Metric rationalization of social welfare functions
Metric rationalization of social decision rules has been intensively investigated when the social outcome is a nonempty subset of alternatives. The present paper proposes a similar framework for social welfare functions (SWFs)—that is when each social outcome is a ranking of alternatives. A metric rationalizable SWF reports as an approximation of the unanimity consensus the relative ranking of any pair of alternatives as in the closest profile where individuals all agree on those alternatives, the closeness being measured with respect to a metric on profiles. Two notions of unanimity are in consideration: top unanimity on an alternative holds when individuals all agree that it is top ranked while pairwise unanimity on a pair occurs when individuals all prefer an alternative to another. Without strong requirements on metrics, characterizations provided in both cases show that metric rationalizations of SWFs are essentially equivalent to the Pareto principle for SWFs. Furthermore, two interesting classes of metric rationalizable SWFs–multi-valued scoring SWFs and pairwise scoring SWFs–are each uniquely identified by means of some appropriate and appealing properties on metrics among which decomposability, neutrality and monotonicity are known.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 72 (2014)
Issue (Month): C ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505565|
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Marcus Pivato, 2013.
"Voting rules as statistical estimators,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 581-630, February.
- Pivato, Marcus, 2011. "Voting rules as statistical estimators," MPRA Paper 30292, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Lerer, Ehud & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1985. "Some general results on the metric rationalization for social decision rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 191-201, October.
- Farkas, Daniel & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1979. "The Borda Rule and Pareto Stability: A Comment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1305-1306, September.
- Baigent, Nick, 1987. "Metric rationalisation of social choice functions according to principles of social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 59-65, February. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:72:y:2014:i:c:p:14-23. 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)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.