IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/pal/intecp/978-1-349-25214-5_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Game Forms versus Social Choice Rules as Models of Rights

In: Social Choice Re-Examined

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Hammond

    (Stanford University)

Abstract

When Amartya Sen (1970a) first introduced the idea of rights into formal social choice theory, he did so through the fairly standard apparatus of a Social Choice Rule (or SCR) — see also Sen (1970b). By contrast, especially since the provocative work of Robert Sugden (1978, 1981, 1985, 1986), Peter Gärdenfors (1981) and others on this issue, more recent writers have often preferred to consider game forms. Some of the relationships between these approaches, as well as their advantages and disadvantages, have also been discussed recently by Riley (1989, 1990), Gaertner, Pattanaik, and Suzumura (1992), Pattanaik and Suzumura (1996), Sen (1992), and Hammond (1995).

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Hammond, 1996. "Game Forms versus Social Choice Rules as Models of Rights," International Economic Association Series, in: Kenneth J. Arrow & Amartya Sen & Kotaro Suzumura (ed.), Social Choice Re-Examined, chapter 11, pages 82-95, Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:intecp:978-1-349-25214-5_7
    DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-25214-5_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ngo Long & Vincent Martinet, 2018. "Combining rights and welfarism: a new approach to intertemporal evaluation of social alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 35-64, January.
    2. Martin van Hees, 2000. "Negative Freedom And The Liberal Paradoxes," Rationality and Society, , vol. 12(3), pages 335-352, August.

    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:pal:intecp:978-1-349-25214-5_7. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.palgrave.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.