IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-04d70002.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Proximity Preservation in an Anonymous Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Eckert

    (Institute of Public Economics, University of Graz)

Abstract

This paper gives a formulation for the condition of preservation of preference proximity which, unlike previous formulations, respects the spirit of anonymity pervading social choice theory. Proximity preservation is however shown to be inconsistent with a very weak condition guaranteeing a minimal non-trivial compensation of pivotal changes.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Eckert, 2004. "Proximity Preservation in an Anonymous Framework," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(6), pages 1-6.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-04d70002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2004/Volume4/EB-04D70002A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lauwers, Luc, 2000. "Topological social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-39, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1979. "On fixed point theorems and social choice paradoxes," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 347-351.
    4. Nick Baigent, 1987. "Preference Proximity and Anonymous Social Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(1), pages 161-169.
    5. Fritz Grafe & Julius Grafe, 2001. "Social Welfare Functions which preserve distances," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(1), pages 59-64.
    6. Nick Baigent & Daniel Eckert, 2004. "Abstract Aggregations and Proximity Preservation: An Impossibility Result," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 359-366, June.
    7. Wilson, Robert, 1972. "Social choice theory without the Pareto Principle," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 478-486, December.
    8. Baigent, Nick, 1985. "Anonymity and continuous social choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 1-4, February.
    9. Daniel Eckert & Benjamin Lane, 2002. "Anonymity, ordinal preference proximity and imposed social choices," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(3), pages 681-684.
    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. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2004:i:6:p:1-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Nick Baigent & Daniel Eckert, 2004. "Abstract Aggregations and Proximity Preservation: An Impossibility Result," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 359-366, June.
    3. Lauwers, Luc, 2000. "Topological social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-39, July.
    4. Yasuhito Tanaka, 2005. "A topological approach to the Arrow impossibility theorem when individual preferences are weak orders (forcoming in ``Applied Mathematics and Compuation''(Elsevier))," Public Economics 0506013, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 17 Jun 2005.
    5. Luc Lauwers, 2009. "The topological approach to the aggregation of preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(3), pages 449-476, September.
    6. Woo, Wai Chiu, 2018. "Kaplow–Shavell welfarism without continuity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 92-96.
    7. Tanaka, Yasuhito, 2007. "A topological approach to Wilson's impossibility theorem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 184-191, February.
    8. Wu-Hsiung Huang, 2014. "Singularity and Arrow’s paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(3), pages 671-706, March.
    9. Luc Lauwers, 2002. "A note on Chichilnisky's social choice paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 261-266, May.
    10. Yasuhito Tanaka, 2005. "A topological proof of Eliaz's unified theorem of social choice theory (forthcoming in "Applied Mathematics and Computation")," Public Economics 0510021, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 26 Oct 2005.
    11. Nikita Miku, 2022. "The connection between Arrow theorem and Sperner lemma," Papers 2212.12251, arXiv.org.
    12. I.D.A. Macintyre, 1998. "Two-Person and majority continuous aggregation in 2-good space in Social Choice: a note," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 199-209, April.
    13. Graciela Chichilnisky, 1996. "A robust theory of resource allocation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, January.
    14. Wu-Hsiung Huang, 2009. "Is a continuous rational social aggregation impossible on continuum spaces?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(4), pages 635-686, May.
    15. Stefano Vannucci, 2022. "Agenda manipulation-proofness, stalemates, and redundant elicitation in preference aggregation. Exposing the bright side of Arrow's theorem," Papers 2210.03200, arXiv.org.
    16. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1990. "Social choice and the closed convergence topology," MPRA Paper 8353, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 1996. "Continuous-valued social choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 195-211.
    18. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1983. "Social choice and game theory: recent results with a topological approach," MPRA Paper 8059, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Crespo, Juan A. & Sanchez-Gabites, J.J, 2016. "Solving the Social Choice problem under equality constraints," MPRA Paper 72757, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Tanaka, Yasuhito, 2009. "On the equivalence of the Arrow impossibility theorem and the Brouwer fixed point theorem when individual preferences are weak orders," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3-4), pages 241-249, March.
    21. Yasuhito Tanaka, 2005. "On the equivalence of the Arrow impossibility theorem and the Brouwer fixed point theorem (forthcoming in ``Applied Mathematics and Computation''(Elsevier))," Public Economics 0506012, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 17 Jun 2005.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making
    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-04d70002. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.