IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v86y2019icp28-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reaching social consensus family budgets: The Spanish case

Author

Listed:
  • Cascón, J.M.
  • González-Arteaga, T.
  • de Andrés Calle, R.

Abstract

The study of family budgets has been traditionally used to analyse consumers’ behaviour and estimate cost-of-living since the end of 19th century. Generally speaking, the computation of the budgets has been based on two different methodologies, the prescriptive and the descriptive method. Both present several drawbacks like the comparison among different areas, family types and over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Cascón, J.M. & González-Arteaga, T. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2019. "Reaching social consensus family budgets: The Spanish case," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 28-41.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:86:y:2019:i:c:p:28-41
    DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2018.06.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048318300069
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.omega.2018.06.015?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico, 2015. "Checking the consistency of the solution in ordinal semi-democratic decision-making problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 57(PB), pages 188-195.
    2. Tommi Meskanen & Hannu Nurmi, 2006. "Distance from Consensus: A Theme and Variations," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Bruno Simeone & Friedrich Pukelsheim (ed.), Mathematics and Democracy, pages 117-132, Springer.
    3. Duan Li & Xiaoling Sun, 2006. "Nonlinear Integer Programming," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-32995-6, September.
    4. Ralph W. Bailey, 1998. "The number of weak orderings of a finite set," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(4), pages 559-562.
    5. Christian Klamler, 2004. "The Dodgson ranking and its relation to Kemeny’s method and Slater’s rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 23(1), pages 91-102, August.
    6. Christian Klamler, 2008. "A distance measure for choice functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(3), pages 419-425, April.
    7. Duncan Black, 1976. "Partial justification of the Borda count," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Gong, Zaiwu & Xu, Xiaoxia & Zhang, Huanhuan & Aytun Ozturk, U. & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique & Xu, Chao, 2015. "The consensus models with interval preference opinions and their economic interpretation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 81-90.
    9. Teo, Thompson S.H. & Yu, Yuanyou, 2005. "Online buying behavior: a transaction cost economics perspective," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 451-465, October.
    10. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1982. "On the Borda-Kendall Consensus Method for Priority Ranking Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 621-637, June.
    11. Donald G. Saari & Vincent R. Merlin, 2000. "A geometric examination of Kemeny's rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 17(3), pages 403-438.
    12. González-Pachón, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2011. "The design of socially optimal decisions in a consensus scenario," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 179-185, April.
    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. J.C.R. Alcantud & R. de Andrés Calle & J.M. Cascón, 2013. "Consensus and the Act of Voting," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, June.
    2. Ignacio Contreras, 2010. "A Distance-Based Consensus Model with Flexible Choice of Rank-Position Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 441-456, September.
    3. Rodríguez Alcantud, José Carlos & de Andrés Calle, Rocío & González-Arteaga, Teresa, 2013. "Codifications of complete preorders that are compatible with Mahalanobis disconsensus measures," MPRA Paper 50533, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2008. "The Measurement of Consensus: An Axiomatic Analysis," Working Papers 2008-28, FEDEA.
    5. Lamboray, Claude, 2007. "A comparison between the prudent order and the ranking obtained with Borda's, Copeland's, Slater's and Kemeny's rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-16, July.
    6. González-Pachón, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2016. "Bentham, Marx and Rawls ethical principles: In search for a compromise," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 47-51.
    7. Hanna Bury & Dariusz Wagner, 2009. "Group judgement with ties. A position-based approach," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Technology, Institute of Organization and Management, vol. 4, pages 9-26.
    8. Hanna Bury & Dariusz Wagner, 2009. "Group judgment with ties. A position-based approach," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 19(4), pages 7-26.
    9. Hannu Nurmi, 2014. "Are we done with preference rankings? If we are, then what?," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 24(4), pages 63-74.
    10. Jos'e Luis Garc'ia-Lapresta & Miguel Mart'inez-Panero, 2023. "Two characterizations of the dense rank," Papers 2306.17546, arXiv.org.
    11. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2016. "Do we agree? Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 313-339, February.
    12. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2003:i:35:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Wu, Zhibin & Xu, Jiuping, 2016. "Managing consistency and consensus in group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 28-40.
    14. Yoko Kawada, 2018. "Cosine similarity and the Borda rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 1-11, June.
    15. Burak Can & Mohsen Pourpouneh & Ton Storcken, 2022. "An axiomatic re-characterization of the Kemeny rule," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 447-467, September.
    16. Burak Can & Mohsen Pourpouneh & Ton Storcken, 2021. "An axiomatic characterization of the Slater rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 835-853, May.
    17. Christian Klamler, 2003. "Kemeny's rule and Slater''s rule: A binary comparison," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(35), pages 1-7.
    18. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2013. "Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences: an axiomatic analysis," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(4), pages 965-988, October.
    19. Francisco Salas-Molina & Filippo Bistaffa & Juan A. Rodriguez-Aguilar, 2024. "A General Approach for Computing a Consensus in Group Decision Making That Integrates Multiple Ethical Principles," Papers 2401.07818, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    20. Donald Saari, 2006. "Which is better: the Condorcet or Borda winner?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(1), pages 107-129, January.
    21. Raúl Pérez-Fernández & Bernard De Baets, 2017. "Recursive Monotonicity of the Scorix: Borda Meets Condorcet," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 793-813, July.

    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:eee:jomega:v:86:y:2019:i:c:p:28-41. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.