We gratefully acknowledge support from
the Simons Foundation and member institutions.
Full-text links:

Download:

Current browse context:

econ.TH

Change to browse by:

References & Citations

Bookmark

(what is this?)
CiteULike logo BibSonomy logo Mendeley logo del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo ScienceWISE logo

Economics > Theoretical Economics

Title: A counter example to the theorems of social preference transitivity and social choice set existence under the majority rule

Authors: Fujun Hou
Abstract: I present an example in which the individuals' preferences are strict orderings, and under the majority rule, a transitive social ordering can be obtained and thus a non-empty choice set can also be obtained. However, the individuals' preferences in that example do not satisfy any conditions (restrictions) of which at least one is required by Inada (1969) for social preference transitivity under the majority rule. Moreover, the considered individuals' preferences satisfy none of the conditions of value restriction (VR), extremal restriction (ER) or limited agreement (LA), some of which is required by Sen and Pattanaik (1969) for the existence of a non-empty social choice set. Therefore, the example is an exception to a number of theorems of social preference transitivity and social choice set existence under the majority rule. This observation indicates that the collection of the conditions listed by Inada (1969) is not as complete as might be supposed. This is also the case for the collection of conditions VR, ER and LA considered by Sen and Pattanaik (1969). This observation is a challenge to some necessary conditions in the current social choice theory. In addition to seeking new conditions, one possible way to deal with this challenge may be, from a theoretical prospective, to represent the identified conditions (such as the VR, ER and LA) in terms of a common mathematical tool, and then, people may find more.
Comments: I misunderstood something about the conditions. I read from [Sen A K. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco: Holden Day, 1970. Page 183] that, "the restrictions that we consider are those that apply only to types of permissible preference orderings and not on numbers holding them". Thus I think I made a mistake in this paper
Subjects: Theoretical Economics (econ.TH)
MSC classes: 91B14, 91B12
Cite as: arXiv:2205.02040 [econ.TH]
  (or arXiv:2205.02040v2 [econ.TH] for this version)

Submission history

From: Fujun Hou [view email]
[v1] Wed, 4 May 2022 12:57:18 GMT (5kb)
[v2] Thu, 5 May 2022 05:28:47 GMT (0kb,I)

Link back to: arXiv, form interface, contact.