IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_6613.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Revealed Relative Utilitarianism

Author

Listed:
  • Tilman Börgers
  • Yan-Min Choo

Abstract

We consider the aggregation of individual agents’ von Neumann- Morgenstern preferences over lotteries into a social planner’s von Neumann-Morgenstern preference. We start from Harsanyi’s [18] axiomatization of utilitarianism, and ask under which conditions a social preference order that satisfies Harsanyi’s axiom uniquely reveals the planner’s marginal rates of substitution between the probabilities of any two agents’ most preferred alternatives, assuming that any increase/decrease in the probability of each agent’s most preferred alternative is accompanied by an equally sized decrease/increase in that agent’s least preferred alternative. We then introduce three axioms for these revealed marginal rates of substitution. The only welfare function that satisfies these three axioms is the relative utilitarian welfare function. This welfare function, that was introduced in Dhillon [9] and Dhillon and Mertens [11], normalizes all agents’ utility functions so that the lowest value is 0 and the highest value is 1, and then adds up the utility functions. Our three axioms are closely related to axioms that Dhillon and Mertens used to axiomatize relative utilitarianism. We simplify the axioms, provide a much simpler and more transparent derivation of the main result, and re-interpret the axioms as revealed preference axioms.

Suggested Citation

  • Tilman Börgers & Yan-Min Choo, 2017. "Revealed Relative Utilitarianism," CESifo Working Paper Series 6613, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_6613
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp6613.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Marcus Fleming, 1957. "Cardinal Welfare and Individualistic Ethics: A Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(4), pages 355-355.
    2. Kalai, Ehud & Schmeidler, David, 1977. "Aggregation Procedure for Cardinal Preferences: A Formulation and Proof of Samuelson's Impossibility Conjecture," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(6), pages 1431-1438, September.
    3. Edi Karni, 1998. "Impartiality: Definition and Representation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(6), pages 1405-1416, November.
    4. Marcus Fleming, 1952. "A Cardinal Concept of Welfare," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 66(3), pages 366-384.
    5. Claude D'Aspremont & Louis Gevers, 1977. "Equity and the Informational Basis of Collective Choice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 44(2), pages 199-209.
    6. John C. Harsanyi, 1953. "Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-taking," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(5), pages 434-434.
    7. Dhillon, Amrita & Mertens, Jean-Francois, 1997. "An impossibility theorem with von Neumann-Morgenstern preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 305-309, November.
    8. Graciela Chichilnisky, 1985. "Von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities and Cardinal Preferences," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 633-641, November.
    9. John C. Harsanyi, 1955. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63(4), pages 309-309.
    10. Peter C. Fishburn, 1969. "Preferences, Summation, and Social Welfare Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 179-186, November.
    11. Uzi Segal, 2000. "Let's Agree That All Dictatorships Are Equally Bad," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(3), pages 569-589, June.
    12. Tilman Börgers & Yan-Min Choo, 2017. "A counterexample to Dhillon (1998)," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 837-843, April.
    13. Eric Maskin, 1978. "A Theorem on Utilitarianism," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 45(1), pages 93-96.
    14. Amrita Dhillon, 1998. "Extended Pareto rules and relative utilitarianism," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(4), pages 521-542.
    15. Hylland, Aanund, 1980. "Aggregation Procedure for Cardinal Preferences: A Comment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(2), pages 539-542, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sprumont, Yves, 2018. "Belief-weighted Nash aggregation of Savage preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 222-245.
    2. Durand, François & Macé, Antonin & Núñez, Matías, 2024. "Voter coordination in elections: A case for approval voting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 1-34.
    3. Anna Bogomolnaia & Hervé Moulin & Fedor Sandomirskiy, 2022. "On the Fair Division of a Random Object," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1174-1194, February.
    4. Feng, Tangren & Ke, Shaowei & McMillan, Andrew, 2022. "Utilitarianism and social discounting with countably many generations," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    5. Al-Najjar, Nabil I. & Pomatto, Luciano, 2020. "Aggregate risk and the Pareto principle," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    6. Brandl, Florian, 2021. "Belief-averaging and relative utilitarianism," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).

    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. Marcus Pivato, 2009. "Twofold optimality of the relative utilitarian bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(1), pages 79-92, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Pivato, Marcus, 2007. "A non-monetary form of Clarke pivotal voting," MPRA Paper 3964, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    5. Segal, Uzi & Sobel, Joel, 2002. "Min, Max, and Sum," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 126-150, September.
    6. Sprumont, Yves, 2018. "Belief-weighted Nash aggregation of Savage preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 222-245.
    7. Yves Sprumont, 2013. "On relative egalitarianism," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 1015-1032, April.
    8. d'Aspremont, Claude & Gevers, Louis, 2002. "Social welfare functionals and interpersonal comparability," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 10, pages 459-541, Elsevier.
    9. Pivato, Marcus, 2006. "Approximate implementation of Relative Utilitarianism via Groves-Clarke pivotal voting with virtual money," MPRA Paper 627, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Thibault Gajdos & Feriel Kandil, 2008. "The ignorant observer," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 193-232, August.
    11. Florian Brandl, 2020. "Belief-Averaged Relative Utilitarianism," Papers 2005.03693, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    12. Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Zuber, 2021. "Fair Utilitarianism," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 370-401, May.
    13. Tilman Börgers & Yan-Min Choo, 2017. "A counterexample to Dhillon (1998)," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 837-843, April.
    14. Hamed Hamze Bajgiran & Houman Owhadi, 2021. "Aggregation of Models, Choices, Beliefs, and Preferences," Papers 2111.11630, arXiv.org.
    15. Yves Sprumont, 2020. "Nash welfarism and the distributive implications of informational constraints," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 8(1), pages 49-64, April.
    16. Brandl, Florian, 2021. "Belief-averaging and relative utilitarianism," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    17. Kotaro Suzumura, 2002. "Introduction to social choice and welfare," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 442, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    18. Baucells, Manel & Shapley, Lloyd S., 2008. "Multiperson utility," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 329-347, March.
    19. David Heyd & Uzi Segal, 2006. "Democratically Elected Aristocracies," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(1), pages 103-127, August.
    20. SPRUMONT, Yves, 2017. "Relative Nash welfarism," Cahiers de recherche 2017-03, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ces:ceswps:_6613. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.