IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the spatial representation of preference profiles


  • Jon Eguia



Given a set of alternatives with multiple attributes, I characterize the set of preference profiles that are representable by weighted versions of a class of utility functions indexed by a parameter δ > 0, where δ ≥ 1 corresponds to the set of Minkowski’s ( 1886 ) metric functions. In light of the starkly different consequences between representability with δ ≤ 1 or with δ > 1, I propose a test to empirically estimate δ and I discuss the theoretical and empirical implications for spatial models of political competition. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Jon Eguia, 2013. "On the spatial representation of preference profiles," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(1), pages 103-128, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:52:y:2013:i:1:p:103-128 DOI: 10.1007/s00199-011-0669-8

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Norman Schofield, 2007. "Political equilibria with electoral uncertainty," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(3), pages 461-490, April.
    2. Ruge-Murcia, Francisco J, 2003. " Inflation Targeting under Asymmetric Preferences," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 35(5), pages 763-785, October.
    3. Tasos Kalandrakis, 2006. "Regularity of pure strategy equilibrium points in a class of bargaining games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 28(2), pages 309-329, June.
    4. McKelvey, Richard D & Schofield, Norman, 1987. "Generalized Symmetry Conditions at a Core Point," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 923-933, July.
    5. Kannai, Yakar, 1977. "Concavifiability and constructions of concave utility functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-56, March.
    6. Marcello D’Agostino & Valentino Dardanoni, 2009. "What’s so special about Euclidean distance?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(2), pages 211-233, August.
    7. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135-135.
    8. repec:cup:apsrev:v:91:y:1997:i:04:p:865-883_21 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Heller, Peter S, 1975. "A Model of Public Fiscal Behavior in Developing Countries: Aid, Investment, and Taxation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(3), pages 429-445, June.
    10. Knoblauch, Vicki, 2010. "Recognizing one-dimensional Euclidean preference profiles," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-5, January.
    11. Norman Schofield, 2007. "The Mean Voter Theorem: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Convergent Equilibrium," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(3), pages 965-980.
    12. Grynaviski, Jeffrey D. & Corrigan, Bryce E., 2006. "Specification Issues in Proximity Models of Candidate Evaluation (with Issue Importance)," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(04), pages 393-420, September.
    13. Simon Feeny, 2006. "Policy preferences in fiscal response studies," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 1167-1175.
    14. Banks, Jeffrey S. & Duggan, John, 2008. "A Dynamic Model of Democratic Elections in Multidimensional Policy Spaces," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 3(3), pages 269-299, October.
    15. Andrei Gomberg & Francisco Marhuenda & Ignacio Ortuño-Ortín, 2004. "A model of endogenous political party platforms," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 24(2), pages 373-394, August.
    16. Kramer, Gerald H., 1977. "A dynamical model of political equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 310-334, December.
    17. McKelvey, Richard D, 1979. "General Conditions for Global Intransitivities in Formal Voting Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1085-1112, September.
    18. Krasa, Stefan & Polborn, Mattias, 2010. "Competition between Specialized Candidates," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(04), pages 745-765, November.
    19. Özgür Evren, 2008. "On the existence of expected multi-utility representations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 35(3), pages 575-592, June.
    20. Alan S. Blinder, 1997. "Distinguished Lecture on Economics in Government: What Central Bankers Could Learn from Academics--And Vice Versa," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 3-19, Spring.
    21. McKelvey, Richard D., 1976. "Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 472-482, June.
    22. repec:cup:apsrev:v:98:y:2004:i:02:p:355-370_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Minqiang Li, 2014. "On Aumann and Serrano’s economic index of risk," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 55(2), pages 415-437, February.
    2. Chen, Daniel L. & Michaeli, Moti & Spiro, Daniel, 2016. "Ideological Perfectionism," IAST Working Papers 16-47, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).

    More about this item


    Utility representation; Spatial models; Multidimensional preferences; Spatial representation; D81; D72;

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior


    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:spr:joecth:v:52:y:2013:i:1:p:103-128. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). 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.