This paper examines SenÕs [21] suggestion that preference information be used to supplement the criterion of freedom of choice for ranking of the opportunity sets. This paper establishes, with some generality, that, in order for this supplementation to procedure a transitive ranking of the opportunity sets, it is necessary and sufficient to assume that the domain ranked is such that the individual preference ordering includes the criterion of freedom of choice as a subrelation. However, it is also shown that the quasi-transitivity of such a ranking can be obtained without further assumption. Hence, it seems difficult to construct a ranking of opportunity sets that attaches value to their freedom of choice while giving some weight to individual preferences. If freedom of choice is to have any value in the ranking, then in order for the ranking to be transitive, this value will have to be instrumental rather than intrinsic (using SenÕs [19] terminology).
Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
BARBERA, Salvador & BOSSERT, Walter & PATTANAIK, Prasanta K., 2001.
"Ranking Sets of Objects,"
Cahiers de recherche
2001-02, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
[Downloadable!]
Other versions:
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.