Individually-Rational Collective Choice under Random Preferences
In this paper I consider the following problem: there is a collection of exogenously given socially feasible sets, and for each one of them, each one of a group of individuals chooses from an individually feasible set. The fact that the product of the individually feasible sets is larger than the socially feasible set notwithstanding, there arises no conflict between individuals. Assuming that individual preferences are random, I here characterize collective choices in terms of the way in which individual preferences must co-vary in order to explain them. I do this by combining standard revealed preference theory and its counterpart under random preferences. I also argue that there exist collective choices that cannot be rationalized, and hence that the individual rationality assumption can be refuted.
|Date of creation:||Nov 2004|
|Date of revision:||Nov 2004|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: +44 1784-414228
Fax: +44 1784-439534
Web page: http://www.rhul.ac.uk/economics/
|Order Information:|| Postal: Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK.|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Matzkin, Rosa L. & Richter, Marcel K., 1991.
"Testing strictly concave rationality,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 287-303, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hol:holodi:0429. 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: (Claire Blackman)The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Claire Blackman to update the entry or send us the correct address
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.