IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consensus reaching in committees


  • Agnieszka Rusinowska

    () (GATE - Groupe d'analyse et de théorie économique - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - Ecole Normale Supérieure Lettres et Sciences Humaines - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Patrik Eklund

    (Department of Computing Science - Umeå University)

  • Harrie De Swart

    (Faculteit Wijsbegeerte-Logica en taalanalyse - Universiteit van Tilburg)


In this paper, we apply a consensus model to decision-making in committees that have to choose one or more alternatives from a set of alternatives. The model does not use a voting rule nor a set of winning coalitions. Every decision maker evaluates each alternative with respect to given criteria. The criteria may be of unequal importance to a decision maker. Decision makers may be advised by a chairman to adjust their preferences, i.e., to change their evaluation of some alternative(s) or/and the importance of the criteria, in order to obtain a better consensus. The consensus result should satisfy constraints concerning the consensus degree and the ma jority degree. A simple example is presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Agnieszka Rusinowska & Patrik Eklund & Harrie De Swart, 2007. "Consensus reaching in committees," Post-Print halshs-00159838, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00159838
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server:

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Steven Brams & Michael Jones & D. Kilgour, 2005. "Forming stable coalitions: The process matters," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 125(1), pages 67-94, July.
    2. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    3. Nurmi, Hannu, 2005. "Aggregation problems in policy evaluation: an overview," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 287-300, June.
    4. Brams, Steven J. & Fishburn, Peter C., 2002. "Voting procedures," 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 4, pages 173-236 Elsevier.
    5. Roubens, Marc & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2006. "Using MACBETH to determine utilities of governments to parties in coalition formation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 588-603, July.
    6. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2008. "Noncooperative foundations of bargaining power in committees and the Shapley-Shubik index," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 341-353, May.
    7. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour & M. Sanver, 2007. "A minimax procedure for electing committees," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 401-420, September.
    8. Carlsson, Christer & Ehrenberg, Dieter & Eklund, Patrik & Fedrizzi, Mario & Gustafsson, Patrik & Lindholm, Paul & Merkuryeva, Galina & Riissanen, Tony & G.S. Ventre, Aldo, 1992. "Consensus in distributed soft environments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(1-2), pages 165-185, August.
    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. Fernandez, Eduardo & Olmedo, Rafael, 2013. "An outranking-based general approach to solving group multi-objective optimization problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(3), pages 497-506.
    2. Gong, Zaiwu & Xu, Xiaoxia & Zhang, Huanhuan & Aytun Ozturk, U. & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique & Xu, Chao, 2015. "The consensus models with interval preference opinions and their economic interpretation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 81-90.
    3. Gong, Zaiwu & Zhang, Huanhuan & Forrest, Jeffrey & Li, Lianshui & Xu, Xiaoxia, 2015. "Two consensus models based on the minimum cost and maximum return regarding either all individuals or one individual," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 183-192.
    4. González-Arteaga, T. & Alcantud, J.C.R. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2016. "A cardinal dissensus measure based on the Mahalanobis distance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 575-585.

    More about this item


    constraints satisfaction; consensus; committees;


    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:hal:journl:halshs-00159838. 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: (CCSD). 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.