IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v73y2015icp1-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fair sharing under dichotomous preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Duddy, Conal

Abstract

In an important article on collective choice with dichotomous preferences, Bogomolnaia et al. (2005) propose a fairness criterion called fair welfare share. We argue that this criterion permits mechanisms that are not fair and we propose an alternative fairness concept called proportional sharing. It guarantees to each subgroup, such as a social class, gender or ethnic group, a fair probability that at least one of its members will like the final outcome. It is compatible with anonymity, neutrality, ex ante efficiency and strategy-proofness if and only if there are at most four agents or at most three possible outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Duddy, Conal, 2015. "Fair sharing under dichotomous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-5.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:73:y:2015:i:c:p:1-5
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2014.10.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016548961400078X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2014.10.005?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. Bhaskar Dutta & Hans Peters & Arunava Sen, 2008. "Strategy-proof cardinal decision schemes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(4), pages 701-702, May.
    2. Gibbard, Allan, 1977. "Manipulation of Schemes That Mix Voting with Chance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(3), pages 665-681, April.
    3. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Moulin, Herve & Stong, Richard, 2005. "Collective choice under dichotomous preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 165-184, June.
    4. Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), 2010. "Handbook on Approval Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-642-02839-7, December.
    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. Xiaohui Bei & Guangda Huzhang & Warut Suksompong, 2020. "Truthful fair division without free disposal," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(3), pages 523-545, October.
    2. Tom Demeulemeester & Dries Goossens & Ben Hermans & Roel Leus, 2023. "Fair integer programming under dichotomous and cardinal preferences," Papers 2306.13383, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    3. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Greger, Matthias & Peters, Dominik & Stricker, Christian & Suksompong, Warut, 2022. "Funding public projects: A case for the Nash product rule," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Florian Brandl & Felix Brandt & Matthias Greger & Dominik Peters & Christian Stricker & Warut Suksompong, 2022. "Funding public projects: A case for the Nash product rule," Post-Print hal-03818329, HAL.
    5. Markus Brill & Paul Gölz & Dominik Peters & Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin & Kai Wilker, 2022. "Approval-based apportionment," Post-Print hal-03816043, HAL.
    6. Soroush Ebadian & Anson Kahng & Dominik Peters & Nisarg Shah, 2022. "Optimized Distortion and Proportional Fairness in Voting," Post-Print hal-03834512, HAL.
    7. Haris Aziz & Xinhang Lu & Mashbat Suzuki & Jeremy Vollen & Toby Walsh, 2023. "Best-of-Both-Worlds Fairness in Committee Voting," Papers 2303.03642, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    8. Florian Brandl & Felix Brandt & Matthias Greger & Dominik Peters & Christian Stricker & Warut Suksompong, 2020. "Funding Public Projects: A Case for the Nash Product Rule," Papers 2005.07997, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    9. Gogulapati Sreedurga & Soumyarup Sadhukhan & Souvik Roy & Yadati Narahari, 2022. "Characterization of Group-Fair Social Choice Rules under Single-Peaked Preferences," Papers 2207.07984, arXiv.org.
    10. Xiaohui Bei & Guangda Huzhang & Warut Suksompong, 2018. "Truthful Fair Division without Free Disposal," Papers 1804.06923, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2020.
    11. Felix Brandt & Matthias Greger & Erel Segal-Halevi & Warut Suksompong, 2023. "Balanced Donor Coordination," Papers 2305.10286, arXiv.org.
    12. Freeman, Rupert & Pennock, David M. & Peters, Dominik & Wortman Vaughan, Jennifer, 2021. "Truthful aggregation of budget proposals," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).

    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. Picot, Jérémy & Sen, Arunava, 2012. "An extreme point characterization of random strategy-proof social choice functions: The two alternative case," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 49-52.
    2. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Suksompong, Warut, 2016. "The impossibility of extending random dictatorship to weak preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 44-47.
    3. Brandt, Felix & Saile, Christian & Stricker, Christian, 2022. "Strategyproof social choice when preferences and outcomes may contain ties," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    4. Pierre Dehez & Victor Ginsburgh, 2020. "Approval voting and Shapley ranking," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 415-428, September.
    5. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2018. "On random social choice functions with the tops-only property," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 413-435.
    6. Jérémy Picot, 2012. "Random aggregation without the Pareto principle," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 16(1), pages 1-13, March.
    7. Erdamar, Bora & Sanver, M. Remzi & Sato, Shin, 2017. "Evaluationwise strategy-proofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 227-238.
    8. Gaurav, Abhishek & Picot, Jérémy & Sen, Arunava, 2017. "The decomposition of strategy-proof random social choice functions on dichotomous domains," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 28-34.
    9. Anna Bogomolnaia, 2015. "The Most Ordinally-Efficient of Random Voting Rules," HSE Working papers WP BRP 106/EC/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    10. Tom Demeulemeester & Dries Goossens & Ben Hermans & Roel Leus, 2023. "Fair integer programming under dichotomous and cardinal preferences," Papers 2306.13383, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    11. Roy, Souvik & Sadhukhan, Soumyarup, 2023. "Committee formation under constraints through randomized voting rules on separable domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    12. Núñez, Matías & Pivato, Marcus, 2019. "Truth-revealing voting rules for large populations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 285-305.
    13. Lê Nguyên Hoang, 2017. "Strategy-proofness of the randomized Condorcet voting system," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 679-701, March.
    14. Aziz, Haris & Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Brill, Markus, 2018. "On the tradeoff between efficiency and strategyproofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 1-18.
    15. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer, 2021. "Characterizing the Top Cycle via Strategyproofness," Papers 2108.04622, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    16. Federico Echenique & Joseph Root & Fedor Sandomirskiy, 2022. "Efficiency in Random Resource Allocation and Social Choice," Papers 2203.06353, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    17. Florian Brandl & Felix Brandt & Christian Stricker, 2022. "An analytical and experimental comparison of maximal lottery schemes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 5-38, January.
    18. Morimoto, Shuhei, 2022. "Group strategy-proof probabilistic voting with single-peaked preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    19. Salvador Barberà, 2010. "Strategy-proof social choice," Working Papers 420, Barcelona School of Economics.
    20. Rafael Hortala-Vallve, 2010. "Inefficiencies on linking decisions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(3), pages 471-486, March.

    More about this item

    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:matsoc:v:73:y:2015:i:c:p:1-5. 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/505565 .

    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.