IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aut/wpaper/201601.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Essentiality and Convexity in the Ranking of Opportunity Sets

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Ryan

    (School of Economics, Auckland University of Technology, NZ)

Abstract

This paper studies the essential elements (Puppe, 1996) associated with binary relations over opportunity sets. We restrict attention to binary relations which are re?flexive and transitive (pre-orders) and which further satisfy a monotonicity and desirability condition. These are called opportunity relations (ORs). Our main results axiomatically characterise two important classes of ORs: those for which any opportunity set lies in the same indifference class as its set of essential elements the essential ORs; and those whose essential element operator is the extreme point operator for some abstract convex geometry (Edelman and Jamison, 1985) ?the convex ORs. Our characterisation of convex ORs generalises the analysis in Klemisch-Ahlert (1993), who restricts attention to a particular subclass of ACGs known as convex shellings. We present an example which suggests that this latter class is restrictive ?there are ACGs which are not convex shellings but which are associated with plausible ORs.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Ryan, 2016. "Essentiality and Convexity in the Ranking of Opportunity Sets," Working Papers 2016-01, Auckland University of Technology, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:aut:wpaper:201601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/107892/Economics-WP-2016-01-NEW-COVER-PAGE.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klaus Nehring & Clemens Puppe, 1998. "Extended partial orders:A unifying structure for abstract choice theory," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 80(0), pages 27-48, January.
    2. , & ,, 2012. "Reason-based choice: a bargaining rationale for the attraction and compromise effects," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 7(1), January.
    3. Clemens Puppe & Yongsheng Xu, 2010. "Essential alternatives and freedom rankings," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(4), pages 669-685, October.
    4. Puppe, Clemens, 1996. "An Axiomatic Approach to "Preference for Freedom of Choice"," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 174-199, January.
    5. Nikolai Kukushkin, 2004. "Path independence and Pareto dominance," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(3), pages 1-3.
    6. Prasanta K. PATTANAIK & Yongsheng XU, 1990. "On Ranking Opportunity Sets in Terms of Freedom of Choice," Discussion Papers (REL - Recherches Economiques de Louvain) 1990036, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    7. Plott, Charles R, 1973. "Path Independence, Rationality, and Social Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 1075-1091, November.
    8. Matthew Ryan, 2014. "Path independent choice and the ranking of opportunity sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 193-213, January.
    9. Koshevoy, Gleb A., 1999. "Choice functions and abstract convex geometries," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 35-44, July.
    10. Amartya K. Sen, 1971. "Choice Functions and Revealed Preference," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(3), pages 307-317.
    11. V. Danilov & G. Koshevoy & E. Savaglio, 2015. "Hyper-relations, choice functions, and orderings of opportunity sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 51-69, June.
    12. Gekker, Ruvin & van Hees, Martin, 2006. "Freedom, opportunity and uncertainty: A logical approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 246-263, September.
    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. Rommeswinkel, Hendrik, 2011. "Measuring Freedom in Games," MPRA Paper 106426, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 03 Mar 2021.
    2. Jimena Galindo & Levent Ülkü, 2020. "Diversity relations over menus," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(2), pages 229-242, 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. Matthew Ryan, 2016. "Essentiality and convexity in the ranking of opportunity sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(4), pages 853-877, December.
    2. Matthew Ryan, 2014. "Path independent choice and the ranking of opportunity sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 193-213, January.
    3. V. Danilov & G. Koshevoy & E. Savaglio, 2015. "Hyper-relations, choice functions, and orderings of opportunity sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 51-69, June.
    4. Domenico Cantone & Alfio Giarlotta & Stephen Watson, 2021. "Choice resolutions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 713-753, May.
    5. Jimena Galindo & Levent Ülkü, 2020. "Diversity relations over menus," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(2), pages 229-242, August.
    6. Martin Hees, 2010. "The specific value of freedom," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(4), pages 687-703, October.
    7. Danilov, V. & Koshevoy, G., 2005. "Mathematics of Plott choice functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 245-272, May.
    8. Banerjee A., 1996. "Choice between opportunity sets: A characterization of welfarist behaviour," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 56-56, February.
    9. Gekker, Ruvin & Piggins, Ashley, 2009. "Evaluating Opportunities When People are Uncertainty Averse," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 40(1), pages 109-116.
    10. Monjardet, Bernard & Raderanirina, Vololonirina, 2001. "The duality between the anti-exchange closure operators and the path independent choice operators on a finite set," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 131-150, March.
    11. Gleb Koshevoy & Ernesto Savaglio, 2017. "Enveloped choice functions and path-independent rationality," Department of Economics University of Siena 765, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    12. Alva, Samson, 2018. "WARP and combinatorial choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 320-333.
    13. Ricardo Arlegi, 1998. "Incomplete Preferences and The Preference for Flexibility," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 9819, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
    14. Samson Alva & Battal Dou{g}an, 2021. "Choice and Market Design," Papers 2110.15446, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2021.
    15. Ballester, Miguel A. & de Miguel, Juan R. & Nieto, Jorge, 2004. "Set comparisons in a general domain: the Indirect Utility Criterion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 139-150, September.
    16. Chambers, Christopher P. & Miller, Alan D. & Yenmez, M. Bumin, 2020. "Closure and preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 161-166.
    17. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    18. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont, 2009. "Non‐Deteriorating Choice," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 337-363, April.
    19. Mongin, P., 1998. "Does Optimization Imply Rationality?," Papers 9817, Paris X - Nanterre, U.F.R. de Sc. Ec. Gest. Maths Infor..
    20. Juan P. Aguilera & Levent Ülkü, 2017. "On the maximization of menu-dependent interval orders," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 357-366, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Opportunity set; freedom; essential alternative; essential element; abstract convex geometry.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    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:aut:wpaper:201601. 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: Gail Pacheco (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fbautnz.html .

    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.