IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jetheo/v197y2021ics002205312100140x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consistent rights on property spaces

Author

Listed:
  • Kretz, Claudio

Abstract

In many aggregation problems, subgroups of agents have the right to predetermine certain properties of the aggregate. Yet, such rights may be inconsistent. In preference aggregation, for example, the ‘liberal paradox’ refers to the incompatibility of minimal liberal rights with the Pareto principle (a right to society as a whole). We show that, in general, rights to properties are consistent if and only if the following simple condition holds. Whenever rights are given to a critical (i.e., minimally inconsistent) combination of properties, the respective rights holding groups must intersect to at least one common member. Rights are consistent with monotone independent aggregation (voting by properties) if and only if this condition holds under a suitable generalization of criticality. Our property formulation allows us to study a wide range of applications in social choice and judgment aggregation theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Kretz, Claudio, 2021. "Consistent rights on property spaces," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:197:y:2021:i:c:s002205312100140x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jet.2021.105323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002205312100140X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jet.2021.105323?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franz Dietrich, 2007. "A generalised model of judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(4), pages 529-565, June.
    2. Coughlin, Peter J, 1986. "Rights and the Private Pareto Principle," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 53(211), pages 303-320, August.
    3. Deb, Rajat & Pattanaik, Prasanta K. & Razzolini, Laura, 1997. "Game Forms, Rights, and the Efficiency of Social Outcomes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 74-95, January.
    4. Peleg,Bezalel, 2008. "Game Theoretic Analysis of Voting in Committees," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521074650.
    5. Gaertner, Wulf & Pattanaik, Prasanta K & Suzumura, Kotaro, 1992. "Individual Rights Revisited," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 59(234), pages 161-177, May.
    6. Julian H. Blau, 1975. "Liberal Values and Independence," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 42(3), pages 395-401.
    7. Peter Bernholz, 1974. "Is a paretian liberal really impossible?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 99-107, December.
    8. Fine, Ben, 1975. "Individual Liberalism in a Paretian Society," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(6), pages 1277-1281, December.
    9. Rajat Deb, 2004. "Rights as alternative game forms," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(1), pages 83-111, February.
    10. Nehring, Klaus & Puppe, Clemens, 2010. "Abstract Arrowian aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 467-494, March.
    11. Kelly, Jerry S., 1976. "Rights exercising and a Pareto-consistent libertarian claim," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 138-153, August.
    12. Herzberg, Frederik, 2017. "Respect for experts vs. respect for unanimity: The liberal paradox in probabilistic opinion pooling," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 44-47.
    13. Peter Fishburn & Ariel Rubinstein, 1986. "Aggregation of equivalence relations," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 3(1), pages 61-65, March.
    14. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2008. "A liberal paradox for judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 59-78, June.
    15. Sugden, Robert, 1985. "Liberty, Preference, and Choice," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 213-229, October.
    16. Boros, Endre & Elbassioni, Khaled & Gurvich, Vladimir & Makino, Kazuhisa, 2010. "On effectivity functions of game forms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 512-531, March.
    17. Gibbard, Allan, 1974. "A Pareto-consistent libertarian claim," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 388-410, April.
    18. Sen, Amartya Kumar, 1970. "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal," Scholarly Articles 3612779, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    19. Sen, Amartya, 1970. "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(1), pages 152-157, Jan.-Feb..
    20. Nehring, Klaus & Puppe, Clemens, 2007. "The structure of strategy-proof social choice -- Part I: General characterization and possibility results on median spaces," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 269-305, July.
    21. Deb, Rajat, 1994. "Waiver, Effectivity and Rights as Game Forms," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 61(242), pages 167-178, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marta Cardin, 2023. "Rights Systems and Aggregation Functions on Property Spaces," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-10, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Massimiliano Vatiero, 2023. "Extending Amartya Sen’s Paretian Liberal Paradox to a Firm’s Hierarchy," DEM Working Papers 2023/3, Department of Economics and Management.
    2. Berrens, Robert P. & Polasky, Stephen, 1995. "The Paretian Liberal Paradox and ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 45-56, July.
    3. Herrade Igersheim, 2013. "Invoking a Cartesian product structure on social states," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 463-477, April.
    4. Ben McQuillin & Robert Sugden, 2011. "The representation of alienable and inalienable rights: games in transition function form," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(4), pages 683-706, October.
    5. Sebastian Bervoets, 2007. "Freedom of choice in a social context: comparing game forms," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(2), pages 295-315, September.
    6. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:30:y:2010:i:1:p:103-114 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Herrade Igersheim, 2006. "Libéralisme de la liberté versus libéralisme du bonheur. Le cas du paradoxe libéral-parétien," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(3), pages 389-398.
    8. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2010. "Individual powers and social consent: an axiomatic approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(4), pages 571-596, April.
    9. Kotaro Suzumura, 2002. "Introduction to social choice and welfare," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 442, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    10. Peleg, Bezalel & Peters, Hans & Storcken, Ton, 2002. "Nash consistent representation of constitutions: a reaction to the Gibbard paradox," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 267-287, March.
    11. Piggins, Ashley & Salerno, Gillian, 2016. "Sen cycles and externalities," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 25-27.
    12. Enrico Guzzini, 2010. "Efficient Nash equilibria, individual rights and Pareto principle: an impossibility result," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(1), pages 103-114.
    13. Sebastian Bervoets, 2010. "An axiomatic approach to predictability of outcomes in an interactive setting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 311-323, March.
    14. Ngo Long & Vincent Martinet, 2018. "Combining rights and welfarism: a new approach to intertemporal evaluation of social alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 35-64, January.
    15. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2008. "A liberal paradox for judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 59-78, June.
    16. Serge-Christophe Kolm, 2003. "Macrojustice : distribution, impôts et transferts optimaux," IDEP Working Papers 0305, Institut d'economie publique (IDEP), Marseille, France.
    17. Perote-Pena, Juan & Piggins, Ashley, 2005. "Pareto efficiency with spatial rights," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 265-283, April.
    18. List, Christian, 2010. "The theory of judgment aggregation: an introductory review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 27596, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Ruvin Gekker, 1992. "On the strategic inconsistency of the meta-rights approach," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 265-275, October.
    20. Roth, Timothy P., 2000. "Efficiency: An inappropriate guide to structural transformation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 109-126.
    21. Nan Li, 2018. "A paradox of expert rights in abstract argumentation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(4), pages 737-752, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Expert rights; Liberal rights; Liberal paradox; Judgment aggregation; General aggregation theory; Effectivity function;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D79 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Other
    • K0 - Law and Economics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:197:y:2021:i:c:s002205312100140x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622869 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.