Min- and Max-induced rankings: an experimental study

The current paper is the first to report an experimental study of “Min- and Max-induced rankings” (MMIR), i.e., a family of set rankings that require preferences over sets to be induced from comparison of the best and/or worst elements within those sets. These MMIR do not perform well in predicting preferences over simple sets of monetary outcomes. In this paper, we investigate the axiomatic underpinnings of these models by means of pairwise choice experiments. From this investigation, some important conclusions can be drawn: Axioms that prevent rankings to be based on total-goodness, as well as monotonicity conditions (ensuring that replacing a set element with a better one results in a better set) cannot be refuted. Axioms that rule out any utilization of the relative difference in the values of the outcomes and axioms that prevent rankings to be based on average-goodness are all systematically violated. The Uniform Expected Utility (UEU) criterion seems to meet the apparent shortcomings of the MMIR. Some frequently occurring preference patterns, however, suggest that a significant portion of the participants uses neither a Min- or Max-induced ranking, nor UEU, but some other unspecified decision rule, possibly characterized by the tendency to prefer a diversification of uncertainty.     

Preference extension rules for ranking sets of alternatives with a fixed cardinality

This paper analyzes the problem of deriving a ranking of fixed-cardinality subsets of a universal set from a given ranking of the elements of this universal set. Only subsets with a given number of elements are being ranked, which is where the approach in this paper differs from the literature on extension rules that establish preference relations on the power set of the universal set. Common examples for areas where such preferences on subsets with a fixed cardinality are needed are elections of committees of a given size, many-to-one matchings, and decision problems under ignorance. The main result of the paper is a characterization of a class oflexicographic rank-ordered rules by means of two axioms, namely, aresponsiveness condition used in the matching literature and a well-knownneutrality requirement which ensures that the names of the alternatives are irrelevant for the ranking of the sets.     

Social comparison and risk taking behavior

This paper studies the effects of social comparison on risk taking behavior. In our theoretical framework, decision makers evaluate the consequences of their choices relative to both their own and their peers’ conditions. We test experimentally whether the position in the social ranking affects risk attitudes. Subjects interact in a simulated workplace environment where they perform a work task, receive possibly different wages, and then undertake a risky decision that may produce an extra gain. We find that social comparison matters for risk attitudes. Subjects are more risk averse in the presence of small social gain than social loss. In addition, risk aversion is decreasing in the size of the social gain.     

On Preference and Freedom

We consider the role of preferences in the assessment of an agent's freedom, visualized as the opportunity for choice. After discussing several possible intuitive approaches to the problem, we explore an approach based on the notion of preference orderings that a reasonable person may possibly have. Using different sets of axioms, we characterize the rules for ranking opportunity sets in terms of freedom. We also show that certain axioms for ranking opportunity sets are incompatible.     

Zero Lower Bound and negative interest rates: Choices for monetary policy in the UK

There have been relatively few analyses of the policy context and consequences of a Zero Lower Bound (ZLB) for nominal interest rates. This paper sets out monetary policy alternatives, including negative interest rates, a revision of the inflation target, and rendering unconventional policy instruments such as QE conventional (permanent). Following extensive discussion of policy options, we set out a model that explores the impacts of the real policy rate on economic growth, employment and inflation, with particular attention to the British economy. We use a Time-Varying Structural Vector Auto-regressive (TVSVAR) Model where the sources of time variation are both the coefficients and variance–covariance matrix of the innovations. It was found that real rates have significant implications for real growth, the labour market and price stability even when monetary policy was constrained at the ZLB in nominal terms. The study additionally applies a discrete break in the data to focus on the Post-Global Financial Crisis and ZLB period. This indicates that the effectiveness of real rates did not diminish and this has important implications in terms of a policy approach which seeks to exploit real negative rates.     

How vicious are cycles of intransitive choice?

Transitivity is a compelling requirement of rational choice, and a transitivity axiom is included in all classical theories of both individual and group choice. Nonetheless, choice contexts exist in which choice might well be systematically intransitive. Moreover, this can occur even when the context is transparent, and the decision maker is reflective. The present paper catalogues such choice contexts, dividing them roughly into the following classes:

The intrinsic value of choice: The propensity to under-delegate in the face of potential gains and losses

Human beings are often faced with a pervasive problem: whether to make their own decision or to delegate the decision task to someone else. Here, we test whether people are inclined to forgo monetary rewards in order to retain agency when faced with choices that could lead to losses and gains. In a simple choice task, we show that participants choose to pay in order to control their own payoff more than they should if they were to maximize monetary rewards and minimize monetary losses. This tendency cannot be explained by participants’ overconfidence in their own ability, as their perceived ability was elicited and accounted for. Nor can the results be explained by lack of information. Rather, the results seem to reflect an intrinsic value for choice, which emerges in the domain of both gains and of losses. Moreover, our data indicate that participants are aware that they are making suboptimal choices in the normative sense, but do so anyway, presumably for psychological gains.     

On the Analysis of Negative Freedom

This paper presents a non-preference-based approach to the analysis of negative freedom. It is argued that a proper understanding of (different conceptions of) negative freedom necessitates an examination of the consequences of changes in the set of feasible alternatives. For this reason the paper does not focus on freedom rankings of opportunity sets but on freedom rankings of opportunity situations, i.e., pairs consisting of a feasible set and an opportunity set. Three different freedom rankings of opportunity situations are axiomatically characterised. Each of the three rankings forms a generalisation of the purely cardinality-based freedom ranking of opportunity sets presented by Pattanaik and Xu (1990).     

Finding socially best spanning trees

This article combines Social Choice Theory with Discrete Optimization. We assume that individuals have preferences over edges of a graph that need to be aggregated. The goal is to find a socially “best” spanning tree in the graph. As ranking all spanning trees is becoming infeasible even for small numbers of vertices and/or edges of a graph, our interest lies in finding algorithms that determine a socially “best” spanning tree in a simple manner. This problem is closely related to the minimum (or maximum) spanning tree problem in Discrete Optimization. Our main result shows that for the various underlying ranking rules on the set of spanning trees discussed in this article, the sets of “best” spanning trees coincide. Moreover, a greedy algorithm based on a transitive group ranking on the set of edges will always provide such a “best” spanning tree.     

Specification of objectives in decision problems

If a decision problem is said to be difficult, one usually assumes that there is a very complicated relationship between the decision and the corresponding outcome. The problem is considered as solved when this relationship has been sorted out and described. This means that the probelm of selecting the best outcome from a set of possible outcomes, is taken as trivial. The main, or only difficulty is to find the decision which will lead to the best of the possible outcomes. The author argues that the real difficulty may often be to specify a preference ordering over the set of outcomes. He illustrates the point with examples from economics, and discusses some investment problems, in which the outcome of a decision naturally can be considered as a stochastic process.     

Constraints and the Measurement of Freedom of Choice

This paper introduces considerations about constraints in the construction of measures of an agent's freedom. It starts with motivating the exercise from both the philosophical and the informational point of view. Then it presents two rankings of opportunity sets based on information about the extent of options and the constraints that a decision maker faces. The first ranking measures freedom as variety of choice; the second as non-restrictedness in choice.     

What can the regression model of human judgment learn from multi-attribute decision theory?

Zeleny's recent conjecture that multi-attribute decision theory may help to overcome the inadequacies of the linear regression model is incorrect. Recognition of the information processing advantages inherent in multiple -attribute decision situations combined with a requirement of transitivity itself implies linear objective functions. This follows from some recent developments by a psychologist and an economist in the analysis of individual and collective decision processes, developments which do not take as their starting point the paradigm of choice offered in utility theory.     

Nontransitive preferences in decision theory

Intransitive preferences have been a topic of curiosity, study, and debate over the past 40 years. Many economists and decision theorists insist on transitivity as the cornerstone of rational choice, and even in behavioral decision theory intransitivities are often attributed to faulty experiments, random or sloppy choices, poor judgment, or unexamined biases. But others see intransitive preferences as potential truths of reasoned comparisons and propose representations of preferences that accommodate intransitivities. This article offers a partial survey of models for intransitive preferences in a variety of decisional contexts. These include economic consumer theory, multiattribute utility theory, game theory, preference between time streams, and decision making under risk and uncertainty. The survey is preceded by a discussion of issues that bear on the relevance and reasonableness of intransitivity.     

An axiomatic approach to predictability of outcomes in an interactive setting

This article is an axiomatic approach to the problem of ranking game forms in terms of the predictability they offer to individuals. Two criteria are proposed and characterized, the CardMin and the CardMax. Both compare game forms on the basis of the number of distinct outcomes that can result from the choice of a CardMin (resp. CardMax) strategy. The CardMin (resp. CardMax) strategy is defined as a strategy leading to the smallest (resp. highest) number of different outcomes. In both cases, the lower these numbers the better the game form.     

Living without state-independence of utilities

This article is concerned with the representation of preferences which do not satisfy the ordinary axioms for state-independent utilities. After suggesting reasons for not being satisfied with solutions involving state-dependent utilities, an alternative representation shall be proposed involving state-independent utilities and a situation-dependent factor. The latter captures the interdependencies between states and consequences. Two sets of axioms are proposed, each permitting the derivation of subjective probabilities, state-independent utilities, and a situation-dependent factor, and each operating in a different framework. The first framework involves the concept of a decision situation—consisting of a set of states, a set of consequences and a preference relation on acts; the probabilities, utilities and situation-dependent factor are elicited by referring to other, appropriate decision situations. The second framework, which is technically related, operates in a fixed decision situation; particular “subsituations” are employed in the derivation of the representation. Possible interpretations of the situation-dependent factor and the notion of situation are discussed.     

Ambiguity and decision modeling: A preference-based approach

In this article, we develop a model that permits a decision maker's preferences to depend on the decision maker's ambiguity about the probability of an event that is relevant for decision-making purposes. We deal with ambiguity through preference modeling, with ambiguity leading to modifications in the utilities of outcomes. The behavior of ambiguity premiums and probability premiums as the payoffs are varied depends on the nature of the modifications in utilities. Particular forms of the model that arise under different sets of assumptions about preferences include additive, bilinear, and ratio forms. We conclude with a brief example and some thoughts about potential generalizations and implications of the model.     

A comparison of the NZDep and New Zealand IMD indexes of socioeconomic deprivation

ABSTRACT

The aims of this study were to compare the NZ Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) with the NZDep index of socioeconomic deprivation in terms of their: (1) theoretical and methodological approaches; (2) use of small areas; (3) rankings of small areas; and (4) relationships with various health and social outcomes. Literature sources were reviewed for aim 1. The data sources for aims 2–4, all contained within Statistics New Zealand’s Integrated Data Infrastructure, were: (1) 2013 Census, (2) health data sets, (3) Police database, and (4) 2014 General Social Survey. Outcomes were smoking, mortality, respiratory disease, crime, self-assessed health status. Spearman’s rho was used as a measure of correlation. Deciles were treated as categorical in the stepwise logistic regressions. The key finding is that there is a range of theoretical and methodological differences between the indexes. Despite these differences, the indexes behave in a similar, but not identical, manner in their ranking of small areas and in their associations with health and social outcomes. In conclusion, for practical purposes for many applications the two indexes give similar results when analysing very large data sets, although there are some important caveats related to this conclusion for both large and small data sets.     

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.