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     

Generalized condorcet-winners for single peaked and single-plateau preferences

When preferences are single peaked the choice functions that are independent of irrelevant alternatives both in Nash's and in Arrow's sense are characterized. They take the Condorcet winner of the n individual peaks plus at most n-1 fixed ballots (phantom voters). These choice functions are also coalitionally strategy-proof.Next the domain of individual preferences is enlarged to allow for singleplateau preferences: again, Nash's IIA and Arrow's IIA uniquely characterize a class of generalized Condorcet winners choice functions. These are, again, coalitionally strategy-proof.     

From Arrow to cycles, instability, and chaos by untying alternatives

From remarkably general assumptions, Arrow's Theorem concludes that a social intransitivity must afflict some profile of transitive individual preferences. It need not be a cycle, but all others have ties. If we add a modest tie-limit, we get a chaotic cycle, one comprising all alternatives, and a tight one to boot: a short path connects any two alternatives. For this we need naught but (1) linear preference orderings devoid of infinite ascent, (2) profiles that unanimously order a set of all but two alternatives, and with a slightly fortified tie-limit, (3) profiles that deviate ever so little from singlepeakedness. With a weaker tie-limit but not (2) or (3), we still get a chaotic cycle, not necessarily tight. With an even weaker one, we still get a dominant cycle, not necessarily chaotic (every member beats every outside alternative), and with it global instability (every alternative beaten). That tie-limit is necessary for a cycle of any sort, and for global instability too (which does not require a cycle unless alternatives are finite in number). Earlier Arrovian cycle theorems are quite limited by comparison with these. Received: 31 July 1999/Accepted: 15 October 1999     

Aggregation of coarse preferences

We consider weak preference orderings over a set A _n of n alternatives. An individual preference is of refinement?≤n if it first partitions A _n into ? subsets of `tied' alternatives, and then ranks these subsets within a linear ordering. When ?<n, preferences are coarse. It is shown that, if the refinement of preferences does not exceed ?, a super majority rule (within non-abstaining voters) with rate 1− 1/? is necessary and sufficient to rule out Condorcet cycles of any length. It is argued moreover how the coarser the individual preferences, (1) the smaller the rate of super majority necessary to rule out cycles `in probability'; (2) the more probable the pairwise comparisons of alternatives, for any given super majority rule. Received: 29 June 1999/Accepted: 25 February 2000     

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.     

Consistency between tastes and values: A universalization approach

The object of this paper is to propose a consistency test for an individual involved in collective choice process. Collective choice processes considered in the paper are those that transform individuals ‘tastes’– which reflect the self-interested view point of the individuals – into (social) ranking of alternatives. In addition to her tastes, an individual has values about the way by which collective decision should be made. We distinguish two categories of such values. First, there are end-values that restrict the class of social rankings that the individual considers ethically acceptable. Second there are aggregation-values that specify the way by which the social ranking should depend upon the individuals tastes. The consistency test stands on an hypothetical operation of universalization of the individual tastes to everyone. Five illustrations of the potential usefulness of our approach for interpreting social choice theory and welfare economics are proposed. These illustrations deal with utilitarian aggregation in the presence of income inequality aversion, the so-called ‘ethics of responsibility’ and the aggregation of individual ranking of opportunity sets based on their freedom of choice. A discussion of the relevance of the consistency test for addressing the problem of ‘laundering’ individual preferences is also provided. Received: 25 June 1998/Accepted: 16 March 1999     

An extension of a theorem on the aggregation of separable preferences

An Excess-Voting Function relative to a profile π assigns to each pair of alternatives (x,y), the number of voters who prefer x to y minus the number of voters who prefer y to x. It is shown that any non-binary separable Excess-Voting Function can be achieved from a preferences profile when individuals are endowed with separable preferences. This result is an extension of Hollard and Le Breton (1996). Received: 16 December 1996 / Accepted: 8 October 1997     

Nash Implementation with Lottery Mechanisms

Consider the problem of exact Nash Implementation of social choice correspondences. Define a lottery mechanism as a mechanism in which the planner can randomize on alternatives out of equilibrium while pure alternatives are always chosen in equilibrium. When preferences over alternatives are strict, we show that Maskin monotonicity (Maskin in Rev Econ stud 66: 23–38, 1999) is both necessary and sufficient for a social choice correspondence to be Nash implementable. We discuss how to relax the assumption of strict preferences. Next, we examine social choice correspondences with private components. Finally, we apply our method to the issue of voluntary implementation (Jackon and Palfrey in J Econ Theory 98: 1–25, 2001).I thank Toyo Sakai for his comments on a previous draft. I also thank two anonymous referees and an editor of this journal for helpful comments that improved this paper. A previous version circulated as “A note on Maskin monotonicity”. After the results presented here were obtained, I became aware of a new unpublished paper by Benoit and Ok (2004). The result of Theorem 2 and the discussion that follows is partially similar to their Theorem 1.     

Connecting and resolving Sen's and Arrow's theorems

It is shown that the source of Sen's and Arrow's impossibility theorems is that Sen's Liberal condition and Arrow's IIA counter the critical assumption that voters have transitive preferences. But if the procedures are not permitted to treat the transitivity of individual preferences as a valued input, then we cannot expect rational outputs. Once this common cause for these perplexing conclusions is understood, these classical conclusions end up admitting quite benign interpretations where it becomes possible to propose several resolutions. Received: 2 April 1996 / Accepted: 15 October 1996     

Manipulability measures of common social choice functions

All social choice functions are manipulable when more than two alternatives are available. I evaluate the manipulability of the Borda count, plurality rule, minimax set, and uncovered set. Four measures of manipulability are defined and computed stochastically for small numbers of agents and alternatives.  Social choice rules derived from the minimax and uncovered sets are found to be relatively immune to manipulation whether a sole manipulating agent has complete knowledge or absolutely no knowledge of the preferences of the others. The Borda rule is especially manipulable if the manipulating agent has complete knowledge of the others. Received: 5 January 1996/Accepted: 31 July 1998     

‘One and a Half Dimensional’ Preferences and Majority Rule

I examine a model of majority rule in which alternatives are described by two characteristics: (1) their position in a standard, left-right dimension, and (2) their position in a good-bad dimension, over which voters have identical preferences. I show that when voters’ preferences are single-peaked and concave over the first dimension, majority rule is transitive, and the majority’s preferences are identical to the median voter’s. Thus, Black’s (The theory of committees and elections, 1958) theorem extends to such a “one and a half” dimensional framework. Meanwhile, another well-known result of majority rule, Downs’ (An economic theory of democracy, 1957) electoral competition model, does not extend to the framework. The condition that preferences can be represented in a one-and-a-half-dimensional framework is strictly weaker than the condition that preferences be single-peaked and symmetric. The condition is strictly stronger than the condition that preferences be order-restricted, as defined by Rothstein (Soc Choice Welf 7:331–342;1990).     

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     

Axiomatic foundations for fairness-motivated preferences

Much work in social choice theory takes individual preferences as uninvestigated inputs into aggregation functions designed to reflect considerations of fairness. Advances in experimental and behavioural economics show that fairness can also be an important motivation in the preferences of individuals themselves. A proper characterisation of how fairness concerns enter such preferences can enrich the informational basis of many social choice exercises. This paper proposes axiomatic foundations for individual fairness-motivated preferences that cover most of the models developed to rationalise observed behaviour in experiments. These models fall into two classes: Outcome-based models, which see preferences as defined only over distributive outcomes, and context-dependent models, which allow rankings over distributive outcomes to change systematically with non-outcome factors. I accommodate outcome-based and context-sensitive fairness concerns by modelling fairness-motivated preferences as a reference-dependent preference structure. I first present a set of axioms and two theorems that generate commonly used outcome-based models as special cases. I then generalise the axiomatic basis to allow for reference-dependence, and derive a simple functional form in which the weight on each person’s payoff depends on a reference vector of how much each person deserves.     

Strategy-proofness versus efficiency on restricted domains of exchange economies

 Strategy-proofness has been shown to be a strong property, particularly on large domains of preferences. We therefore examine the existence of strategy-proof and efficient solutions on restricted, 2-person domains of exchange economies. On the class of 2-person exchange economies in which agents have homothetic, strictly convex preferences we show, as Zhou (1991) did for a larger domain, that such a solution is necessarily dictatorial. As this proof requires preferences exhibiting high degrees of complementarity, our search continues to a class of linear preferences. Even on this “small” domain, the same negative result holds. These two results are extended to many superdomains, including Zhou’s. Received: 9 June 1995/Accepted: 8 January 1996     

Incremental cost sharing: Characterization by coalition strategy-proofness

Each one of n users consumes an idiosyncratic commodity produced in indivisible units. The n commodities are jointly produced by a central facility and total cost must be shared by the users.  A “sequential stand alone mechanism” shares costs incrementally according to a fixed ordering of the users: the first user always pays stand alone cost, the second pays the stand alone cost of the first two users minus that of the first and so on. If the second derivatives of costs are of a constant sign, such a method yields a unique strong equilibrium at every profile of convex preferences in the game where each user chooses his own demand. This equilibrium, in turn, defines a coalition strategy-proof social choice function.  Under decreasing marginal costs and submodular costs, the sequential stand alone mechanisms are almost characterized by these properties; the only exception is the binary demand case (each agent consumes zero or one unit) where a rich family of cost sharing methods (the Shapley value among them) yields a coalition strategy-proof equilibrium selection. Under increasing marginal costs and supermodular costs, coalition strategy-proofness characterizes a richer family of cost sharing methods: they give out one unit at a time while charging marginal costs, with the users taking turns according to a sequence fixed in advance. These methods contain serial cost sharing as a limit case. Received: 8 July 1997/Accepted: 22 January 1998     

The structure of coalitional power under probabilistic voting procedures

We consider probabilistic voting procedures which map each feasible set of alternatives and each utility profile to a social choice lottery over the feasible set. It is shown that if we impose: (i) a probabilistic collective rationality condition known as regularity; (ii) probabilistic counterpart of Arrow's independence of irrelevant alternatives and citizens' sovereignty; (iii) a probabilistic positive association condition called monotonicity; then the coalitional power structure under a probabilistic voting procedure is characterized by weak random dictatorship. Received: 1 March 1999/Accepted: 21 May 2001     

Rational budgeters in the theory of social choice

The purpose of this paper is to explore duality in the theory of social choice. As application Arrow's Impossibility Theorem and another impossibility theorem using the notion of positive responsiveness are chosen. It will be seen that we can establish notions and theorems which are symmetric to the original ones. However, if we establish impossibility theorems when rational behaviour is described by budget correspondences and not by choice correspondences, we need not assume that every subset of X (a family of alternatives) with cardinality 2 is a budget set. Therefore the dual theorems also may hold for families of competitive budget sets. It will also be shown that although the underlying preferences on X need not be acyclic, local decisiveness on budget sets may lead to global decisiveness on these sets.     

Hansson’s theorem for generalized social welfare functions: an extension

 Hansson (1969) sets forth four conditions satisfied by no generalized social welfare function (GSWF), a mapping from profiles of individual preferences to arbitrary social preference relations. Though transitivity is not imposed on social preferences, one of Hansson’s conditions requires that socially maximal alternatives always exist. Of course, this condition is not satisfied by the majority GSWF. We prove a generalization of Hansson’s theorem that requires the existence of maximal alternatives only in very special cases. Our result applies to the majority GSWF and a large class of other GSWFs that sometimes produce no maximal alternatives. Received: 10 July 1995/Accepted: 4 March 1996     

Independent Decisiveness and the Arrow theorem

I show that the condition of Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives in Arrow's impossibility theorem can be weakened into Relational Independent Decisiveness. The condition of Relational Independent Decisiveness is essentially a translation of Sen's Independent Decisiveness into the traditional Arrovian framework. I also show by example that Relational Independent Decisiveness is indeed weaker than Arrow's Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives. Received: 30 October 1996 / Accepted: 22 May 1997     

The Chairman’s Paradox Revisited

This paper re-examines the so-called ‘chairman’s paradox‘ that was first noticed by Farquharson in his path breaking tract on sophisticated voting, Theory of Voting (1969). The Chairman’s paradox is concerned with the case of a three member committee in which a particular player who has a regular and a tie-breaking vote – the ‘chairman’ – not only will do worse in specific instances under the plurality procedure for three alternatives than if he did not have such a vote, but will also do worse overall. That is, the chairman’s a priori probability of success (‘getting what one wants’) for all possible games with linear (strict) preference orders is lower than that of the two regular members. It is demonstrated that this result, which comes about if voters act strategically rather than sincerely, is not as robust as it has been thought to be. By merely replacing the standard assumption of linear preference orders with weak preference orders, which allow for indifference, we can escape from the paradox for the canonical case of three players and three alternatives. With weak preference orders, the a priori success of the chairman is now greater than that of the other two players. We also point to a new paradox of sophisticated voting.