IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v10y2001i2d10.1023_a1008747918121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resolving Group Choice Paradoxes Using Probabilistic and Fuzzy Concepts

Author

Listed:
  • Hannu Nurmi

    (University of Turku)

Abstract

The standard assumption of modern social choice theory is that the individuals are endowed with complete and transitive preference relations over the decision alternatives. A large number of incompatibility results has been achieved regarding aggregation of these kinds of preferences. Yet, most voting procedures make no use of this information. Instead they essentially cut down the information provided by the voters. In this paper we deal with some alternatives to the complete and transitive voter preference assumption. Particular attention is paid to imprecise notions: probabilistic and fuzzy preference relations. Rather than establishing new impossibility results, our focus is in resolving various voting paradoxes using imprecise preference concepts.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannu Nurmi, 2001. "Resolving Group Choice Paradoxes Using Probabilistic and Fuzzy Concepts," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 177-199, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:10:y:2001:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1008747918121
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008747918121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1008747918121
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008747918121?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. Barbera, Salvador & Sonnenschein, Hugo, 1978. "Preference aggregation with randomized social orderings," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 244-254, August.
    2. Hannu Nurmi, 1998. "Rational Behaviour and the Design of Institutions," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1487.
    3. Amartya Sen, 1999. "The Possibility of Social Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 349-378, June.
    4. Michael D. Intriligator, 1973. "A Probabilistic Model of Social Choice," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 553-560.
    5. Adrian Van Deemen, 1999. "The probability of the paradox of voting for weak preference orderings," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(2), pages 171-182.
    6. Rajat Deb & Manabendra Dasgupta, 1996. "Transitivity and fuzzy preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(3), pages 305-318.
    7. Gregory Richardson, 1998. "The structure of fuzzy preferences: Social choice implications," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(3), pages 359-369.
    8. Hannu Nurmi & Tommi Meskanen, 2000. "Voting Paradoxes and MCDM," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 297-313, July.
    9. Dutta, Bhaskan, 1987. "Fuzzy preferences and social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 215-229, June.
    10. Kelly, Jerry S., 1978. "Arrow Impossibility Theorems," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 1, number 9780124033504 edited by Shell, Karl.
    11. Intriligator, Michael D., 1982. "Probabilistic models of choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 157-166, March.
    12. Lepelley, Dominique & Martin, Mathieu, 2001. "Condorcet's paradox for weak preference orderings," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 163-177, March.
    13. Hannu Nurmi, 1998. "Voting paradoxes and referenda," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(3), pages 333-350.
    14. Kunal Sengupta, 1999. "Choice rules with fuzzy preferences: Some characterizations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(2), pages 259-272.
    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. Armajac Raventós-Pujol & María J. Campión & Esteban Induráin, 2020. "Decomposition and Arrow-Like Aggregation of Fuzzy Preferences," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Draeseke, Robert & Giles, David E.A., 2002. "A fuzzy logic approach to modelling the New Zealand underground economy," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 115-123.
    3. Dinko Dimitrov, 2001. "Fuzzy Preferences, Liberalism and Non-discrimination," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 2, pages 63-76.
    4. Perote-Pena, Juan & Piggins, Ashley, 2007. "Strategy-proof fuzzy aggregation rules," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 564-580, June.
    5. M. Sanver & Özer Selçuk, 2009. "Sophisticated preference aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 73-86, June.
    6. Conal Duddy & Ashley Piggins, 2018. "On some oligarchy results when social preference is fuzzy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(4), pages 717-735, December.
    7. Yu, Tiffany Hui-Kuang & Wang, David Han-Min & Chen, Su-Jane, 2006. "A fuzzy logic approach to modeling the underground economy in Taiwan," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 362(2), pages 471-479.
    8. Nurmi, Hannu & Kacprzyk, Janusz & Fedrizzi, Mario, 1996. "Probabilistic, fuzzy and rough concepts in social choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 264-277, December.
    9. Piggins, Ashley & Duddy, Conal, 2016. "Oligarchy and soft incompleteness," MPRA Paper 72392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Regenwetter, Michel & Marley, A. A. J. & Grofman, Bernard, 2002. "A general concept of majority rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 405-428, July.
    11. Jérémy Picot, 2012. "Random aggregation without the Pareto principle," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 16(1), pages 1-13, March.
    12. Hervé Crès, 2001. "Aggregation of coarse preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(3), pages 507-525.
    13. Merlin, Vincent & Valognes, Fabrice, 2004. "The impact of indifferent voters on the likelihood of some voting paradoxes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 343-361, November.
    14. Conal Duddy & Juan Perote-Peña & Ashley Piggins, 2011. "Arrow’s theorem and max-star transitivity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 36(1), pages 25-34, January.
    15. Geslin, Stephanie & Salles, Maurice & Ziad, Abderrahmane, 2003. "Fuzzy aggregation in economic environments: I. Quantitative fuzziness, public goods and monotonicity assumptions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 155-166, April.
    16. Hannu Nurmi, 1993. "Problems in the Theory of Institutional Design," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 5(4), pages 523-540, October.
    17. Richard Barrett & Maurice Salles, 2006. "Social Choice With Fuzzy Preferences," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes 1 & University of Caen) 200615, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes 1, University of Caen and CNRS.
    18. S. Subramanian, 2010. "Liberty, equality, and impossibility: some general results in the space of 'soft' preferences," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 325-341.
    19. Sara Lelli, 2001. "Factor Analysis vs. Fuzzy Sets Theory: Assessing the Influence of Different Techniques on Sen's Functioning Approach," Public Economics Working Paper Series ces0121, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën, Working Group Public Economics.
    20. Adrian Deemen, 2014. "On the empirical relevance of Condorcet’s paradox," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 311-330, March.

    More about this item

    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:spr:grdene:v:10:y:2001:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1008747918121. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.