in a certain sense, with the existence of a preference ordering over the options contained in opportunity sets is investigated. It is shown in the paper that a necessary condition for the existence of any transitive extended preferences of this type is for freedom of choice to be given no intrinsic importance. Received: 22 November 1995 / Accepted: 11 January 1997     

Negatively interdependent preferences

We develop a theory of representation of interdependent preferences that reflect the widely acknowledged phenomenon of keeping up with the Joneses (i.e. of those preferences which maintain that well-being depend on “relative standing” in the society as well as on material consumption). The principal ingredient of our analysis is the assumption that individuals desire to occupy a (subjectively) better position than their peers. This is quite a primitive starting point in that it does not give any reference to what is actually regarded as “status” in the society. We call this basic postulate negative interdependence, and study its implications. In particular, combining this assumption with some other basic postulates that are widely used in a number of other branches of the theory of individual choice, we axiomatize the relative income hypothesis, and obtain an operational representation of interdependent preferences. Received: 7 December 1998/Accepted: 24 August 1999     

Strategy-proof resolute social choice correspondences

We qualify a social choice correspondence as resolute when its set valued outcomes are interpreted as mutually compatible alternatives which are altogether chosen. We refer to such sets as “committees” and analyze the manipulability of resolute social choice correspondences which pick fixed size committees. When the domain of preferences over committees is unrestricted, the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem—naturally—applies. We show that in case we wish to “reasonably” relate preferences over committees to preferences over committee members, there is no domain restriction which allows escaping Gibbard–Satterthwaite type of impossibilities. We also consider a more general model where the range of the social choice rule is determined by imposing a lower and an upper bound on the cardinalities of the committees. The results are again of the Gibbard–Satterthwaite taste, though under more restrictive extension axioms.     

Top-Pair and Top-Triple Monotonicity

We say that a social choice function (SCF) satisfies Top-k Monotonicity if the following holds. Suppose the outcome of the SCF at a preference profile is one of the top k-ranked alternatives for voter i. Let the set of these k alternatives be denoted by B. Suppose that i’s preference ordering changes in such a way that the set of first k-ranked alternatives remains the set B. Then the outcome at the new profile must belong to B. This definition of monotonicity arises naturally from considerations of set “improvements” and is weaker than the axioms of strong positive association and Maskin Monotonicity. Our main results are that if there are two voters then a SCF satisfies unanimity and Top-2 or Top-pair Monotonicity if and only if it is dictatorial. If there are more than two voters, then Top-pair Monotonicity must be replaced by Top-3 Monotonicity (or Top-triple Monotonicity) for the analogous result. Our results demonstrate that connection between dictatorship and “improvement” axioms is stronger than that suggested by the Muller–Satterthwaite result (Muller and Satterthwaite in J Econ Theory 14:412–418, 1977) and the Gibbard–Sattherthwaite theorem.     

Exclusive representation in public employment: A public choice perspective

Public sector unionization has grown rapidly in recent years, and research has suggested that among the reasons for such growth is legislation granting special privileges to public employee unions. This paper examines one form of legislative privilege, exclusive representation, from a public choice perspective. It is shown that exclusivity reduces employees’ freedom of choice, increases the welfare of union leaders at the expense of union members, limits employment opportunities to “outsiders,” entrenches the monopoly provision of public services, and generates conflict and instability in labor relations.     

Inequality, new directions: full ethical foundation and consequences

Deriving comparisons and measures of inequality from full ethical foundations was a main innovation of the 1960s and pursuing it is still a most fruitful direction. This implies using “equal equivalents” and some principles particularly rich in meanings. Multidimensional inequalities can be measured and compared thanks to the “equal-equivalent manifolds”. The “equal-equivalent utility function” defines individual “welfare” cleaned of differences in sui generis individual tastes and hedonic capacities deemed irrelevant for “macrojustice”. Then, equal allocation is a deeper end-value than equal welfare but has to be complemented by free choice for freedom, Pareto efficiency and a demanded partial self-ownership. The result is the richly multi-meaning “equal-labour income equalization”.     

Characterizations of two power indices for voting games with r alternatives

In the first three sections of this paper we present a set of axioms which provide a characterization of an extension of the Banzhaf index to voting games with r alternatives, such as the United Nations Security Council where a nation can vote “yes”, “no”, or “abstain”. The fourth section presents a set of axioms which characterizes a power index based on winning sets instead of pivot sets. Received: 4 April 2000/Accepted: 30 April 2001     

Acyclic sets of linear orders

 A set of linear orders on {1,2, ℕ, n} is acyclic if no three of its orders have an embedded permutation 3-cycle {abc, cab, bca}. Let f (n) be the maximum cardinality of an acyclic set of linear orders on {1,2, ℕ, n}. The problem of determining f (n) has interested social choice theorists for many years because it is the greatest number of linear orders on a set of n alternatives that guarantees transitivity of majority preferences when every voter in an arbitrary finite set has any one of those orders as his or her preference order. This paper gives improved lower and upper bounds for f (n). We note that f (5)=20 and that all maximum acyclic sets at n=4, 5 are generated by an “alternating scheme.” This procedure becomes suboptimal at least by n=16, where a “replacement scheme” overtakes it. The presently-best large-n lower bound is approximately f (n)≥(2.1708) ⁿ . Received: 5 April 1995/Accepted: 10 November 1995     

Anonymity in large societies

In a social choice model with an infinite number of agents, there may occur “equal size” coalitions that a preference aggregation rule should treat in the same manner. We introduce an axiom of equal treatment with respect to a measure of coalition size and explore its interaction with common axioms of social choice. We show that, provided the measure space is sufficiently rich in coalitions of the same measure, the new axiom is the natural extension of the concept of anonymity, and in particular plays a similar role in the characterization of preference aggregation rules.     

Strategy-proof allocation of multiple public goods

This paper characterizes strategy-proof social choice functions (SCFs), the outcome of which are multiple public goods. Feasible alternatives belong to subsets of a product set . The SCFs are not necessarily “onto”, but the weaker requirement, that every element in each category of public goods A _k is attained at some preference profile, is imposed instead. Admissible preferences are arbitrary rankings of the goods in the various categories, while a separability restriction concerning preferences among the various categories is assumed. It is found that the range of the SCF is uniquely decomposed into a product set in general coarser than the original product set, and that the SCF must be dictatorial on each component B _l . If the range cannot be decomposed, a form of the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem with a restricted preference domain is obtained.     

Aggregation of smooth preferences

Suppose p is a smooth preference profile (for a society, N) belonging to a domain P ^N . Let σ be a voting rule, and σ(p)(x) be the set of alternatives in the space, W, which is preferred to x. The equilibrium E(σ(p)) is the set {x∈W:σ(p)(x) is empty}. A sufficient condition for existence of E(σ(p)) when p is convex is that a “dual”, or generalized gradient, dσ(p)(x), is non-empty at all x. Under certain conditions the dual “field”, dσ(p), admits a “social gradient field”Γ(p). Γ is called an “aggregator” on the domain P ^N if Γ is continuous for all p in P ^N . It is shown here that the “minmax” voting rule, σ, admits an aggregator when P ^N is the set of smooth, convex preference profiles (on a compact, convex topological vector space, W) and P ^N is endowed with a C ¹-topology. An aggregator can also be constructed on a domain of smooth, non-convex preferences when W is the compact interval. The construction of an aggregator for a general political economy is also discussed. Some remarks are addressed to the relationship between these results and the Chichilnisky-Heal theorem on the non-existence of a preference aggregator when P ^N is not contractible. Received: 4 July 1995 / Accepted: 26 August 1996     

A systematic approach to the construction of non-empty choice sets

Suppose a strict preference relation fails to possess maximal elements, so that a choice is not clearly defined. I propose to delete particular instances of strict preferences until the resulting relation satisfies one of a number of known regularity properties (transitivity, acyclicity, or negative transitivity), and to unify the choices generated by different orders of deletion. Removal of strict preferences until the subrelation is transitive yields a new solution with close connections to the “uncovered set” from the political science literature and the literature on tournaments. Weakening transitivity to acyclicity yields a new solution nested between the strong and weak top cycle sets. When the original preference relation admits no indifferences, this solution coincides with the familiar top cycle set. The set of alternatives generated by the restriction of negative transitivity is equivalent to the weak top cycle set.     

What is a problem?

Among others, the term “problem” plays a major role in the various attempts to characterize interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity, as used synonymously in this paper. Interdisciplinarity (ID) is regarded as “problem solving among science, technology and society” and as “problem orientation beyond disciplinary constraints” (cf. Frodeman et al.: The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010). The point of departure of this paper is that the discourse and practice of ID have problems with the “problem”. The objective here is to shed some light on the vague notion of “problem” in order to advocate a specific type of interdisciplinarity: problem-oriented interdisciplinarity. The outline is as follows: Taking an ex negativo approach, I will show what problem-oriented ID does not mean. Using references to well-established distinctions in philosophy of science, I will show three other types of ID that should not be placed under the umbrella term “problem-oriented ID”: object-oriented ID (“ontology”), theory-oriented ID (epistemology), and method-oriented ID (methodology). Different philosophical thought traditions can be related to these distinguishable meanings. I will then clarify the notion of “problem” by looking at three systematic elements: an undesired (initial) state, a desired (goal) state, and the barriers in getting from the one to the other. These three elements include three related kinds of knowledge: systems, target, and transformation knowledge. This paper elaborates further methodological and epistemological elements of problem-oriented ID. It concludes by stressing that problem-oriented ID is the most needed as well as the most challenging type of ID.     

The majoritarian compromise is majoritarian-optimal and subgame-perfect implementable

It is shown that the Majoritarian Compromise of Sertel (1986) is subgame-perfect implementable on the domain of strict preference profiles, although it fails to be Maskin-monotonic and is hence not implementable in Nash equilibrium. The Majoritarian Compromise is Pareto-optimal and obeys SNIP (strong no imposition power), i.e. never chooses a strict majority's worst candidate. In fact, it is “majoritarian approving” i.e. it always picks “what's good for a majority” (alternatives which some majority regards as among the better “effective” half of the available alternatives). Thus, being Pareto-optimal and majoritarian approving, it is majoritarian-optimal. Finally, the Majoritarian Compromise is measured against various criteria, such as consistency and Condorcet-consistency. Received: 31 January 1995/Accepted: 22 July 1998