IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v95y2023i2d10.1007_s11238-022-09923-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social evaluation functionals with an arbitrary set of alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • Juan C. Candeal

    (Universidad de Zaragoza)

Abstract

This paper explores the concept of a social evaluation functional in the case of an arbitrary set of alternatives. In the first part, a characterization of projective social evaluations functionals is shown whenever the common restricted domain is the set of all bounded utility functions equipped with the supremum norm topology. The result makes a crucial use, among others, of a continuity axiom. In the second part, a comparison meaningful property is introduced for a social evaluation functional which allows us for obtaining a more general result with no continuity requirements. Finally, an impossibility theorem, which is reminiscent of that is obtained by Chichilnisky in (Q J Econ 97:337–352, 1982) but without using topological conditions, is offered.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan C. Candeal, 2023. "Social evaluation functionals with an arbitrary set of alternatives," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(2), pages 255-271, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:95:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s11238-022-09923-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-022-09923-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-022-09923-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-022-09923-7?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. Kevin W. S. Roberts, 1980. "Interpersonal Comparability and Social Choice Theory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(2), pages 421-439.
    2. Marc Fleurbaey & Peter Hammond, 2004. "Interpersonally comparable utility," Post-Print hal-00247066, HAL.
    3. Graciela Chichilnisky, 1982. "Social Aggregation Rules and Continuity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 97(2), pages 337-352.
    4. John Weymark, 2014. "An introduction to Allan Gibbard’s oligarchy theorem paper," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(1), pages 1-2, March.
    5. Juan Candeal, 2015. "Social evaluation functionals: a gateway to continuity in social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(2), pages 369-388, February.
    6. Kevin W. S. Roberts, 1980. "Possibility Theorems with Interpersonally Comparable Welfare Levels," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(2), pages 409-420.
    7. John A. Weymark & Anna B. Khmelnitskaya, 2000. "Social choice with independent subgroup utility scales," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 17(4), pages 739-748.
    8. Roberts, Kevin, 1983. "Social choice rules and real-valued representations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 72-94, February.
    9. Allan Gibbard, 2014. "Intransitive social indifference and the Arrow dilemma," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(1), pages 3-10, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sakamoto, Norihito, 2020. "Equity Principles and Interpersonal Comparison of Well-being: Old and New Joint Characterizations of Generalized Leximin, Rank-dependent Utilitarian, and Leximin Rules," RCNE Discussion Paper Series 7, Research Center for Normative Economics, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    2. Hirofumi Yamamura, 2017. "Interpersonal comparison necessary for Arrovian aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 37-64, June.
    3. Vincenzo Atella & Jay Coggins & Federico Perali, 2005. "Aversion to inequality in Italy and its determinants," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 2(2), pages 117-144, January.
    4. Blackorby, Charles & Bossert, Walter, 2004. "Interpersonal comparisons of well-being," Economic Research Papers 269605, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    5. John A Weymark, 2012. "Social Welfare Functions," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers vuecon-sub-13-00018, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    6. Piggins, Ashley, 2017. "Sen’s proofs of the Arrow and Gibbard theorems," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 99-101.
    7. Christopher P. Chambers, 2009. "An Axiomatization Of Quantiles On The Domain Of Distribution Functions," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 335-342, April.
    8. Mongin, Philippe, 2019. "Interview of Peter J. Hammond," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 50, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    9. Peter J. Hammond, 2023. "Roberts’ weak welfarism theorem: a minor correction," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 60(1), pages 121-134, January.
    10. Yukinori Iwata, 2014. "On the informational basis of social choice with the evaluation of opportunity sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(1), pages 153-172, June.
    11. M. Kaneko, 1984. "On interpersonal utility comparisons," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 1(3), pages 165-175, October.
    12. Coggins, Jay S. & Perali, C. Federico, 1993. "Voting for Equity: Estimating Society's Preferences Toward Inequality," Staff Papers 200567, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    13. Yew‐Kwang Ng, 1981. "Bentham or Nash? On the Acceptable Form of Social Welfare Functions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 57(3), pages 238-250, September.
    14. Christopher Chambers, 2009. "Intergenerational equity: sup, inf, lim sup, and lim inf," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(2), pages 243-252, February.
    15. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    16. Pivato, Marcus, 2013. "Social welfare with incomplete ordinal interpersonal comparisons," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 405-417.
    17. 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.
    18. Kevin Roberts, 2005. "Social Choice Theory and the Informational Basis Approach," Economics Series Working Papers 247, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    19. Michael Mandler, 2001. "Compromises Between Cardinality and Ordinality in Preference Theory and Social Choice," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1322, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    20. Blackorby, Charles & Bossert, Walter & Donaldson, David, 1997. "Birth-Date Dependent Population Ethics: Critical-Level Principles," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 260-284, December.

    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:kap:theord:v:95:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s11238-022-09923-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.