IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joptap/v160y2014i2d10.1007_s10957-013-0376-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Ordered Weighted Averaging Social Optima

Author

Listed:
  • Giuseppe De Marco

    (University of Naples Parthenope
    University of Naples Federico II)

  • Jacqueline Morgan

    (University of Naples Federico II
    University of Naples Federico II)

Abstract

In this paper, we look at the classical problem of aggregating individual utilities and study social orderings which are based on the concept of Ordered Weighted Averaging Aggregation Operator. In these social orderings, called Ordered Weighted Averaging Social Welfare Functions, weights are assigned a priori to the positions in the social ranking and, for every possible alternative, the total welfare is calculated as a weighted sum in which the weight corresponding to the kth position multiplies the utility in the kth position. In the α-Ordered Weighted Averaging Social Welfare Function, the utility in the kth position is the kth smallest value assumed by the utility functions, whereas in the β-Ordered Weighted Averaging Social Welfare Function it is the utility of the kth poorest individual. We emphasize the differences between the two concepts, analyze the continuity issue, and provide results on the existence of maximum points.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe De Marco & Jacqueline Morgan, 2014. "On Ordered Weighted Averaging Social Optima," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 623-635, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joptap:v:160:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s10957-013-0376-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10957-013-0376-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10957-013-0376-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10957-013-0376-7?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rawls, John, 1974. "Some Reasons for the Maximin Criterion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(2), pages 141-146, May.
    2. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    3. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    4. Jose M. Merigo Lindahl & Montserrat Casanovas Ramon, 2007. "Induced aggregation operators in decision making with the Dempster-Shafer belief structure," Working Papers in Economics 184, Universitat de Barcelona. Espai de Recerca en Economia.
    5. John C. Harsanyi, 1955. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63, pages 309-309.
    6. Chiclana, F. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F. & Alonso, S., 2007. "Some induced ordered weighted averaging operators and their use for solving group decision-making problems based on fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(1), pages 383-399, October.
    7. Grabisch, Michel, 1996. "The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 445-456, 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. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    2. Crès, Hervé & Tvede, Mich, 2022. "Aggregation of opinions in networks of individuals and collectives," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    3. Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2013. "Decisions with conflicting and imprecise information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(2), pages 427-452, July.
    4. Assa, Hirbod & Zimper, Alexander, 2018. "Preferences over all random variables: Incompatibility of convexity and continuity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 71-83.
    5. He, Junnan & Tang, Qihe & Zhang, Huan, 2016. "Risk reducers in convex order," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 80-88.
    6. Dorian Jullien, 2018. "Under Risk, Over Time, Regarding Other People: Language and Rationality within Three Dimensions," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Including a Symposium on Latin American Monetary Thought: Two Centuries in Search of Originality, volume 36, pages 119-155, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    7. Xiangyu Qu, 2017. "Separate aggregation of beliefs and values under ambiguity," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(2), pages 503-519, February.
    8. Ju, Biung-Ghi & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2018. "Entitlement Theory Of Justice And End-State Fairness In The Allocation Of Goods," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 317-341, November.
    9. Eric Danan & Thibault Gajdos & Brian Hill & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2016. "Robust Social Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2407-2425, September.
    10. Chambers, Christopher P. & Hayashi, Takashi, 2006. "Preference aggregation under uncertainty: Savage vs. Pareto," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 430-440, February.
    11. Jean Baccelli & Philippe Mongin, 2016. "Choice-based cardinal utility: a tribute to Patrick Suppes," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 268-288, July.
    12. Barnett, William A. & Han, Qing & Zhang, Jianbo, 2021. "Monetary services aggregation under uncertainty: A behavioral economics extension using Choquet expectation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 437-447.
    13. Grant, Simon & Karni, Edi, 2004. "A theory of quantifiable beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 515-546, August.
    14. Christophe Labreuche, 2018. "An axiomatization of the Choquet integral in the context of multiple criteria decision making without any commensurability assumption," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 701-735, December.
    15. Stark, Oded & Jakubek, Marcin & Falniowski, Fryderyk, 2014. "Reconciling the Rawlsian and the utilitarian approaches to the maximization of social welfare," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 439-444.
    16. Belianin, A., 2017. "Face to Face to Human Being: Achievements and Challenges of Behavioral Economics," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 166-175.
    17. André, Eric, 2014. "Optimal portfolio with vector expected utility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 50-62.
    18. Antoine Bommier & Stéphane Zuber, 2012. "The Pareto Principle Of Optimal Inequality," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(2), pages 593-608, May.
    19. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00443075 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Alexis Anagnostopoulos & Eva Carceles‐Poveda & Yair Tauman, 2021. "Value Preserving Welfare Weights For Social Optimization Problems," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(4), pages 1627-1653, November.
    21. Zuber, Stéphane, 2016. "Harsanyi’s theorem without the sure-thing principle: On the consistent aggregation of Monotonic Bernoullian and Archimedean preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 78-83.

    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:spr:joptap:v:160:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s10957-013-0376-7. 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.