Author
Abstract
Optimization is the central organizing principle of economic analysis. Individual choice, social evaluation, and policy design are routinely formulated as the maximization of an objective function over a feasible set. This paper identifies a class of environments in which optimization itself ceases to be a coherent principle of evaluation. We study decision problems in which the domain of admissible actions includes losses that are irreversible, non-substitutable, and non-compensable. We show that, under minimal regularity conditions, no refinement of the objective function - such as state dependence, option values, or intertemporal trade-offs - can generally sustain coherent maximization on an unrestricted feasible set. In such environments, optimization necessarily leads to inconsistency: actions generating non-compensable losses may be selected as optimal whenever short-run gains dominate, regardless of how the evaluation criterion is specified. The main result is an impossibility theorem establishing that coherence failure is structural and does not stem from informational limitations, computational constraints, or ethical disagreement. We then provide a necessity result showing that coherence can be restored if and only if the feasible set is restricted so as to exclude actions that generate non-compensable losses. On the resulting restricted domain, standard optimization methods apply without contradiction. The analysis reframes irreversibility as a problem of feasibility design rather than objective-function design. It clarifies the limits of optimization-based evaluation and characterizes the minimal conditions under which optimization remains a valid principle of choice. This paper also serves as a foundational contribution to a broader research agenda on the structural limits of evaluation. By isolating the conditions under which optimization-based evaluation becomes incoherent, the analysis provides a unifying framework for understanding feasibility-based constraints across diverse economic domains. The analysis is intended to serve as a conceptual reference point for further work on feasibility, irreversibility, and evaluation, rather than to exhaust their possible applications.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
More about this item
Keywords
;
;
;
;
;
JEL classification:
- D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
- D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General
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:kyo:wpaper:1124. 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: Makoto Watanabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iekyojp.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.