IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v51y2018i4d10.1007_s00355-018-1134-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On some oligarchy results when social preference is fuzzy

Author

Listed:
  • Conal Duddy

    (National University of Ireland Galway)

  • Ashley Piggins

    (National University of Ireland Galway)

Abstract

We consider a model in which individual preferences are orderings of social states, but the social preference relation is fuzzy. We motivate interest in the model by presenting a version of the strong Pareto rule that is suited to the setting of a fuzzy social preference. We prove a general oligarchy theorem under the assumption that this fuzzy relation is quasi-transitive. The framework allows us to make a distinction between a “strong” and a “weak” oligarchy, and our theorem identifies when the oligarchy must be strong and when it can be weak. Weak oligarchy need not be undesirable.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:51:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s00355-018-1134-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-018-1134-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00355-018-1134-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00355-018-1134-4?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. Garcia-Lapresta, Jose Luis & Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2001. "Majority decisions based on difference of votes," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 463-481, June.
    2. John Weymark, 1984. "Arrow's theorem with social quasi-orderings," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 235-246, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Bonifacio Llamazares, 2005. "Factorization of fuzzy preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24(3), pages 475-496, June.
    5. Bossert, Walter & Suzumura, Kotaro, 2008. "A characterization of consistent collective choice rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 311-320, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Donald J. Brown, 1975. "Aggregation of Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 456-469.
    8. John Weymark, 2014. "An introduction to Allan Gibbard’s oligarchy theorem paper," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(1), pages 1-2, March.
    9. Juan Perote-Peña & Ashley Piggins, 2002. "Geometry and impossibility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(4), pages 831-836.
    10. B. Baets & H. Meyer & B. Schuymer, 2006. "Cyclic Evaluation of Transitivity of Reciprocal Relations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(2), pages 217-238, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Asley Piggins & Maurice Salles, 2007. "Instances of Indeterminacy," Post-Print halshs-00337772, HAL.
    13. JosÊ Luis GarcÎa-Lapresta & Bonifacio Llamazares, 2000. "Aggregation of fuzzy preferences: Some rules of the mean," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 17(4), pages 673-690.
    14. Basu, Kaushik, 1984. "Fuzzy revealed preference theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 212-227, April.
    15. Bossert, Walter & Suzumura, Kotaro, 2010. "Consistency, Choice, and Rationality," Economics Books, Harvard University Press, number 9780674052994, Spring.
    16. Dutta, Bhaskan, 1987. "Fuzzy preferences and social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 215-229, June.
    17. Perote-Pena, Juan & Piggins, Ashley, 2007. "Strategy-proof fuzzy aggregation rules," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 564-580, June.
    18. Amartya Sen, 1969. "Quasi-Transitivity, Rational Choice and Collective Decisions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 381-393.
    19. Blair, Douglas H & Pollak, Robert A, 1982. "Acyclic Collective Choice Rules," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 931-943, July.
    20. Leclerc, B., 1984. "Efficient and binary consensus functions on transitively valued relations," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 45-61, August.
    21. Plott, Charles R, 1973. "Path Independence, Rationality, and Social Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 1075-1091, November.
    22. Dutta, Bhaskar & Panda, Santosh C. & Pattanaik, Prasanta K., 1986. "Exact choice and fuzzy preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 53-68, February.
    23. Duddy, Conal & Piggins, Ashley, 2013. "Many-valued judgment aggregation: Characterizing the possibility/impossibility boundary," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(2), pages 793-805.
    24. Conal Duddy & Juan Perote-Peña & Ashley Piggins, 2010. "Manipulating an aggregation rule under ordinally fuzzy preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(3), pages 411-428, March.
    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. Piggins, Ashley & Duddy, Conal, 2016. "Oligarchy and soft incompleteness," MPRA Paper 72392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. 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.
    3. Perote-Pena, Juan & Piggins, Ashley, 2007. "Strategy-proof fuzzy aggregation rules," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 564-580, June.
    4. Susumu Cato, 2013. "Quasi-decisiveness, quasi-ultrafilter, and social quasi-orderings," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(1), pages 169-202, June.
    5. Richard Baron & Mostapha Diss & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2015. "A geometric examination of majorities based on difference in support," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 123-153, June.
    6. Bossert, Walter & Suzumura, Kotaro, 2012. "Product filters, acyclicity and Suzumura consistency," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 258-262.
    7. Llamazares, Bonifacio & Pérez-Asurmendi, Patrizia, 2013. "Triple-acyclicity in majorities based on difference in support," MPRA Paper 52218, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Bossert, Walter & Cato, Susumu, 2020. "Acyclicity, anonymity, and prefilters," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 134-141.
    9. José Luis Garcí a-Lapresta & Bonifacio Llamazares, 2010. "Preference Intensities and Majority Decisions Based on Difference of Support Between Alternatives," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 527-542, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Cato, Susumu, 2013. "Remarks on Suzumura consistent collective choice rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 40-47.
    12. Conal Duddy & Juan Perote-Peña & Ashley Piggins, 2010. "Manipulating an aggregation rule under ordinally fuzzy preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(3), pages 411-428, March.
    13. Susumu Cato, 2012. "Social choice without the Pareto principle: a comprehensive analysis," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(4), pages 869-889, October.
    14. Kotaro Suzumura, 2020. "Reflections on Arrow’s research program of social choice theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 219-235, March.
    15. Brian Hill, 2012. "Confidence in preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 273-302, July.
    16. Louis Fono & Maurice Salles, 2011. "Continuity of utility functions representing fuzzy preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(4), pages 669-682, October.
    17. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2012. "Quasi-transitive and Suzumura consistent relations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 323-334, July.
    18. Maurice Salles, 2014. "‘Social choice and welfare’ at 30: its role in the development of social choice theory and welfare economics," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 1-16, January.
    19. 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.
    20. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2016. "Probabilities of Consistent Election Outcomes with Majorities Based on Difference in Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 967-994, September.

    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:sochwe:v:51:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s00355-018-1134-4. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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