Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:33:16.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EPISTEME SYMPOSIUM ON GROUP AGENCY: REPLIES TO GAUS, CARIANI, SYLVAN, AND BRIGGS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2012

Christian List  and
Philip Pettit
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium on Christian List and Phillip Pettit, Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents
Information
Episteme , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 293 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bakan, J. 2004. The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Ben-Yashar, R. and Nitzan, S. 1997. ‘The Optimal Decision Rule for Fixed-Size Committees in Dichotomous Choice Situations: The General Result.’ International Economic Review, 38: 175–86.Google Scholar
Bovens, L. and Rabinowicz, W. 2006. ‘Democratic Answers to Complex Questions: An Epistemic Perspective.’ Synthese, 150(1): 131–53.Google Scholar
Carroll, L. 1895. ‘What the Tortoise said to Achilles.’ Mind, 4: 278–80.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. 2007. ‘A Generalized Model of Judgment Aggregation.’ Social Choice and Welfare, 28(4): 529–65.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C. 2007. ‘Judgment Aggregation by Quota Rules: Majority Voting Generalized.’ Journal of Theoretical Politics, 19(4): 391–424.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C. 2008. ‘Judgment Aggregation without Full Rationality.’ Social Choice and Welfare, 31: 15–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C. Forthcoming. ‘Judgment Aggregation with Consistency Alone.’ Working paper, London School of Economic: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/list/PDF-files/ConsistencyAlone.pdf.Google Scholar
Dokow, E. and Holzman, R. 2010. ‘Aggregation of Binary Evaluations with Abstentions.’ Journal of Economic Theory, 145: 544–61.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. 2006. ‘An Arrow-like Theorem for Voting with Logical Consequences.’ Economics and Philosophy, 22(2): 181–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. and the ABC Research Group 2000. Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, D. G. and Gigerenzer, G. 2002. ‘Models of Ecological Rationality: The Recognition Heuristic.’ Psychological Review, 109(1): 75–90.Google Scholar
Grofman, B., Owen, G., and Feld, S. L. 1983. ‘Thirteen Theorems in Search of the Truth.’ Theory and Decision, 15: 261–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. 2004. ‘On the Significance of the Absolute Margin.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55: 521–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. 2007. ‘Deliberation and Agreement.’ In Rosenberg, Shawn W. (ed.), Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern? Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
List, C. 2011. ‘The Logical Space of Democracy.’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, 39: 262–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. Forthcoming. ‘Judgment Aggregation: An Introductory Review.’ Synthese, in press.Google Scholar
List, C. and Pettit, P. 2002. ‘Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result.’ Economics and Philosophy, 18: 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar