The independence condition in the theory of social choice

Arrow's theorem is really a theorem about the independence condition. In order to show the very crucial role that this condition plays, the theorem is proved in a refined version, where the use of the Pareto condition is almost avoided.A distinction is made between group preference functions and group decision functions, yielding respectively preference relations and optimal subsets as values. Arrow's theorem is about the first kind, but some ambiguities and mistakes in his book are explained if we assume that he was really thinking of decision functions. The trouble then is that it is not clear how to formulate the independence condition for decision functions. Therefore the next step is to analyse Arrow's argument for accepting the independence condition.The most frequent ambiguity depends on an interpretation of A as the set of all conceivable alternatives, while the variable subset B is the set of all feasible or available alternatives. He then argues that preferences between alternatives that are not feasible shall not influence the choice from the set of available alternatives. But even if this principle is accepted, it only forces us to require independence with respect to some specific set B and not to every B simultaneously. Therefore the independence condition cannot be accepted on these grounds.Another argument is about an election where one of the candidates dies. On one interpretation this argument can be taken to support an independence requirement which leads to a contradiction. On another interpretation it is a condition about connexions between choices from different sets.The so-called problem of binary choice is found to be different from the independence problem and it plays no essential role in Arrow's impossibility result. Other impossibility results by Sen, Batra and Pattanaik and by Schwartz are of a different character.In the last section, several weaker independence conditions are presented. Their relations to Arrow's condition are stated and the arguments supporting them are discussed.     

Justice,liberty, unanimity and the axioms of identity

Two new justice constraints on liberal rights and the Pareto rule are proposed and analysed. Each resolves both Sen and Gibbard paradoxes. The first, following Hammond, requires no axiom of identity. The second, following Sen and Suppes, resolves Sen Paradoxes for two rights, but requires the axiom of complete identity to resolve Gibbard paradoxes and Sen Paradoxes with three or more rights. This second constraint therefore turns social conflicts over rights into disagreements about interpersonal and intersituational comparisons. By itself it solves the majoritarian paradox and the all-but-one-person-is-decisive paradox.     

Rationality from a computational standpoint

A computationally viable choice function possesses, in addition to other important properties, adaptability - as new alternatives become feasible the set of best alternatives corresponding to the new feasible set can be located without having to reconsider previously rejected alternatives. Adaptability is shown to be closely related to, in fact characteristic of, the standard notions of rationality (expressed in terms of transitivity properties). Adaptability provides a generalization of conventional rationality and in addition leads to the choice function proposed by Schwartz, albeit from an entirely different route, that of computational viability.     

Liberalism,non-binary choice and Pareto principle

It is shown in this paper that a very mild form of Pareto principle is compatible with a set of restrictive conditions. Deriving a choice set identical with the set of alternatives in the case of paradox of voting amounts to begging the problem. If we restrict that the choice set should be a proper sub-set of the original set, the paradox will be revived. In the realistic sense liberalism may well be treated as an outcome of the choice rather than as a basic value judgement. Choice of Rules of the Game ought to be the first step and then only society can seek the optimal situation under those Rules.I am very grateful to P. K. Pattanaik for helpful discussions and valuable comments on the first draft. I am also grateful to Prof. Amartya Sen whose lectures at the Delhi School of Economics introduced me to the theory of social choice.     

Even-chance lotteries in social choice theory

This paper discusses aspects of the theory of social choice when a nonempty choice set is to be determined for each situation, which consists of a feasible set of alternatives and a preference order for each voter on the set of nonempty subsets of alternatives. The individual preference assumptions include ordering properties and averaging conditions, the latter of which are motivated by the interpretation that subset A is preferred to subset B if and only if the individual prefers an even-chance lottery over the basic alternatives in A to an even-chance lottery over the basic alternatives in B. Corresponding to this interpretation, a choice set with two or more alternatives is resolved by an even-chance lottery over these alternatives. Thus, from the traditional no-lottery social choice theory viewpoint, ties are resolved by even-chance lotteries on the tied alternatives. Compared to the approach which allows all lotteries to compete along with the basic alternatives, the present approach is a contraction which allows only even-chance lotteries.After discussing individual preference axioms, the paper examines Pareto optimality for nonempty subsets of a feasible set in a social choice context with n voters. Aspects of simple-majority comparisons in the even-chance context follow, including an analysis of single-peaked preferences. The paper concludes with an Arrowian type impossibility theorem that is designed for the even-chance setting.     

Invoking a Cartesian product structure on social states

The purpose of this article is to introduce a Cartesian product structure into the social choice theoretical framework and to examine if new possibility results to Gibbard’s and Sen’s paradoxes can be developed thanks to it. We believe that a Cartesian product structure is a pertinent way to describe individual rights in the social choice theory since it discriminates the personal features comprised in each social state. First we define some conceptual and formal tools related to the Cartesian product structure. We then apply these notions to Gibbard’s paradox and to Sen’s impossibility of a Paretian liberal. Finally we compare the advantages of our approach to other solutions proposed in the literature for both impossibility theorems.     

Nozick on Sen: A misunderstanding

This discussion examines Robert Nozick's claim inAnarchy, State, and Utopia (New York 1974) that his entitlement theory of justice avoids the paradox of collective choice shown by A. K. Sen inCollective Choice and Social Welfare (San Francisco 1970). Nozick argues his system is a stable principle of distributive justice. The author shows Nozick's principle of justice in transfer qualifies as a social decision function in Sen's sense because it is a collective choice rule and meets necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a choice function. Next the author demonstrates Nozick's principle of justice in transfer requkes Sen's conditions of unrestricted domain, the Pareto principle, and liberalism which are the conditions of the Sen paradox Nozick claims to avoid. Thus, Nozick's principle of justice in transfer is shown not to be a stable principle of distributive justice.     

The effect of unconditional preferences on Sen’s paradox

Theory and Decision - Sen’s Liberal paradox describes a conflict between weak Pareto, minimal liberalism, and either transitivity or a best element over a domain of individual preferences....     

A Note On Impossibility Theorems and Seniority Rules

We characterize seniority rules, also known as lexical dictatorships, under weak consistency constraints on the groups choice function. These constraints are base triple-acyclicity in the case of binary choices and rationalizability (although not rationality) in the case of choices between an arbitrary number of alternatives. Existing results on these weakened constraints remain silent on the treatment of the groups most junior individuals and therefore do not yield a complete characterization of seniority rules. We also impose a universal domain, binary strict Pareto optimality, binary Pareto indifference, binary independence of irrelevant alternatives, and the newly introduced condition of conflict resolution. The latter condition requires a social choice rules not to remain indecisive between alternatives for which individuals have conflicting preferences.JEL CLASSIFICATIONS: D63, D71This revised version was published online in May 2005 with a corrected article title.     

The impossibility of the Paretian liberal and its relevance to welfare economics

The purpose of this study is to analyse the implications of Sen's impossibility result, the liberal paradox, for orthodox welfare economics. Because the rather special format of social choice theory makes it a little difficult to be sure of the relevance of this result, the whole dilemma is posed here in terms of a rather informal analysis of information al patterns.On the one hand, it is argued that the traditional approach to welfare economics, including both utilitarianism and Paretian ordinalism, contains severe informational constraints eliminating the use of all kinds of independent non-utility information in the social evaluation process. This property, called welfarism, is also present in the weak Pareto principle, which conflicts with even minimal requirements of personal liberty according to Sen's result.On the other hand, it is argued that there is in fact little to be resolved in this problem in spite of several attempts to circumvent the conflict. These studies are argued to be mainly ad hoc solutions to the formal problem and relevant only to the extent they indicate how severe restrictions are needed to avoid the paradox. The analogy with the prisoner's dilemma does not work either. Since liberal values are intrinsically non-welfaristic, the liberal paradox can be interpreted as only one, but a rather powerful, example of the informational deficiency of the orthodox approach.Finally, it is argued that the liberal paradox has striking implications for both the concept of preference and social optimum as well as empirical research on social welfare. This means that if the impossibility is to be taken seriously we need to revalue both the status of utility information and the role of the Pareto principle in social welfare analysis.The author is grateful to Professor Amartya Sen and Matti Tuomala for helpful comments and suggestions.     

‘q-Pareto-Scalar’ Two-Stage Extremization Model and its Reducibility to One-Stage Model

A two-stage sequential choice model is studied, the first stage being defined by q-Pareto multicriterial choice rule, and the second stage being defined by scalar extremization model. In this model, at the first stage the q-Pareto rule choses alternatives which are not only undominated in terms of Pareto comparison, but also includes into choice the alternatives which are dominated by no more than q alternatives. Since the choice set of the first-stage usually contains too many elements, obtained set is used as a presentation for the second stage constructed by a scalar extremization model. The properties of the model are studied as well as its representability to one-stage scalar extremization model.     

Bayesian decision theory,rule utilitarianism,and Arrow's impossibility theorem

The first part of this paper reexamines the logical foundations of Bayesian decision theory and argues that the Bayesian criterion of expected-utility maximization is the only decision criterion consistent with rationality. On the other hand, the Bayesian criterion, together with the Pareto optimality requirement, inescapably entails a utilitarian theory of morality. The next sections discuss the role both of cardinal utility and of cardinal interpersonal comparisons of utility in ethics. It is shown that the utilitarian welfare function satisfies all of Arrow's social choice postulates avoiding the celebrated impossibility theorem by making use of information which is unavailable in Arrow's original framework. Finally, rule utilitarianism is contrasted with act utilitarianism and judged to be preferable for the purposes of ethical theory.     

On the possibility of rational policy evaluation

Arrow proved the inconsistency of a set of reasonable looking conditions on a social decision rule. These conditions are stated and their rationale explained. It is argued that the blame for the inconsistency must lie with Arrow's Collective Rationality condition. Arrow's abstract problem is generalized and interpreted in terms of individual as well as collective decision-making. His conditions are revised so that (1) cardinal - even interpersonal - utility comparisons are allowed and (2) the Collective Rationality condition - which formulates the traditional conception of rational choice as maximizing choice - is weakened to its bare bones. The revised set of conditions is still inconsistent. Once again the culprit is the Collective Rationality condition, now drastically weakened: even the bare bones of Arrow's conception of rational choice as maximizing choice is untenable. An alternative conception is proposed.     

The Budget-Voting Paradox

The budget-voting paradox states that, when social alternatives are proper subsets of a finite set of decisions, choosing decision-wise according to the majority rule may select an alternative that is covered in the majority tournament among alternatives. Individual preferences are defined on single decisions, and are extended to preferences over the alternative set by means of a preference extension rule. We prove the existence of the paradox for any rank-based, monotone, and independent extension rule.      

Intradimensional Single-Peakedness and the Multidimensional Arrow Problem

Arrow's account (1951/1963) of the problem of social choice is based upon the assumption that the preferences of each individual in the relevant group are expressible by a single ordering. This paper lifts that assumption and develops a multidimensional generalization of Arrow's framework. I show that, like Arrow's original framework, the multidimensional generalization is affected by an impossibility theorem, highlighting not only the threat of dictatorship of a single individual, but also the threat of dominance of a single dimension. In particular, even if preferences are single-peaked across individuals within each dimension – a situation called intradimensional single-peakedness – any aggregation procedure satisfying Arrow-type conditions will make one dimension dominant. I introduce lexicographic hierarchies of dimensions as a class of possible aggregation procedures under intradimensional single-peakedness. The interpretation of the results is discussed.     

Positionalist voting functions

Positionalist voting functions are those social choice functions where the positions of the alternatives in the voter's preference orders crucially influence the social ordering of the alternatives. An important subclass consists of those voting functions where numbers are assigned to the alternatives in the preference orders and the social ordering is computed from these numbers. Such voting functions are called representable. Various well-known conditions for voting functions are introduced and it is investigated which representable voting functions satisfy these conditions. It is shown that no representable voting function satisfies the Condorcet criterion. This condition and Arrow's independence condition, which are typical non-positionalist conditions, are shown to be incompatible. The Borda function, which is a well-known positionalist voting function, is studied extensively, conditions uniquely characterizing it are given and some modifications of the function are investigated.My thanks are due to professor Bengt Hansson for encouragement and several helpful suggestions.     

Why ethical measures of inequality need interpersonal comparisons

An ethical measure of income inequality corresponds to a social ordering of income distributions. Without interpersonal comparisons, the only possible social orderings are dictatorial, so there can be no ethical inequality measure. Interpersonal comparisons allow a very much richer set of possible social orderings, and the construction of ethical measures of inequality.I have benefited especially from reading the published and unpublished work of Parks, of Sen, and of d'Aspremont and Gevers, and I claim little originality for the ideas expressed here.     

Oligarchy for Social Choice Correspondences and Strategy-Proofness

We study the existence of a group of individuals which has some decisive power for social choice correspondences that satisfy a monotonicity property which we call modified monotonicity. And we examine the relation between modified monotonicity and strategy-proofness of social choice correspondences according to the definition by Duggan and Schwartz (2000). We will show mainly the following two results. (1) Modified monotonicity implies the existence of an oligarchy. An oligarchy is a group of individuals such that it has some decisive power (semi-decisiveness), and at least one of the most preferred alternatives of every its member is always chosen by any social choice correspondence. (2) Strategy-proofness of social choice correspondences is equivalent to modified monotonicity.     

Individual rationality and the concept of social welfare

This paper, written in October 1974, deals with some game aspects of the social choice problem. The question asked is whether there exists a social decision rule satisfying the conditions imposed by Arrow over all the preference profiles that may logically arise under it (in the sense of being compatible with individual rationality). This question is answered in the affirmative. The meaning of this result is that if Arrow's condition of unrestricted domain is modified so as to exclude any profile which contradicts individual rationality, then an Arrovian social welfare function can be shown to exist (subject to the assumption that whenever the social outcome is in doubt, individuals use the maximin criterion in order to choose their voting strategy).This research was written up in October 1974 at Northwestern University and was partially supported by the National Science Foundation.