IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategyproof and efficient preference aggregation with Kemeny-based criteria


  • Athanasoglou, Stergios


Suppose a group of agents submit strict linear orderings over a set of alternatives. An aggregation rule is a function mapping this information into a unique social ordering. In a recent paper, Bossert and Sprumont (2014) introduced betweenness-based notions of efficiency and strategyproofness for aggregation rules and identified three broad classes of rules which satisfy them. The current paper suggests that such betweenness-based requirements may at times be too weak and introduces stronger concepts based on Kemeny distances, namely K-efficiency and K-strategyproofness. When there are three alternatives, all Condorcet–Kemeny rules are both K-efficient and K-strategyproof for a large subdomain of profiles. Moreover, all status-quo rules are K-strategyproof, though not K-efficient. When the number of alternatives exceeds three none of the rules discussed by Bossert and Sprumont satisfies K-strategyproofness, while just Condorcet–Kemenyrules satisfy K-efficiency. The existence of a nondictatorial and onto K-strategyproof rule is an open question.

Suggested Citation

  • Athanasoglou, Stergios, 2016. "Strategyproof and efficient preference aggregation with Kemeny-based criteria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 156-167.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:95:y:2016:i:c:p:156-167
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2015.12.002

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Demange, Gabrielle, 1982. "Single-peaked orders on a tree," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 389-396, December.
    2. H. Moulin, 1980. "On strategy-proofness and single peakedness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 437-455, January.
    3. Katherine Baldiga & Jerry Green, 2013. "Assent-maximizing social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 439-460, February.
    4. Grandmont, Jean-Michel, 1978. "Intermediate Preferences and the Majority Rule," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 317-330, March.
    5. Barbera Salvador & Gul Faruk & Stacchetti Ennio, 1993. "Generalized Median Voter Schemes and Committees," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 262-289, December.
    6. Schummer, James & Vohra, Rakesh V., 2002. "Strategy-proof Location on a Network," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 405-428, June.
    7. Bossert, Walter & Sprumont, Yves, 2014. "Strategy-proof preference aggregation: Possibilities and characterizations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 109-126.
    8. Shin Sato, 2015. "Bounded response and the equivalence of nonmanipulability and independence of irrelevant alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(1), pages 133-149, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Can, Burak & Csóka, Péter & Ergin, Emre, 2017. "How to choose a delegation for a peace conference?," Research Memorandum 008, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    2. Stergios, Athanasoglou, 2017. "An investigation of weak-veto rules in preference aggregation," Working Papers 363, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised 18 Feb 2017.
    3. Burak Can & Peter Csoka & Emre Ergin, 2017. "How to choose a non-manipulable delegation?," IEHAS Discussion Papers 1713, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

    More about this item


    Aggregation rule; Strategyproofness; Efficiency; Kemeny distance;

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General


    Access and download statistics


    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:eee:gamebe:v:95:y:2016:i:c:p:156-167. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.