IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qed/wpaper/529.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Arrow's Axiom and Condorcet Voting Cycles: Exposition and Critique

Author

Listed:
  • John Hartwick

Abstract

Arrow's axiom of independence of irrelevant alternatives has no intuitive appeal in relating social and individual rankings in certain cases (Condorcet cycling) to cases where majority voting results in a transitive social ranking of alternatives. We suggest that if person i is decisive in a Condorcet voting cycle, there is no reason why he should be decisive when cycles would not arise under majority voting. By restricting the scope of the independence axiom, social rankings can still be generated which satisfy reasonable axioms, and Arrovian dictatorship and related outcomes are avoided.

Suggested Citation

  • John Hartwick, 1983. "Arrow's Axiom and Condorcet Voting Cycles: Exposition and Critique," Working Paper 529, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    • Handle: RePEc:qed:wpaper:529
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    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:qed:wpaper:529. 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: Mark Babcock (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/qedquca.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.