IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v61y2023i4d10.1007_s00355-023-01478-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two impossibility results for social choice under individual indifference intransitivity

Author

Listed:
  • Gustav Alexandrie

    (University of Oxford)

Abstract

Due to the imperfect ability of individuals to discriminate between sufficiently similar alternatives, individual indifferences may fail to be transitive. I prove two impossibility theorems for social choice under indifference intransitivity, using axioms that are strictly weaker than Strong Pareto and that have been endorsed (sometimes jointly) in prior work on social choice under indifference intransitivity. The key axiom is Consistency, which states that if bundles are held constant for all but one individual, then society’s preferences must align with those of that individual. Theorem 1 combines Consistency with Indifference Agglomeration, which states that society must be indifferent to combined changes in the bundles of two individuals if it is indifferent to the same changes happening to each individual separately. Theorem 2 combines Consistency with Weak Majority Preference, which states that society must prefer whatever the majority prefers if no one has a preference to the contrary. Given that indifference intransitivity is a necessary condition for the just-noticeable difference (JND) approach to interpersonal utility comparisons, a key implication of the theorems is that any attempt use the JND approach to derive societal preferences must violate at least one of these three axioms.

Suggested Citation

  • Gustav Alexandrie, 2023. "Two impossibility results for social choice under individual indifference intransitivity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(4), pages 919-936, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:61:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s00355-023-01478-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-023-01478-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00355-023-01478-y
    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/s00355-023-01478-y?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. Blau, Julian H., 1979. "Semiorders and collective choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 195-206, August.
    2. Gilboa, Itzhak & Lapson, Robert, 1995. "Aggregation of Semiorders: Intransitive Indifference Makes a Difference," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 5(1), pages 109-126, January.
    3. Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, 2004. "Any Non-welfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle: Reply," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(1), pages 249-278, February.
    4. John A. Weymark, 2017. "Conundrums for nonconsequentialists," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 269-294, February.
    5. Marc Fleurbaey & Philippe Mongin, 2005. "The news of the death of welfare economics is greatly exaggerated," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 25(2), pages 381-418, December.
    6. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2015. "A Measure of Rationality and Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(6), pages 1278-1310.
    7. Yew-Kwang Ng, 1975. "Bentham or Bergson? Finite Sensibility, Utility Functions and Social Welfare Functions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 42(4), pages 545-569.
    8. W. E. Armstrong, 1951. "Utility And The Theory Of Welfare," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 259-271.
    9. Blair, Douglas H. & Pollak, Robert A., 1979. "Collective rationality and dictatorship: The scope of the arrow theorem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 186-194, August.
    10. Sen, Amartya K, 1979. "Personal Utilities and Public Judgements: Or What's Wrong with Welfare Economics?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 89(355), pages 537-558, September.
    11. Nishimura, Hiroki, 2018. "The transitive core: inference of welfare from nontransitive preference relations," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), May.
    12. Robert P. Parks, 1976. "An Impossibility Theorem for Fixed Preferences: A Dictatorial Bergson-Samuelson Welfare Function," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 43(3), pages 447-450.
    13. Sen, Amartya, 1970. "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(1), pages 152-157, Jan.-Feb..
    14. Marc Fleurbaey & Bertil Tungodden & Howard F. Chang, 2003. "Any Non-welfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle: A Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(6), pages 1382-1386, December.
    15. Gerhard Sichelstiel & Fritz Söllner, 1996. "Finite sensibility and utility functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(1), pages 25-41, January.
    16. Susumu Cato, 2015. "Weak Independence and Social Semi-Orders," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 66(3), pages 311-321, September.
    17. Dénnis Packard, 1975. "Social choice theory and citizens' intransitive weak preference—A paradox," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 107-111, June.
    18. Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, 2001. "Any Non-welfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(2), pages 281-286, April.
    19. Sadka, Efraim, 1976. "Bentham or Bergson? Finite Sensibility,...: Comment," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275315, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    20. Rossella Argenziano & Itzhak Gilboa, 2019. "Perception-theoretic Foundations of Weighted Utilitarianism," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(620), pages 1511-1528.
    21. Ng, Yew-Kwang, 1997. "A Case for Happiness, Cardinalism, and Interpersonal Comparability," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(445), pages 1848-1858, November.
    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. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Arrow’s decisive coalitions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 463-505, March.
    2. Kristof Bosmans & Z. Emel Öztürk, 2022. "Laissez-faire versus Pareto," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(4), pages 741-751, May.
    3. John A. Weymark, 2017. "Conundrums for nonconsequentialists," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 269-294, February.
    4. Nikolai Hoberg & Stefan Baumgärtner, 2014. "Value pluralism, trade-offs and efficiencies," Working Paper Series in Economics 311, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    5. Mariotti, Marco & Veneziani, Roberto, 2013. "On the impossibility of complete Non-Interference in Paretian social judgements," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1689-1699.
    6. Susumu Cato, 2014. "Common preference, non-consequential features, and collective decision making," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 265-287, December.
    7. Susumu Cato & Adrien Lutz, 2018. "Kenneth Arrow, moral obligations, and public policies," Working Papers halshs-01973898, HAL.
    8. John A Weymark, 2012. "Social Welfare Functions," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers vuecon-sub-13-00018, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    9. Susumu Cato, 2016. "Weak independence and the Pareto principle," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 295-314, August.
    10. Songtao Wang & Bin Li & Tristan Kenderdine, 2019. "Towards a Utilitarian Social Welfare Function¡ªIncome Inequality and National Welfare Growth in China," Research in World Economy, Research in World Economy, Sciedu Press, vol. 10(3), pages 344-358, December.
    11. Mariotti, Marco & Veneziani, Roberto, 2014. "The Liberal Ethics of Non-Interference and the Pareto Principle," SIRE Discussion Papers 2014-016, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    12. Bertil Tungodden, 2004. "Some Reflections on the Role of Moral Reasoning in Economics," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 30, pages 49-59.
    13. Susumu Cato, 2010. "Brief proofs of Arrovian impossibility theorems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(2), pages 267-284, July.
    14. Yew‐Kwang Ng, 1981. "Bentham or Nash? On the Acceptable Form of Social Welfare Functions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 57(3), pages 238-250, September.
    15. Itai Sher, 2020. "How perspective-based aggregation undermines the Pareto principle," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 19(2), pages 182-205, May.
    16. Kevin Roberts, 2005. "Social Choice Theory and the Informational Basis Approach," Economics Series Working Papers 247, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    17. Mariotti, Marco & Veneziani, Roberto, 2014. "The Liberal Ethics of Non-Interference and the Pareto Principle," SIRE Discussion Papers 2014-016, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    18. Éric Langlais, 2010. "Les criminels aiment-ils le risque ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 61(2), pages 263-280.
    19. Kristof Bosmans & Z. Emel Ozt ̈urk, 2015. "Laissez-faire versus Pareto," Working Papers 2015_21, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    20. Haiou Zhou, 2012. "A New Framework of Happiness Survey and Evaluation of National Wellbeing," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 491-507, 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:61:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s00355-023-01478-y. 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.