Strategyproof single unit award rules

The problem of allocating a single indivisible unit to one of several agents is considered, where monetary compensations are not allowed, and the unit is not necessarily desirable to each agent. In addition to strategyproofness, three properties of social choice functions are considered: Pareto-optimality, nondictatorship, and nonbossiness. It is shown that these three additional criteria cannot be satisfied simultaneously. However, any two of the additional criteria can be satisfied. We give characterizations of the classes of strategyproof social choice functions satisfying these three pairs of properties. Received: 18 February 1998/Accepted: 15 May 2000     

Reference functions and possibility theorems for cardinal social choice problems

 In this paper, we provide axiomatic foundations for social choice rules on a domain of convex and comprehensive social choice problems when agents have cardinal utility functions. We translate the axioms of three well known approaches in bargaining theory (Nash 1950; Kalai and Smorodinsky 1975; Kalai 1977) to the domain of social choice problems and provide an impossibility result for each. We then introduce the concept of a reference function which, for each social choice set, selects a point from which relative gains are measured. By restricting the invariance and comparison axioms so that they only apply to sets with the same reference point, we obtain characterizations of social choice rules that are natural analogues of the bargaining theory solutions. Received: 8 August 1994/Accepted: 12 February 1996     

Social choice and the closed convergence topology

This paper revisits the aggregation theorem of Chichilnisky (1980), replacing the original smooth topology by the closed convergence topology and responding to several comments (N. Baigent (1984, 1985, 1987, 1989), N. Baigent and P. Huang (1990) and M. LeBreton and J. Uriarte (1990a, b). Theorems 1 and 2 establish the contractibility of three spaces of preferences: the space of strictly quasiconcave preferences P _SCO, its subspace of smooth preferences P _infSCO ^supS , and a space P ₁ of smooth (not necessarily convex) preferences with a unique interior critical point (a maximum). The results are proven using both the closed convergence topology and the smooth topology. Because of their contractibility, these spaces satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions of Chichilnisky and Heal (1983) for aggregation rules satisfying my axioms, which are valid in all topologies. Theorem 4 constructs a family of aggregation rules satisfying my axioms for these three spaces. What these spaces have in common is a unique maximum (or peak). This rather special property makes them contractible, and thus amenable to aggregation. However, these aggregation rules cannot be extended to the whole space of preferences P which is not contractible and therefore does not admit continuous aggregation rules satisfying anonymity and unanimity, Chichilnisky (1980, 1982). The results presented here clarify an erroneous example in LeBreton and Uriarte (1990a, b) and respond to Baigent (1984, 1985, 1987) and Baigent and Huang (1990) on the relative advantages of continuous and discrete approaches to Social Choice.Comments from Geoffrey M. Heal, Andreu Mas Colell, Jean Francois Mertens and Maurice Salles are gratefully acknowledged. Research support was provided by NSF SES 8409857.     

Social compromise and social metrics

In the context of constitutional design, a committee of citizens' representatives proposes (social choice) axioms. The outcome should not necessarily be the aggregation rule, or rules, satisfying each of the axioms. Alternative procedures are recommended for aggregating a set of axioms into a single summary axiom. The summary axiom generates a single social decision function when a social metric is applied.     

The solidarity axiom for quasi-linear social choice problems

Recently, Moulin gave various axiomatic characterizations of solutions to quasi-linear social choice problems. He used a consistency axiom, which relates solutions for societies of different sizes, in addition to some basic axioms. In this paper, we introduce another axiom relating solutions for societies of different sizes, called the Solidarity Axiom. This axiom demands that when additional agents enter the scene, all of the original agents be affected in the same direction, i.e., all of them gain or all of them lose. Our main result is a complete characterization of solutions satisfying the solidarity axiom, in addition to Pareto optimality, anonymity and two normalization axioms. All solutions satisfying these five axioms are in the egalitarian spirit; each solution assigns to every agent an equal share of the surplus over some reference level, but uses a different method to compute the reference level. Then, using additional milder axioms, we give further characterization results concerning various subfamilies.I am extremely grateful to Professor William Thomson for his numerous comments which have considerably improved the exposition of the paper. I would like to thank Professor Hervé Moulin for helpful discussions and insightful comments. The comments from an editor and a referee of this journal are also gratefully acknowledged. I retain, however, full responsibility for any shortcommings     

Arrow’s Axiom and Full Rationality for Fuzzy Choice Functions

A classical result for crisp choice functions shows the equivalence between Arrow axiom and the property of full rationality. In this paper we study a fuzzy form of Arrow axiom formulated in terms of the subsethood degree and of the degree of equality (of fuzzy sets). We prove that a fuzzy choice function satisfies Fuzzy Arrow Axiom if and only if it is (fuzzy) full rational. We also show that these conditions are also equivalent with weak and strong fuzzy congruence axioms WFCA and SFCA. It is studied the Arrow index, a new concept that indicates the degree to which a fuzzy choice function satisfies the Fuzzy Arrow Axiom. The author wishes to express her gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and discussions that contributed to a higher quality of the paper. Some of their comments can be found in the final version of the paper. An abstract of this paper was presented at the First Spain Italy Netherlands Meeting on Game Theory SING, Maastricht, The Netherlands, June 2005.     

An axiomatic approach to intergenerational equity

We present a set of axioms in order to capture the concept of equity among an infinite number of generations. There are two ethical considerations: one is to treat every generation equally and the other is to respect distributive fairness among generations. We find two opposite results. In Theorem 1, we show that there exists a preference ordering satisfying anonymity, strong distributive fairness semiconvexity, and strong monotonicity. However, in Theorem 2, we show that there exists no binary relation satisfying anonymity, distributive fairness semiconvexity, and sup norm continuity. We also clarify logical relations between these axioms and non-dictatorship axioms. Received: 30 August 2000/Accepted: 18 March 2002 This paper is based on Chapt. 4 of my Masters Thesis [15] submitted to Kobe University, and won the Kanematsu Fellowship from the Research Institute for Economics and Business Administration of Kobe University in May 2001. I am grateful to Jun Iritani for helpful discussions and encouragement, two anonymous referees of this journal, three anonymous referees of the Kanematsu Fellowship, Eiichi Miyagawa, Noritsugu Nakanishi, Nguyen Huu Phuc, Hiroo Sasaki, Koji Shimomura, William Thomson, and Toyoaki Washida for detailed comments. I also thank participants at the spring meeting of Japanese Economic Association at Yokohama City University in May 2000, at the annual meeting of the Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies in Tsukuba in September 2000, and at the Kanematsu Fellowship Seminar at Kobe University in May 2001 for valuable comments.     

Collective choice rules and collective rationality: a unified method of characterizations

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between collective rationality and permissible collective choice rules using a unified approach inspired by Bossert and Suzumura (J Econ Theory 138:311–320, 2008). We consider collective choice rules satisfying four axioms: unrestricted domain, strong Pareto, anonymity, and neutrality. A number of new classes of collective choice rules as well as the Pareto and Pareto extension rules are characterized under various concepts of collective rationality: acyclicity, transitivity, quasi-transitivity, semi-transitivity, and the interval order property. Further, new concepts of collective rationality, K-term acyclicity and K-term consistency, are proposed and the corresponding characterizations are provided.     

Transitive and acyclic rationality indicators of fuzzy choice functions on base domain

In the present paper we introduce the indicators of the fuzzy transitive congruence axiom, fuzzy direct-revelation axiom and fuzzy acyclic congruence axiom. These indicators measure the degree to which a fuzzy choice function satisfies these axioms. We use the indicators of fuzzy transitive congruence axiom and fuzzy acyclic congruence axiom to calculate the minimum degree to which the direct fuzzy revealed preference relation is the transitive and acyclic respectively. We established that (i) the degree to which the fuzzy choice function is full rational is the degree to which it satisfies fuzzy transitive congruence axiom and (ii) the degree to which the fuzzy choice function is acyclic rational is the minimum degree to which it satisfies fuzzy direct-revelation axiom and its fuzzy revealed preference is acyclic. We show that a similarity relation on the set of fuzzy choice functions preserves the indicators of fuzzy transitive congruence axiom, fuzzy direct-revelation axiom, fuzzy acyclic congruence axiom and (transitive and acyclic) rationality indicators.     

No-envy, efficiency, and collective rationality

We consider fair collective choice functions (hereafter fair CCFs) which associate with each profile of extended preference orderings and each set of feasible social states a subset of the set of Pareto efficient and envy-free states for the preference profile. Our main objective is to examine compatibility of fair social choices with collective rationality. We formulate desirable properties of collective rationality, and look for CCFs satisfying them. Next, we show that any fair CCF violates most of collective rationality properties. Moreover, one of our results implies that no fair CCF can be rationalized by a social preference relation.     

Multi-profile intergenerational social choice

In an infinite-horizon setting, Ferejohn and Page showed that any social welfare function satisfying Arrow’s axioms and stationarity must be a dictatorship of the first generation. Packel strengthened this result by proving that no collective choice rule generating complete social preferences can satisfy unlimited domain, weak Pareto and stationarity. We prove that this impossibility survives under a domain restriction and without completeness. We propose an alternative stationarity axiom and show that a social welfare function on a specific domain satisfies this modified version and some standard social choice axioms if and only if it is a chronological dictatorship.     

Fair allocation of indivisible goods: the two-agent case

One must allocate a finite set of indivisible goods among two agents without monetary compensation. We impose Pareto-efficiency, anonymity, a weak notion of no-envy, a welfare lower bound based on each agent’s ranking of the subsets of goods, and a monotonicity property w.r.t. changes in preferences. We prove that there is a rule satisfying these axioms. If there are three goods, it is the only rule, together with one of its subcorrespondences, satisfying each fairness axiom and not discriminating between goods.     

Anonymity and neutrality in Arrow’s Theorem with restricted coalition algebras

 In the very general setting of Armstrong (1980) for Arrow’s Theorem, I show two results. First, in an infinite society, Anonymity is inconsistent with Unanimity and Independence if and only if a domain for social welfare functions satisfies a modest condition of richness. While Arrow’s axioms can be satisfied, unequal treatment of individuals thus persists. Second, Neutrality is consistent with Unanimity (and Independence). However, there are both dictatorial and nondictatorial social welfare functions satisfying Unanimity and Independence but not Neutrality. In Armstrong’s setting, one can naturally view Neutrality as a stronger condition of informational simplicity than Independence. Received: 11 August 1994/Accepted: 1 April 1996     

Pairwise Strategy-Proofness and Self-Enforcing Manipulation

“Strategy-proofness” is one of the axioms that are most frequently used in the recent literature on social choice theory. It requires that by misrepresenting his preferences, no agent can manipulate the outcome of the social choice rule in his favor. The stronger requirement of “group strategy-proofness” is also often employed to obtain clear characterization results of social choice rules. Group strategy-proofness requires that no group of agents can manipulate the outcome in their favors. In this paper, we advocate “effective pairwise strategy-proofness.” It is the requirement that the social choice rule should be immune to unilateral manipulation and “self-enforcing” pairwise manipulation in the sense that no agent of a pair has the incentive to betray his partner. We apply the axiom of effective pairwise strategy-proofness to three types of economies: public good economy, pure exchange economy, and allotment economy. Although effective pairwise strategy-proofness is seemingly a much weaker axiom than group strategy-proofness, effective pairwise strategy-proofness characterizes social choice rules that are analyzed by using different axioms in the literature.     

A characterization of the Walras rule

This paper has three purposes. First, we refine the characterization of the Walras rule proposed by Nagahisa (JET 1991) over a more natural and simple domain than the one he employed. We show that the Walras rule is the only social choice rule defined over the domain and satisfying Individual Rationality, Pareto Efficiency, and Local Independence. Second, assuming endowments to be collectively owned, we show that the Walras rule operated from equal division is the only social choice rule satisfying No Envy, Pareto Efficiency, and Local Independence. Third, we show that for every social choice rule satisfying Individual Rationality and Pareto Efficiency, Local Independence is equivalent to a condition of Nash implementation with a game form satisfying convexity.This article is a revised version of Toyama University Working Paper No. 141. We are grateful to Professors William Thomson, Shinsuke Nakamura, Tomoichi Shinotsuka and two anonymous referees for their detailed comments. Nagahisa is grateful for hospitality of the economics department of the University of Rochester.     

Congruence indicators for fuzzy choice functions

We introduce the congruence indicators WFCA(·) and SFCA(·) corresponding to fuzzy congruence axioms WFCA and SFCA. These indicators measure the degree to which a fuzzy choice function verifies the axioms WFCA and SFCA, respectively. The main result of the paper establishes for a given choice function the relationship between its congruence indicators and some rationality conditions. One obtains a fuzzy counterpart of the well-known Arrow–Sen theorem in crisp choice functions theory.     

Choice functions over a finite set: A summary

A choice function picks some outcome(s) from every issue (subset of a fixed set A of outcomes). When is this function derived from one preference relation on A (the choice set being then made up of the best preferred outcomes within the issue), or from several preference relations (the choice set being then the Pareto optimal outcome within the issue, or the union of the best preferred outcomes for each preference relation)? A complete and unified treatment of these problems is given based on three functional properties of the choice function. None of the main results is original.     

On lattice approximations: Syntactic aspects

Lattice theory and Galois lattices can help in formalizing the sharing of properties by subjects, together with the corresponding group intersections, by means of a well-known—since the early 1970s — duality which formalizes intensional/extensional approaches, as well as implication models, by means of another natural lattice/implications duality.As Galois lattices may grow exponentially, this construction calls for some approximation procedures, for which we suggest making homomorphic reductions by constructing (sub-)semilattices, which can be defined by revising the original lattice by an extra list of ‘quasi-implications’ that are contradicted by only a few counter-examples in the original data. These claims and procedures are illustrated on a classic example of network theory with some appropriate outputs from our graphic program GLAD.     

The proximity condition

We investigate the social choice implications of what we call “the proximity condition”. Loosely speaking, this condition says that whenever a profile moves “closer” to some individual’s point of view, then the social choice cannot move “further away” from this individual’s point of view. We apply this idea in two settings: merging functions and preference aggregation. The precise formulation of the proximity condition depends on the setting. First, restricting attention to merging functions that are interval scale invariant, we prove that the only functions that satisfy proximity are dictatorships. Second, we prove that the only social welfare functions that satisfy proximity and a version of the Pareto criterion are dictatorships. We conclude that either proximity is not an attractive normative requirement after all, or we must give up some other social choice condition. Another possibility is that our normative intuition about proximity needs to be codified using different axioms.     

Social choice with analytic preferences

Arrow's axioms for social welfare functions are shown to be inconsistent when the set of alternatives is the nonnegative orthant in a multidimensional Euclidean space and preferences are assumed to be either the set of analytic classical economic preferences or the set of Euclidean spatial preferences. When either of these preference domains is combined with an agenda domain consisting of compact sets with nonempty interiors, strengthened versions of the Arrovian social choice correspondence axioms are shown to be consistent. To help establish the economic possibility theorem, an ordinal version of the Analytic Continuation Principle is developed. Received: 4 July 2000/Accepted: 2 April 2001