1998Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und StatistikRequires access

The Theory of Social Choice since 1951 / Die Theorie kollektiver Entscheidungen seit 1951

Wulf Gaertner

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

Summary Starting point for our analysis is Arrow’s famous impossibility result from 1951. Arrow had proved that within an ordinal framework no non-dictatorial social welfare function exists that satisfies the condition of unrestricted domain, the weak Pareto principle and the requirement of independence of irrelevant alternatives. In the first few sections, we discuss what kinds of positive results can be obtained once we relax one or the other of his axioms. The simple majority rule, for example, is an Arrow social welfare function under a domain restriction that is more general than single-peakedness. The Borda rule violates Arrow’s independence axiom but satisfies a weak independence requirement together with some other rather attractive properties. We next look at preference domains that admit the existence of Arrovian social welfare functions, i. e. aggregation rules fulfilling both the Pareto and the independence condition and being nondictatorial. We also characterize domains for non-manipulable voting procedures. The subsequent section analyzes social aggregation functions that allow for an interpersonal comparison of both utility levels and utility gains. Utilitarian rules and the Rawlsian lexicographic maximin principle are discussed in particular. We finally examine the exercise of individual rights within the social choice context, which means that non-utility information is considered as well.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Summary Starting point for our analysis is Arrow’s famous impossibility result from 1951. Arrow had proved that within an ordinal framework no non-dictatorial social welfare function exists that satisfies the condition of unrestricted domain, the weak Pareto principle and the requirement of independence of irrelevant alternatives. In the first few sections, we discuss what kinds of positive results can be obtained once we relax one or the other of his axioms. The simple majority rule, for example, is an Arrow social welfare function under a domain restriction that is more general than single-peakedness. The Borda rule violates Arrow’s independence axiom but satisfies a weak independence requirement together with some other rather attractive properties. We next look at preference domains that admit the existence of Arrovian social welfare functions, i. e. aggregation rules fulfilling both the Pareto and the independence condition and being nondictatorial. We also characterize domains for non-manipulable voting procedures. The subsequent section analyzes social aggregation functions that allow for an interpersonal comparison of both utility levels and utility gains. Utilitarian rules and the Rawlsian lexicographic maximin principle are discussed in particular. We finally examine the exercise of individual rights within the social choice context, which means that non-utility information is considered as well.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Summary Starting point for our analysis is Arrow’s famous impossibility result from 1951. Arrow had proved that within an ordinal framework no non-dictatorial social welfare function exists that satisfies the condition of unrestricted domain, the weak Pareto principle and the requirement of independence of irrelevant alternatives. In the first few sections, we discuss what kinds of positive results can be obtained once we relax one or the other of his axioms. The simple majority rule, for example, is an Arrow social welfare function under a domain restriction that is more general than single-peakedness. The Borda rule violates Arrow’s independence axiom but satisfies a weak independence requirement together with some other rather attractive properties. We next look at preference domains that admit the existence of Arrovian social welfare functions, i. e. aggregation rules fulfilling both the Pareto and the independence condition and being nondictatorial. We also characterize domains for non-manipulable voting procedures. The subsequent section analyzes social aggregation functions that allow for an interpersonal comparison of both utility levels and utility gains. Utilitarian rules and the Rawlsian lexicographic maximin principle are discussed in particular. We finally examine the exercise of individual rights within the social choice context, which means that non-utility information is considered as well.

Key concepts: Independence of irrelevant alternatives, Arrow, Social choice theory, Arrow's impossibility theorem, Mathematical economics, Social welfare function, Axiom, Pareto principle

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Theory of Social Choice since 1951 / Die Theorie kollektiver Entscheidungen seit 1951 — Research Paper | ScholarLens