Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:04:56.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fuzzy Decision Making in Politics: A Linguistic Fuzzy-Set Approach (LFSA)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Badredine Arfi
Badredine Arfi*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Southern Illinois University, Faner Hall, Mailcode 4501, Carbondale, IL 62901. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article I use linguistic fuzzy-set theory to analyze the process of decision making in politics. I first introduce a number of relevant elements of (numerical and linguistic) fuzzy-set theory that are needed to understand the terminology as well as to grasp the scope and depth of the approach. I then explicate a linguistic fuzzy-set approach (LFSA) to the process of decision making under conditions in which the decision makers are required to simultaneously satisfy multiple criteria. The LFSA approach is illustrated through a running (hypothetical) example of a situation in which state leaders need to decide how to combine trust and power to make a choice on security alignment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , Winter 2005 , pp. 23 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Political Methodology 2005 

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

Alexander, P. J. 1996. “Entropy and Popular Culture.” American Sociological Review 61(1): 171–174.Google Scholar
Bordogna, G., and Passi, G. 1993. “A Fuzzy Linguistic Approach Generalizing Boolean Information Retrieval: A Model and Its Evaluation.” Journal of American Society of Information Sciences 44: 70–82.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cioffi-Revilla, C. A. 1981. “Fuzzy Sets and Models of International Relations.” American Journal of Political Science 25(1): 129–159.Google Scholar
Cover, Thomas M., and Thomas, Joy A. 1991. Elements of Information Theory. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Cox, E. 1999. The Fuzzy Systems Handbook, 2nd ed. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Delgado, M., Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., and Martinez, L. 1998. “Combining Numerical and Linguistic Information in Group Decision Making.” Journal of Information Sciences 107: 177–194.Google Scholar
Dutta, B. 1987. “Fuzzy Preferences and Social Choice.” Mathematical Social Sciences 13: 215–229.Google Scholar
Filev, D., and Yager, R. J. 1995. “Analytic Properties of Maximum Entropy OWA Operators.” Information Sciences 85: 11–25.Google Scholar
Fuller, R., and Majlender, P. 2001. “An Analytic Approach for Obtaining Maximal Entropy OWA Operator Weights.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 124: 53–57.Google Scholar
Geslin, Stephanie, Salles, Maurice, and Ziad, Abderrahmane. 2003. “Fuzzy Aggregation in Economic Environments: I. Quantitative Fuzziness, Public Goods and Monotonicity Assumptions.” Mathematical Social Sciences 45: 155–166.Google Scholar
Gill, Jeff. 1997. “The Political Entropy of Vote Choice: An Empirical Test of Uncertainty Reduction.” Presented at the 1997 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 27–31, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary. 2003a. “Cause, Correlation, and Necessary Conditions.” In Necessary Conditions: Theory, Methodology, and Applications, eds. Goertz, Gary and Starr, Harvey. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 47–64.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary. 2003b. “The Substantive Importance of Necessary Condition Hypotheses.” In Necessary Conditions: Theory, Methodology, and Applications, eds. Goertz, Gary and Starr, Harvey. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 65–104.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary. 2004. “Constraints, Compromises, and Decision Making.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 48(1): 14–37.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary, and Mahoney, James. 2004. “Two-Level Theories and Fuzzy Sets.” (Available from ftp://128.196.23.212/iqrm/goertz_mahoney2004.pdf)Google Scholar
Golan, Amos Golan, Judge, George, and Karp, Larry. 1996. “A Maximum Entropy Approach to Estimation and Inference in Dynamic Models: Counting Fish in the Sea Using Maximum Entropy.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 20: 559–582.Google Scholar
Gurocak, E. R., and Whittlesey, N. K. 1998. “Multiple Criteria Decision Making: A Case Study of the Columbia River Salmon Recovery Plan.” Environmental and Resource Economics 12: 479–495.Google Scholar
Herrera, F., and Herrera-Viedma, E. 2000. “Linguistic Decision Analysis: Steps for Solving Decision Problems under Linguistic Information.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 115: 67–82.Google Scholar
Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., and Martinez, L. 2000. “A Fusion Approach for Managing Multi-granularity Linguistic Term Sets in Decision Making.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 114: 43–58.Google Scholar
Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., and Verdegay, J. L. 1996. “Direct Approach Processes in Group Decision Making Using Linguistic OWA Operators.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79: 175–190.Google Scholar
Herrera, F., Lopez, E., Mendena, C., and Rodriguez, M. A. 2001. “A Linguistic Decision Model for Personnel Management Solved with a Linguistic Biobjective Genetic Algorithm.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 118: 47–64.Google Scholar
Herrera, F., Lopez, E., and Rodriguez, M. A. Forthcoming. “A Linguistic Decision Model for Promotion Mix Management Solved with Genetic Algorithms.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems.Google Scholar
Herrera, F., and Martinez, L. 2000. “A 2-Tuple Fuzzy Linguistic Representation Model for Computing with Words.” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 8(6): 746–752.Google Scholar
Herrera-Viedma, E. 2001. “Modeling the Retrieval Process for an Information Retrieval System Using an Ordinal Fuzzy Linguistic Approach.” Journal of American Society of Information Sciences 52(6): 460–475.Google Scholar
Jaynes, E. T. 1957. “Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics.” Physical Reviews 106: 620–630; 108:171–190.Google Scholar
Jaynes, E. T. 1989. “Clearing up Mysteries: The Original Goal.” In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop in Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods, Cambridge, England, August 1–5, 1998, ed. Skilling, J. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Jaynes, Edwin T. 1982. “On the Rationale of Maximum-Entropy Methods.” Proceedings of the IEEE 70(9): 939–952.Google Scholar
Klir, G. J., and Yuan, B. 1995. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Mintz, A. 1993. “The Decision to Attack Iraq: A Noncompensatory Theory of Decision-making.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 3: 595–618.Google Scholar
Mintz, A. 1995. “The Noncompensatory Principle of Coalition Formation.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 7: 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, A., and Geva, N. 1997. “The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision-Making.” In Decision Making on War and Peace: The Cognitive-Rational Debate, eds. Geva, N. and Mintz, A. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, pp. 81–101.Google Scholar
Mintz, A., Geva, N., and DeRouen, K. 1994. “Mathematical Models of Foreign Policy Decision-Making: Compensatory vs. Noncompensatory.” Synthese 100: 441–460.Google Scholar
Neyman, Abraham. 1999. “Strategic Entropy and Complexity in Repeated Games.” Games and Economic Behavior 29: 191–223.Google Scholar
Nurmi, Hannu. 1998. “Voting Paradoxes and Referenda.” Social Choice and Welfare 15: 333–350.Google Scholar
Nurmi, Hannu, and Meskanen, Tommi. 2000. “Voting Paradoxes and MCDM.” Group Decision and Negotiation 9: 297–313.Google Scholar
O'Connell, Thomas C., and Stearns, Richard E. 2003. “On Finite Strategy Sets for Finitely Repeated Zero-Sum Games.” Games and Economic Behavior 43: 107–136.Google Scholar
Paris, J., and Vencovskfi, A. 1996. “In Defense of the Maximum Entropy Inference Process.” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 17: 77–103.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Redd, Steven B. 2004. “The Influence of Advisers on Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Experimental Study.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 48(1): 335–364.Google Scholar
Richardson, Gregory. 1998. “The Structure of Fuzzy Preferences: Social Choice Implications.” Social Choice Welfare 15: 359–369.Google Scholar
Sanjian, G. S. 1988. “Fuzzy Set Theory and U.S. Arms Transfers: Modeling the Decision-Making Process.” American Journal of Political Science 32(4): 1018–1046.Google Scholar
Sanjian, G. S. 1991. “Great Power Arms Transfers: Modeling the Decision-Making Processes of Hegemonic, Industrial, and Restrictive Exporters.” International Studies Quarterly 35: 173–193.Google Scholar
Sanjian, G. S. 1992. “A Fuzzy Set Model of NATO Decision-Making: The Case of Short-Range Nuclear Forces in Europe.” Journal of Peace Research 29(3): 271–286.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1970. “The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal.” Journal of Political Economy 78: 152–157.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E. 1948. “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell System Technology Journal 27: 379–423, 623–656.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shen, Edward Z., and Perloff, Jeffrey M. 2001. “Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Approaches to the Ratio Problem.” Journal of Econometrics 104: 289–313.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Theil, Henri. 1969. “The Desired Political Entropy.” American Political Science Review 63(2): 521–525.Google Scholar
Ullah, Aman. 2002. “Uses of Entropy and Divergence Measures for Evaluating Econometric Approximations and Inference.” Journal of Econometrics 107: 313–326.Google Scholar
Varzi, Achille C. 2003. “Vagueness.” In Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, ed. Nadel, Lynn. London: Macmillan and Nature, pp. 459–464.Google Scholar
Yager, R. R. 1988. “On Ordered Weighted Averaging Aggregation Operators in Multicriteria Decision Making.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 18(1): 183–190.Google Scholar
Zadeh, L. A. 1970. “Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment.” Management Science 17(4): B141–B164.Google Scholar
Zadeh, L. A. 1992. “Knowledge Representation in Fuzzy Logic.” In An Introduction to Fuzzy Logic Applications in Intelligent Systems, eds. Yager, R. R. and Zadeh, L. A. Boston: Kluwer Academic, pp. 2–25.Google Scholar
Zadeh, L. A. 1999. “From Computing with Numbers to Computing with Words—From Manipulation of Measurements to Manipulation of Perceptions.” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and System — I: Fundamental Theory and Applications. 45(1): 105–119.Google Scholar