My bibliography  Save this paper

Social Choice without the Pareto Principle under Weak Independence

Author

Listed:
• Ceyhun Coban

(Department of Economics,Washington University in St. Louis)

• Remzi Sanver

(Murat Sertel Center for Advanced Economic Studies, Istanbul Bilgi University)

Abstract

We show that the class of social welfare functions that satisfy a weak independence condition identiÖed by Campbell (1976) and Baigent (1987) is fairly rich and freed of a power concentration on a single individual. This positive result prevails when a weak Pareto condition is imposed. Hence, we can overcome the impossibility of Arrow (1951) by simultaneously weakening the independence and Pareto conditions. Moreover, under weak independence, an impossibility of the Wilson (1972) type vanishes.

Suggested Citation

• Ceyhun Coban & Remzi Sanver, 2009. "Social Choice without the Pareto Principle under Weak Independence," Working Papers 201005, Murat Sertel Center for Advanced Economic Studies, Istanbul Bilgi University.
• Handle: RePEc:msc:wpaper:201005
as

File URL: http://repeck.bilgi.edu.tr/RePEc/msc/wpaper/mscenter_2010_05-Coban__Sanver_-_Social_Choice_without_the_Pareto_Principle_under_Weak_Independence.pdf
File Function: First version, 2009

References listed on IDEAS

as
1. Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 2000. "Weak independence and veto power," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 183-189, February.
2. Josep E. Peris & BegoÓa Subiza, 1999. "Condorcet choice correspondences for weak tournaments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(2), pages 217-231.
3. Georges Bordes, 1976. "Consistency, Rationality and Collective Choice," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 451-457.
4. Deb, Rajat, 1977. "On Schwartz's rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 103-110, October.
5. Vincenzo DenicolÔ, 1998. "Independent Decisiveness and the Arrow theorem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(4), pages 563-566.
6. Blau, Julian H, 1971. "Arrow's Theorem with Weak Independence," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 38(152), pages 413-420, November.
7. Campbell, Donald E., 1976. "Democratic preference functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 259-272, April.
8. Donald Campbell & Jerry Kelly, 2007. "Social welfare functions that satisfy Pareto, anonymity, and neutrality, but not independence of irrelevant alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(1), pages 69-82, July.
9. I. Good, 1971. "A note on condorcet sets," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 97-101, March.
10. Wilson, Robert, 1972. "Social choice theory without the Pareto Principle," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 478-486, December.
11. Nick Baigent & Christian Klamler, 2003. "Transitive closure, proximity and intransitivities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 23(1), pages 175-181, December.
12. Ugur Ozdemir & M. Sanver, 2007. "Dictatorial domains in preference aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(1), pages 61-76, January.
13. Partha Dasgupta & Eric Maskin, 2008. "On The Robustness of Majority Rule," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 6(5), pages 949-973, September.
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. Wesley H. Holliday & Mikayla Kelley, 2020. "A note on Murakami’s theorems and incomplete social choice without the Pareto principle," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(2), pages 243-253, August.
2. Susumu Cato, 2016. "Weak independence and the Pareto principle," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 295-314, August.
3. Cato, Susumu, 2015. "Weak independent decisiveness and the existence of a unique vetoer," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 59-61.

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. Susumu Cato, 2016. "Weak independence and the Pareto principle," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 295-314, August.
2. John W. Patty & Elizabeth Maggie Penn, 2019. "A defense of Arrow’s independence of irrelevant alternatives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 145-164, April.
3. Susumu Cato, 2018. "Collective rationality and decisiveness coherence," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(2), pages 305-328, February.
4. Susumu Cato, 2014. "Independence of irrelevant alternatives revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 511-527, April.
5. Dan Qin, 2015. "On $$\mathcal {S}$$ S -independence and Hansson’s external independence," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(2), pages 359-371, September.
6. Elchanan Mossel & Omer Tamuz, 2012. "Complete characterization of functions satisfying the conditions of Arrow’s theorem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(1), pages 127-140, June.
7. Miller, Michael K., 2009. "Social choice theory without Pareto: The pivotal voter approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 251-255, September.
8. Joseph, Rémy-Robert, 2010. "Making choices with a binary relation: Relative choice axioms and transitive closures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 865-877, December.
9. Brandt, Felix, 2011. "Minimal stable sets in tournaments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(4), pages 1481-1499, July.
10. Fuad Aleskerov & Andrey Subochev, 2013. "Modeling optimal social choice: matrix-vector representation of various solution concepts based on majority rule," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 737-756, June.
11. Estelle Cantillon & Antonio Rangel, 2002. "A graphical analysis of some basic results in social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(3), pages 587-611.
12. SPRUMONT, Yves & EHLERS, Lars, 2005. "Top-Cycle Rationalizability," Cahiers de recherche 25-2005, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en Ã©conomie quantitative, CIREQ.
13. Berghammer, Rudolf & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2013. "Computing tournament solutions using relation algebra and RelView," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(3), pages 636-645.
14. Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2015. "Impossibility theorems are modified and unified," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 849-866, December.
15. 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.
16. Felix Brandt, 2015. "Set-monotonicity implies Kelly-strategyproofness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 793-804, December.
17. Antonio Quesada, 2009. "Up/Downward Preference Aggregation," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 11(5), pages 857-873, October.
18. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00756696 is not listed on IDEAS
19. Elizabeth Maggie Penn, 2015. "Arrow’s Theorem and its descendants," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 14, pages 237-262, Edward Elgar Publishing.
20. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2018. "Restricting the domain allows for weaker independence," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(3), pages 563-575, October.
21. Raúl Pérez-Fernández & Bernard De Baets, 2018. "The supercovering relation, the pairwise winner, and more missing links between Borda and Condorcet," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(2), pages 329-352, February.

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:msc:wpaper:201005. 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: (Fatma Aslan). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/msbiltr.html .

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.